HB 722, “Capital Punishment/Severe Disabilities,” would mandate that a killer who suffered from a “severe mental disability” when the crime was committed would not be sentenced to death. Sponsored by Reps. Paul Stam (R-Wake), Chuck McGrady (R-Henderson), Sarah Stevens (R-Surry), and Jonathan Jordan (R-Ashe), the law addresses “post conviction procedures for a person with a severe mental disability.” But the details of the bill suggest that the families of murder victims would almost surely be put through yet another trial if the accused was found guilty and sentenced to death, yet could appeal on the grounds he had a severe mental disability.

Stam said the issue of executing the mentally disabled is “nothing new,” quoting 18th century legal scholar William Blackstone: “A madman shall be punished by his madness alone.”

“You don’t deter crime by punishing those that everybody knows can’t be deterred – the people who are clearly mentally disabled or deficient,” Stam said in committee. “That’s what this bill is about. It’s not – not, not, not – about weakening the death penalty on capital crimes.”

If HB 722 is not about weakening the death penalty, then why are so many DAs against the bill?

North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys Director Peg Dorer spoke sayingl.”DAs oppose this bill,” she said. “The issue of mental disability should be weighed by the jury, not by the judge. It only takes one juror to make that decision, and the death penalty is not found.”

Here’s the law’s definition of severe mental instability: “any mental disability or defect that significantly impairs a person’s capacity to do any of the following: (i) appreciate the nature, consequences, or wrongfulness of the person’s conduct in the criminal offense; (ii) exercise rational judgment in relation to the criminal offense; or (iii) conform the person’s conduct to the requirements of the law in connection with the criminal offense.”

No murderer is conforming to the laws of society, so wouldn’t one be able to say that anyone who commits a murder is not mentally stable? And how many murderers could be said to be “exercising rational judgment” when they take an innocent victim’s life?

No murderer fully appreciates the wrongfulness of his acts. And if a lawyer says the accused would do it again, then would a killer be immune to the death penalty?

Dorer said the change would encourage “judge shopping” and would cost more money, as opposed to saving it, as proponents claim. She predicted that all the current inmates on the state’s death row would seek relief under the measure, forcing the state to re-litigate those cases.

That concern was echoed by Rep. Debra Conrad, R-Forsyth, who said her local DA “compared the bill to the Racial Justice Act,” predicting that “it will the end death penalty as a punishment in North Carolina.”

Almost all NC death-row convicts have appealed under the Racial Justice Act, regardless of the race of the killers or their victims. It’s easy to see that under HB 722, almost any convicted murderer would claim a mental deficiency, if only to delay the day of reckoning.

I spoke to Stam the other day and he was not confident the bill would make crossover and get to the Senate, meaning that the bill would die.

HB 722 sounds like lawmakers simply don’t have the guts to push for full repeal of the death penalty. Why else punish the families, courts, and DAs with all this nonsense? That is why HB 722 is this week’s Bad Bill of the Week.

The post HB 722: Racial Justice Act, Part 2? appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Last fall public schools in North Carolina along with 44 other states began implementing Common Core Standards. The standards — developed by academic experts and private trade associations with the financial backing of several large foundations — have unleashed a brushfire of criticism, fueled in part by the controversial ideas behind Common Core, parental anger over the lack of input and dissatisfaction over how the standards are implemented in our schools.

To help our readers learn more about Common Core, we’ve asked Jane Robbins, a Senior Fellow with the American Principles Project and someone actively involved in the national fight to stop Common Core, to share with us her thoughts about Common Core Standards and what these changes mean for students and parents in North Carolina. What follows is a transcript of Jane’s responses to our questions.

Tell me why North Carolina parents should be concerned about Common Core.

Common Core is an attempt by private interests in Washington, DC, aided by the federal government, to standardize English language arts (ELA) and math education (and ultimately, education in other subjects as well) throughout the nation. By adopting Common Core, North Carolina has agreed to cede control over its ELA and math standards to entities outside the state. Not only does this scheme obliterate parental control over the education of their children, but it imposes mediocre standards based on questionable philosophies, constitutes a huge unfunded mandate on the state and on local districts, and requires sharing students’ personal data with the federal government.

Specifically, how will Common Core impact a child’s education?

In ELA, the child will be exposed to significantly less classic literature – the books and stories that instill a love of reading – and significantly more nonfiction “informational texts.” The idea is not to educate him as a full citizen, but to train him for a future static job. In math, the child won’t learn the standard algorithm (the normal computational model) for addition and subtraction until grade 4, for multiplication until grade 5, and for division until grade 6. Until then, the child will be taught what we used to call “fuzzy math” – alternative offbeat ways to solve math problems. He probably won’t take algebra I until grade 9 (meaning he’s unlikely to reach calculus in high school, as expected by selective universities), and will be “taught” geometry according to an experimental method never used successfully in K-12 anywhere in the world.

Aren’t Common Core standards supposed to be better than existing school standards?

That’s the claim, but it simply isn’t true. Even the Fordham Institute, which has been paid a lot of money by Common Core-financier the Gates Foundation to promote the standards, admitted that many states had better standards and others had standards at least as good. The Common Core website itself no longer claims that the standards are “internationally benchmarked,” and the Common Core Validation Committee was never given any information on international benchmarking. And one of the drafters of the math standards admitted in 2010 that when Common Core proponents talk about “college-readiness,” they’re aiming for a nonselective community college, not a four-year university.

How are teachers impacted under Common Core?

Seasoned teachers are likely to be unhappy with the educational “innovations” described above. And once the SMARTER Balanced national test is implemented in 2014-15, teachers will have to teach to this test because their performance evaluations will be tied to the test scores. The national test will be completely online, which means schools without sufficient technology will have to rotate their students through computer labs. (SMARTER Balanced suggests a 12-week testing window). This means students who are tested in the first week will have significantly less instruction under their belts than students who are tested later – but all teachers’ evaluations will be tied to the scores.

Is it true that local districts will be able to choose their own curriculum under Common Core? If all curricula will ultimately be tied to the standards, does that really matter?

The point of standards is to drive curricula. While local districts still have some choice over curricula, they are already seeing that their choices are narrowing, because all curricula must be aligned with Common Core. And the federal government is funding the two consortia that are developing the national tests and that have admitted they are creating curriculum models. Two former U.S. Department of Education officials concluded in a comprehensive report that, ultimately, the Common Core scheme will result in a national curriculum – in violation of three federal statutes.

Tell us more about the student database and what parents need to know.

Both the 2009 Stimulus bill and the Race to the Top program required states to build massive student databases. It is recommended that these databases ultimately track over 400 data points, including health-care history, disciplinary history, etc. Any of this data that will be given to the Smarter Balanced consortium as part of the national test will be sent to the U.S. Department of Education. USED can then share the data with literally any entity it wants to – public or private – because of regulations it has issued gutting federal student-privacy law.

North Carolinians should also be concerned about a new initiative called inBloom, which is a pilot program designed to standardize student data and make it available to commercial vendors creating education products. North Carolina is one of the nine states involved in the inBloom pilot.

How did all this happen?

Very stealthily. Private interests in Washington, funded largely by the Gates Foundation, decided in 2007 to try again (as progressive education reformers have in the past) to nationalize standards and curriculum. Thus began the development of Common Core. When the stimulus bill passed in 2009, the U.S. Department of Education used the money it was given to create the Race to the Top program. To be competitive for Race to the Top grants, a state had to agree to adopt Common Core and the aligned national tests. The commitments were due before the standards were released, and without the opportunity for involvement by state legislatures. So most states that adopted Common Core did so for a chance at federal money, and without legislators’ and citizens’ knowing anything about it.

In your view who’s behind the development of Common Core Standards and what are they trying to accomplish?

The standards were created primarily by a nonprofit called Achieve, Inc. in Washington, DC, and released under the auspices of two DC-based trade associations (the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, neither of which had a grant of legislative authority from their members to create national standards). Funding and support came from the Gates Foundation, as well as from other foundations including the Hunt Institute for Educational Leadership and Policy and Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education. The common denominator seems to be a belief that very smart elites in Washington are better able to direct our children’s education than we are. As for what they are trying to accomplish, two points: first, Bill Gates seems to favor a “Common Core operating system” that can be imposed on every school, everywhere, to increase efficiency: and second, the initiative seems directed at workforce development, not true education.

What have you learned from traveling around the country working with parents and groups who are fighting Common Core?

That Goliath should be very, very concerned about David! Parents and other concerned citizens have stood up to the lavishly funded special interests and have demanded a return of their constitutional right to control their children’s education. Common Core is not inevitable, and patriots can still prevail if they refuse to give in. I’ve also learned that the forces behind Common Core are wedded to certain buzzwords and talking points that have absolutely no evidence to support them – “rigorous,“ “college- and career-ready,” etc. – and that the promoters frequently resort to outright deception to get what they want. The ends justify the means, apparently.

How do you respond to concerns that withdrawal from Common Core will threaten Race to the Top funding or the No Child Left Behind waiver?

Regarding Race to the Top, several points: 1) nothing in the grant requires paying back the money if Common Core is discarded; 2) even if repayment were demanded, it should be only a fraction of the money actually paid out (since the commitments to Common Core and the SMARTER Balanced tests were only a fraction of the Race to the Top commitment); 3) even if full repayment were required, this would be much cheaper than continuing to implement the Common Core unfunded mandate; and 4) it is highly unlikely, from a political standpoint, that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan would require repayment, since he has claimed for two years that nothing about this program is a federal mandate – if he now imposes a huge penalty for North Carolina’s exercise of independence, he will be proving the point of the Common Core critics. Regarding the No Child Left Behind waiver, there is a way within the waiver application itself that allows a state to use standards other than Common Core. If North Carolina has its alternative standards certified by its major institutions of higher education, it can still qualify for the waiver (assuming it wishes to do so – the waiver simply exchanges one set of federal shackles for another).

Do you have any final advice on how parents can be actively involved in fighting Common Core Standards in North Carolina?

Yes. Educate yourselves and your friends by visiting truthinamericaneducation.com and stopcommoncore.com. Talk to your local school officials and school board members. Call your state legislators, your state school board members, and your Governor, and demand that they take action to restore North Carolina control over North Carolina education.

(For North Carolina, also visit stopcommoncorenc.org.)

The post Expert Highlights Dangers in Common Core Standards appeared first on Civitas Institute.

RALEIGH – Supporters of public campaign financing have long claimed that it would never have a partisan slant. But the latest Civitas Institute investigation has found how one liberal activist has taken control of the process in North Carolina.

In “Guiding the NC Elections Board – to the Left,” the latest in a series of articles, we turn our attention to the involvement of liberal activist and lobbyist Bob Hall in public campaign financing.

Civitas elections analyst Susan Myrick illustrates the extent to which the SBOE staff has, for years, surrendered their official duties to Hall, head of the liberal advocacy group Democracy NC. In combing through more than 5,000 emails to and from the SBOE and Hall, it is evident that Hall controlled and directed the North Carolina Public Campaign Fund Program (NCPCF), the vehicle for public campaign financing in the Tar Heel State.

To read the article, “Guiding the NC Elections Board – to the Left,” click here.

More information on the Civitas Institute is available at www.nccivitas.org, or contact Jim Tynen at james.tynen@nccivitas.org or (919) 834-2099.

The post Civitas Probe Shows Activist Meddled in NC Campaign Finance Fund appeared first on Civitas Institute.

The post Viewpoints Radio appeared first on Civitas Institute.

RALEIGH – The latest Civitas Poll shows that North Carolina voters strongly favor developing the state’s natural gas resources, including offshore reserves.

The poll of 500 NC registered voters had a margin of error of plus-minus 4.36 percent.

“Voters want to see North Carolina develop the natural resources lying right under our feet, or just off our seacoast,” said Civitas President Francis X. De Luca. “Legislators should heed these beliefs, and pay less attention to the scare tactics often used to block energy development.”

Actual text of question from the Civitas Statewide Energy Survey:

Should North Carolina be more aggressive in exploiting its natural gas reserves, both onshore and offshore, to help North Carolina become energy independent?

69%     Yes
21%     No
6%       It Depends/ Only some
4%       Don’t Know

For crosstabs from these questions, click here.

About the Poll:

This poll of 500 registered voters in North Carolina was conducted May 2, 4 and 5, 2013 by National Research, Inc. of Holmdel, NJ. All respondents were part of a fully representative sample of registered general election voters in North Carolina. Fifteen percent of the respondents were cell phone-only users. For purposes of this study, voters interviewed had to have voted in at least one of the past two general elections (2010, 2012) or be newly registered to vote since November 3, 2012.

The confidence interval associated with a sample of this size is such that: 95 percent of the time, results from 500 interviews (registered voters) will be within +-4.36% of the “True Values.”

For more information on Civitas polling, see http://www.nccivitas.org/category/poll/.

More information on the Civitas Institute is available at www.nccivitas.org, or contact Jim Tynen at james.tynen@nccivitas.org or (919) 834-2099.

The post Civitas Poll: Voters Back Developing NC Natural Gas Resources appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Supporters of public campaign financing have long claimed that it would never have a partisan slant. But the latest Civitas investigation has found how one liberal activist has taken control of the process.

In the first article of this series, we revealed the disturbing relationship Bob Hall, a liberal lobbyist for Democracy NC, has with the State Board of Elections (SBOE), which makes decisions affecting North Carolina’s electoral process. Democracy NC is the ultra-liberal non-profit that was one of Blueprint NC’s founding members. Blueprint NC is the organization in the center of a recent scandal of a leaked memo that revealed how liberal groups have been targeting the Governor and the Republican leaders in the legislature. The second article of the series brought to light overwhelming evidence proving Hall is a behind-the-scenes driving force at the SBOE and in 2012 coordinated with the SBOE to attack the Republicans in the legislature over a budget issue. Now we turn our attention to the involvement of Hall and left-wing groups in public campaign financing.

With hundreds of emails as evidence, we can illustrate the extent to which the SBOE staff has, for years, surrendered their official duties to Bob Hall, head of the liberal advocacy group Democracy NC. In combing through more than 5,000 emails to and from the SBOE and Hall, it is evident that Hall controlled and directed the North Carolina Public Campaign Fund Program (NCPCF), the vehicle for public campaign financing in the Tar Heel State.

Bob Hall’s own words will say it best. Here is an excerpt from a recommendation letter  dated September 27, 2004 and written by Hall for SBOE Executive Director Gary Bartlett’s signature. The recommendation was for a grant from the Deer Creek Foundation to go to Democracy NC:

Democracy North Carolina has been involved from the beginning in the legislation that led to the state’s pioneering judicial public financing program, and they have been involved in every step of the new law’s implementation, from the appointment of the Public Campaign Fund’s Advisory Council to the promotion of the $3 check-off that is the chief source of the program’s funding.

Most recently, Democracy North Carolina led the effort to make sure the State Board could produce and widely distribute a Judicial Voter Guide, even though the program faced a severe budget shortfall.

This is so brazen it has to be underlined: Hall ghost-wrote a letter to be signed by NC’s top election official, seeking money for Hall’s own group. Plus, the recommendation might be considered a confession to the outsized role Hall and Democracy NC play in what is supposed to be an influence-free elections process.

Seeing that Bob Hall and Democracy NC enjoy full access to all the resources provided by the SBOE (IT, legal, administrative, and data),  a comment in Bartlett’s letter – ”Your support of their work will help all of us in North Carolina” –  gives us a view of the twisted relationship between a supposedly nonpartisan board and a liberal activist. And the above is just one of a host of emails in a similar vein.

As in the mystery story about the dog that didn’t bark, an equally important fact is the lack of other voices. It is interesting to note that an Advisory Council was statutorily created to implement and support the NCPCF. According to the 2012 SBOE Campaign Finance Manual, “its primary function is to advise the State Board of Elections on the rules, procedures and opinions adopted for administration and enforcement of the Program. The State Board of Elections will also be advised of funding needs of the Program by the Advisory Council.” But, according to the SBOE, the Advisory Council members did not meet after the initial setup in 2003 — the year the program was implemented. It shouldn’t be surprising though: After reading these emails, it seems plain the SBOE thought there is little need for any opinion other than that of Bob Hall.

The Roots of the Problem

Legislation was passed in 2002 to establish North Carolina’s Public Campaign Fund for candidates for the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court. In 2007, the General Assembly passed legislation that launched a pilot public financing fund for candidates for State Auditor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Commissioner of Insurance.

While the SBOE likes to say that the North Carolina Public Campaign Fund is not funded by the General Fund of North Carolina, that claim gives many voters a misleading impression. Indeed, in 2007 the General Assembly appropriated more than $4.5 million in taxpayer dollars to establish the public campaign finance system for Council of State offices. The largest source of revenue still comes out of taxpayers’ wallets — from designations to the Public Campaign Fund by taxpayers through a positive check-off of three dollars on an individual’s income tax form. The check-off redirects tax dollars to the campaign fund instead of the General Fund. Moreover, the public financing for judicial races were promised to be financed by voluntary contributions, but by 2004 the legislature decided to divert taxpayer funds from the state budget into the system, and in 2006 the previously optional attorney fee contribution was converted to a mandatory one. Most lawyers did not even believe in the system sold as a way to protect the integrity of the courts.

Proponents of public campaign financing believe that it will reduce the influence of special interest money. Opponents believe that public funding of campaigns infringes on free speech and forces taxpayers to “contribute” to candidates they do not support. Opponents also see a real danger in giving government so much control of political speech. After all, who will make those delicate decisions that could easily be construed as partisan?

The Voter Guide

Sadly, a key document meant to provide unbiased information to voters is also compromised by Bob Hall’s excessive involvement.

In addition to funds, both programs include the distribution of a Voter Guide just before the onset of One-Stop Voting. According to the SBE Campaign Manual, the guide explains the purpose of the Public Campaign Fund along with an explanation of the functions of the appellate courts, the method and laws for the election of appellate judges, and information on all candidates for the North Carolina Court of Appeals and North Carolina Supreme Court. And, since the Council of State candidates have been added, it provides information on all candidates who have filed for State Auditor, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Commissioner of Insurance and explains the functions of each office.

The Voter Guide is an important publication, in that it is in effect a very expensive campaign ad. The mailing goes directly to every voting household in the state. In 2012, 4,200,000 copies of the voter guide were produced and mailed at taxpayer expense. Through public records we received, we see that Hall has played the lead role in the editing, production and printing of the guides. He has written, designed, produced and managed the printing and mailing of the voter guide from start to finish.

On September 15, 2004, in the first of almost 600 emails dealing with the voter guide that year, Hall sent Bartlett his final design and language for the 2004 General Election Voter Guide. That year, the first for public financing and voter guides, the state mailed 3.9 million guides at a cost of $498,000.

But the most alarming email was sent March 10, 2008 from Bob Hall to Don Wright, General Counsel for the SBOE. This email proved what every opponent of the public campaign financing knows: public funding of campaigns cannot be managed in a fair and non-partisan way. Though the candidates’ personal statements are supposed to be their own unvarnished words, Hall edited the content of two candidates’ personal statements.

Here are two suggestions Hall made:

Page 7: Kristin Ruth – Legal/Judicial Experience: I think it’s a problem to keep in “decide thousands of cases a year, recognized nationally as an authority on child support enforcement; frequent speaker on child support issues.” This will encourage others to add all sorts of stuff to their career list.

Page 10: Wayne Goodwin – Education: He lists Governor’s School West, Institute for Political Leadership, and Center for Creative Leadership, but these are just leadership seminars and programs, not degree programs. It’s a mess to include every seminar or workshop somebody wants to feature. Also, you can save space under his Endorsements by abbreviating Representative to Rep. in three cases and also abbreviate the Executive Director titles.

Remember, these are supposed to be the candidates’ own words. And Hall’s casual manner makes it seem as if he is accustomed to making changes in the Guide. That in turns brings up the question: What other changes did he make?

After a few years of doing pro bono work on the SBOE’s voter guide, Hall even suggested that the SBOE contract this project out to a third party – perhaps even his organization. In an email exchange between Gary Bartlett and Don Wright on August 10, 2009, Wright wanted to know if Bartlett was serious about contracting it out to a third party “that may include Bob and associates.” In his response, Bartlett said, “I’m having discussions with Bob and Dameon. As soon as I hear them out, we’ll talk.” It’s fair to assume that “Dameon” was Damon Circosta, at the time the Director of NC Center for Voter Education, another Blueprint NC member. (Circosta has since gone to work for the A.J. Fletcher Foundation, which is funded and controlled by the Goodmon family, which owns WRAL-TV). Circosta was involved with many of the voter guide emails, along with other liberal activists, such as Bob Phillips of Common Cause (Blueprint NC member) and Chase Foster, former Director of NC Voters for Clean Elections (NCVCE), also linked to Blueprint. These men appear to have considerable input into NCPCF and voter guides, given that many of their emails are forwarded through Bob Hall or sent directly to Gary Bartlett. To illustrate the incestuous nature of these Blueprint NC organizations, Bob Hall and Bob Phillips are both members of the NCVCE board.

While we have no evidence the SBOE officially contracted this “project” out to a third party — why should they? They had Bob Hall. To summarize, in the nearly 1,000 emails discussing NCPCF and/or Voter Guides we read about all aspects of the voter guide production process and continuous promotion of NCPCF – and Bob Hall was part of all of it. He has been working with the SBOE and the legislature as far back as 2003 to design, create, implement and sustain North Carolina’s public campaign funding, including municipal pilot programs. His actions included discussions with and about legislators, department Secretaries, public vendors, SBOE staff and a myriad of left-wing organizations. It is evident that Bob Hall will stop at nothing to further his agenda, including acting as a censor when it comes to free speech,  and the past SBOE was happy to help.

At this time we have a request in for the most current emails involving the SBOE and Bob Hall so we do not know the extent, if any, of Bob Hall’s involvement with the 2012 voter guide. If history is any example, it will probably be extensive.

The new SBOE and director need to address these very serious problems. There are, however, additional questions. First, while sweeping changes are being made to personnel at the SBOE, including board members and staff, it is safe to assume Bob Hall has not yet received his pink slip – will this change?

Second, can any public campaign finance law be completely objective? This case shows how vulnerable such processes are to behind-the-scenes manipulation. We have shed some light on what happens here, but this investigation is just one of our projects studying North Carolina’s flawed elections system.

Third, nonprofits such as Democracy NC and Blueprint NC have counterparts and allies across the nation. What have those groups been up to in North Carolina and other states?

Note: An earlier version of the story incorrectly stated that the voting guide is for only the candidates who participate in the public financing program, and that candidates that choose not to participate are not mentioned in the Voters Guide. We regret the error.

The post Guiding the NC Elections Board – to the Left appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Bob.Luebke@NCCivitas.org

RALEIGH – The Civitas Institute has unveiled a new statewide web site, StopCommonCoreNC.com, dedicated to educating North Carolinians about the problems associated with Common Core Standards and the threat they pose to state and parental rights.

The web site is a collaborative effort comprised of contributors from Civitas, other policy and education reform organizations, and local activists. Common Core is a national effort, powered by private interests and the federal government, to impose untested academic content standards for English language arts and mathematics on all K-12 public schools across the nation.

“Let’s be clear — we fully support higher academic standards,” said Dr. Robert Luebke, a Senior Policy Analyst at Civitas. “However Common Core fails to provide better standards. Common Core Standards are not supported by research, provide no evidence that they will improve student achievement, and run roughshod over the principle of local control.”

StopCommonCoreNC.org is dedicated to educating citizens and reporting how the standards impact schools, students and taxpayers. The site includes a blog as well as articles and other resources about Common Core. Visit the site at StopCommonCoreNC.org or the Facebook page.

More information on the Civitas Institute is available at www.nccivitas.org, or contact Jim Tynen at james.tynen@nccivitas.org or (919) 834-2099.

The post New Website to Fight Common Core Standards appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Click on an answer and see if you are correct!

1. What was the average annual growth rate of the state’s General Fund budget during the four economically-healthy years between FY 2003-4 and FY 2007-8 preceding the current recession?

   • 5.4%
   • 6.3%
   • 7.9%
   • 8.6%
   Annual growth rates of the budget in those four years were 7.1%, 7.9%, 9.8% and 9.5% respectively, for an average of 8.6%.
   
   Source: House Bill 188 Introduces Much Needed Spending Reform

2. Under the spending restrictions put in place by a TABOR, what would that average annual growth rate have been?

   • 6.2%
   • 4.6%
   • 4.0%
   • 5.1%
   Using a combination of inflation plus population growth as the annual expenditure limit, annual growth rates for the four years between FY 2003-4 and FY 2007-8 would have been 3.6%, 3.5%, 4.2% and 4.9% respectively, for an average of 4.0%.
   
   Source: House Bill 188 Introduces Much Needed Spending Reform

3. The actual state General Fund budget grew from $14.9 billion in FY 2003-4 to $21.4 billion by FY 2008-9. However, if a TABOR had been implemented in FY2003-4, what would spending have been in FY 2008-9?

   • $19.1 Billion
   • $18.4 Billion
   • $20.5 Billion
   • $19.9 Billion
   Spending under a TABOR would have been $18.4 billion – a full $3 billion less than the budgeted $21.4 billion. Recall that actual revenue in FY 2008-9 was $19.65 billion, well short of the budgeted amount. But if a TABOR had been in place, state government still would have experience more than a billion dollar surplus that year, even amid the dramatic recession.
   
   Source: House Bill 188 Introduces Much Needed Spending Reform

4. TABOR opponents claim that Colorado’s TABOR, passed in 1992, caused many problems. One thing they like to say is that it crippled their economy. Which of the following statements in true?

   • Colorado’s rate of job and income growth decreased after passage of its TABOR
   • Colorado’s rate of job and income growth increased after passage of its TABOR
   • Colorado’s rate of job and income growth stayed about the same after passage of its TABOR
   Colorado’s per capita income growth for the seven years prior to its TABOR was 38%, which lagged the national average, but for the seven years following TABOR per capita income growth grew to 53%, which far exceeded the national average. Similarly, for the decade preceding its TABOR, Colorado’s rate of private sector job growth was 17.5%, but for the decade after more than doubled to 37.7%.
   
   Source: A Taxpayer Bill of Rights for North Carolina: Examining Misleading Claims about Colorado's TABOR Experience

5. TABOR opponents also claim that Colorado’s public education spending was gutted due to its TABOR. Which of the following statements is true?

   • Colorado’s actual per pupil spending dropped from one of the highest to one of the lowest in the nation in the decade following its TABOR
   • Colorado’s actual per pupil spending dropped ten slots from 28th to 38th in the nation in the decade following TABOR
   • Colorado’s actual per pupil spending ranking improved slightly in the decade following TABOR
   Actual total spending per pupil in Colorado improved from 29th in the nation to 28th in the nation after 11 years of TABOR.
   
   Source: A Taxpayer Bill of Rights for North Carolina: Examining Misleading Claims about Colorado's TABOR Experience

The post Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) Quiz appeared first on Civitas Institute.

Government doling out taxpayer dollars to politically-connected businesses is bad enough, but this week’s Bad Bill of the Week takes that concept to even lower depths.

HB 797, Business Facilities Development, sponsored by Reps. Charles Jeter (R-Mecklenburg), Paul “Skip” Stam (R-Wake), and Tom Murry (R-Wake), would extend government-subsidized loans to groups of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats. Specifically, the bill makes changes to the Site Infrastructure Development Fund (SIDF).

The SIDF is administered through the state’s Department of Commerce, and was “created for the purpose of stimulating economic activity and creating new jobs in the State.” According to current law, “to be eligible for SIDF assistance, a business must invest at least $100,000,000 of private funds in site development for a project that will provide jobs for at least 100 new employees.”

Basically, the Department of Commerce loans a business money, and the business is “forgiven” a portion of the loan (in other words, handed free taxpayer dollars) depending upon certain performance requirements, e.g., number of workers hired by the recipient company. The loans are typically designated for use to purchase or improve land, and under current law the loans can go either to the business directly or to local government units, state agencies or nonprofit corporations.

Under HB 797, these SIDF loans would only be eligible to go to local government units. And here is the kicker: The bill would include economic development commissions under the definition of “local government units.”

In short, under this legislation a regional economic development commission could receive a subsidized loan, use the money to acquire land, and then lease the land to a private business promising to hire workers.

So this bill would approve taxpayer dollars be given to unelected “economic development commission” bureaucrats for those bureaucrats to buy land and become landlords.

Moreover, HB 797 removes the requirement that SIDF loans be used for investment projects exceeding $100 million, but rather allows for arbitrary “performance criteria that protects the State’s investments” as part of any loan agreement.

Because it further expands the reach of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare to unelected bureaucrats, instead of working to free the economy from political power, HB 797 is this Week’s Bad Bill of the Week.

The post HB 797, Business Facilities Development: Making a Bad Idea Worse appeared first on Civitas Institute.

I’m really enjoying riding the wild, wacky merry-go-round of North Carolina’s renewable energy mandates.

Yesterday, I got my bill from Duke Energy Progress, or whatever it is this week. I sure was glad that by paying it I was helping out the beleaguered pig farmers of North Carolina.

That’s sarcasm, if you didn’t guess.

State law mandates that “renewable” energy sources provide a percentage of retail electric power generated by utilities. That includes mainly solar and wind power, but also other sources – including energy generated by pig waste.

Of course, you and I pay for it, because the extra cost of using alternative sources gets passed on in our power bills. That turns out to be a big hit on North Carolina.

The Heartland Institute reports: “A joint report by the John Locke Foundation and Beacon Hill Institute found the mandate would cost electricity ratepayers $1.845 billion between 2008 and 2021. By 2021, North Carolinians’ real disposable income will fall by $56.8 million and more than 3,500 jobs will be lost on net, even after accounting for any ‘green’ jobs the standard may have created.”

That’s because, like almost all government subsidies, the mandate shifts money from profitable (therefore efficient) uses to unprofitable (thus inefficient) ones. So, instead of adding jobs, government mandates and subsidies kill them. We hapless power customers will blow nearly $2 billion to siphon funding from wealth-producing enterprises to money-wasting boondoggles.

This puts the lie to the defense of this mandate that it creates jobs. In another sense, government mandates and subsidies never create jobs.

Defenders of the mandate say that without the law, solar companies and others would pull up stakes and leave. That makes the mandate corporate welfare – the transfer of public funds to companies that don’t support themselves with a viable product.

So the associated jobs aren’t productive work that creates wealth, but simply activity that taxpayers fund. That makes these “jobs” welfare — welfare with a work requirement, but welfare nonetheless. Making matters worse, these corporate welfare projects divert scarce resources that could be utilized more efficiently elsewhere.

A rejoinder is that solar and biofuel are becoming more cost efficient. But there’s a Catch-22 here. If these fuel sources are economically efficient, why do I have to subsidize them? If they are not efficient, well, why do I have to subsidize them?

More proof has arisen to show that alternative energy is unlikely to become cost-effective soon. Two bills to end that mandate have come up for consideration in the General Assembly: HB 298, Affordable and Reliable Energy Act and a Senate counterpart, SB 365. Both have faced heavy opposition, and their fate is unclear.

Here’s the kicker: the current versions would allow the mandate to continue into 2021 or later. But its opponents are frantically fighting against such a deadline, thus uncovering their real belief – which is that alternative sources of energy won’t be paying their own way eight years from now. Or longer. Or maybe ever

After all, why should big energy companies ever want to make renewable energy productive? The government gravy train keeps running as long as energy provided by the sun, windmills and pig waste isn’t profitable. So companies have no incentive to make alternative energy profitable and get off the government dole.

Finally, here’s more news the same day I got my bill: “The United States has double the amount of oil and three times the amount of natural gas than previously thought.”

The United States is awash with cheap, clean energy using proven technology. For us ratepayers to subsidize costly forms of energy is ridiculous. It is as if we insisted paying for heat in July – when during North Carolina summers we can get all the heat we could ever want just by opening the windows.

To sum up, we’re paying extra for sources of energy that cost too much, misallocate valuable resources, and aren’t needed. Here’s hoping the legislature can flip the off switch on this mandate before it costs us another billion or two.

The post HB 298, Affordable and Reliable Energy Act: Ending the Waste appeared first on Civitas Institute.