Civitas Review Online

“Wake diversity policy could be swept away” seems to leave no doubt where the News & Observer stands on next week’s school board elections.  As usual educational establishment types like Jennifer Lanane of the Wake County Chapter of the N.C. Association of Educators seem absolutely miffed at  why anyone would want to “tinker” with a quality school system. 

The answer is simple: diversity isn’t working. Too many kids and parents don’t like it. That Wake County scores better than Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools on state tests is frequently cited as evidence that diversity is working. However a closer look at the data says otherwise. 

Once you cut through the chatter, pro-diversity advocates blather on in vagaries about Wake’s reputation and the plan’s impact on economic growth.  Noticeably absent from the dialogue is any reference to hard academic data which says the policy improves student achievement and parents stand behind it. 

 If administrators were so confident of the beneficial impacts of Wake’s school assignment policy why has the school board steadfastly refused to evaluate the program?  Next Tuesday parents will finally get the chance to do their own evaluation.

As I read the article “Election boards wonder if military ballots are too costly” in Saturday’s Greensboro News and Record, I began to recall all the old jokes. If you are a government worker or former government worker as I have been, I know you’ve heard them too… “Why don’t government workers look out the window in the morning? Because they wouldn’t have anything to do in the afternoon. Or how many Board of Elections workers does it take to… You know the jokes.

Anyway, George Gilbert, the Executive Director of the Guilford County Board of Elections told a reporter that under the current rule, “military personnel overseas who ask for ballots in the presidential years also receive ballots for municipal and all other elections, whether they want them or not.” “Gilbert said his office, under the law, mailed 482 military and overseas ballots for Greensboro’s Oct. 6 municipal primary. Only seven of those have been returned.”

He went on to say, “A week of labor for two election officials, at $14 an hour, and about $1,500 in postage went toward those ballots.”

“A week of labor for two election officials”… to stuff 482 envelopes? I waited for the punch line and it never came. But, we’ll get back to this in a minute.

The Board of Elections (the State Board of Elections legal counsel got into this discussion too) would like to see this rule go away – pointing to cost and ineffectiveness. The Board of Elections had no problem implementing and funding the Same-Day Registration Program during one-stop voting – the program designed for those voters who don’t think voting is important enough to register to vote on time…

North Carolina’s priorities are askew. I would like to think that my state would place the needs of the men and women who sacrifice to protect every person in this country above the group of people who just can’t be bothered with their civic duty. I would like to see Mr. Gilbert and the State Board of Elections begin to work with the group who wants to have an electronic system for military and overseas voters.

Back to George Gilbert’s election worker joke – I hope the reporter left the punch line out by mistake, because any of us who have stuffed envelopes for a good cause know full well how much time it takes to stuff envelopes. 482 ballots – 2 election workers – 1 week – that would be about 6 ballots processed per hour. No wonder people make jokes.

So the punch line is: (check one)

1. George Gilbert doesn’t understand what his employees are doing.
2. George Gilbert needs to take an active role in the management of his office.
3. George Gilbert doesn’t want to be bothered with our military and has no problem bending the truth to advance his agenda.

Two members of the North Carolina House of Representatives from Gaston County have announced their opposition to the recent policy decision by the NC Board of Community Colleges to admit illegal aliens.  Representatives Pearl Burris-Floyd and Wil Neumann, both Republicans, plan to introduce legislation when the General Assembly returns to Raleigh in May of 2010 to prohibit illegals from attending community college. (HT:Cory Friedman of Freedom Newspapers’ Gaston Gazette has a great story on the situation.)

Neumann gets it right on the funding angle:

“It will be a hot issue,” Neumann said, “but I think in these tough budget times, to ask the citizens of North Carolina who are out of work to continue paying for illegal students is unacceptable.”

Despite what the consultant’s report tried to lead us to believe (that admitting illegals was profitable for the colleges), Neumann knows that the taxpayer pays a considerable amount for the community colleges. Just 12% of their revenue comes from tuition.

Best line of the article:

“We must uphold the law of the land, and if we fail to do that, we are encouraging a lawless environment,” said Burris-Floyd. “In a lawless environment, no one is protected.”

The sad thing is that this bill was already filed during the long session this year and never received even a hearing despite Governor Perdue’s stated opposition to the policy of admitting illegals.  Will the legislative leadership allow a vote on the bill this time?  Not likely.  The fix is in and the deck is stacked so don’t bet on it.

The U.S. Senate Finance Committee last night voted down two different amendments that would have created a government “option” health insurance plan to “compete” with private insurance.

A key Senate panel twice beat back efforts Tuesday to create a government-run insurance plan, dealing a crippling blow to the hopes of liberals seeking to expand the federal role in health coverage as a cornerstone of reform.

In a signal moment in the increasingly fractious debate over reforming the nation’s sprawling health-care system, Senate Finance Committee members rejected two amendments to create a public option on votes of 15 to 8 and 13 to 10.

The push for the government “option,” however, is far from over.

Despite the setback for advocates of a public option, debate over such a plan is certain to continue. Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who offered the amendments that were voted down Tuesday, have vowed to keep the issue at the forefront as the debate unfolds. And Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) could include a government plan when he combines the Finance Committee’s bill with Senate health committee legislation, approved in July, that includes a public option.

Under the Dome today references a recommendation made by Democratic strategist Gary Pearce: that Gov. Perdue should initiate significant state tax reform in the next couple of years.

Pearce, in his Talking About Politicsblog, writes today that Perdue needs to find an issue that will get more attention than recent announcements she has made on new industries, rural health care and nanotechnology.

“It may be time to stop the short-yardage plays and start throwing for big gains,” Pearce writes.

“In fact, it may be time to consider devoting her next two years to what common sense would tell you could be political suicide: sweeping tax reform.”

Such urgings are nothing new here in North Carolina. Indeed, it seems that every other year over the past two decades there has been another type of “tax reform commission” established to study that very topic. Every time, the main recommendations are the same: broaden the tax base (especially the sales tax to include services), lower the rates.

While I agree that tax reform is needed, one of the alleged “benefits” of tax reform touted mostly by those on the left is troubling. As Pearce says, Perdue should push for:

a tax-reform plan that promises to end boom-and-bust budgeting

It seems many of our politicos who are, shall we say, quite comfortable with growing government spending seem to think that changing the state’s tax code will eliminate the need for meaningful spending reform. During the last legislative session, the state Senate seriously mulled over a tax reform plan of their own. Sitting in on some of those meetings, I heard lawmakers discuss their belief that changing the tax code will create a “reliable revenue stream during downturns” and the new tax system will be ”recession proof.” In other words, they want a revised tax code that will feed their spending habits even during recessions.

Unfortunately, such a tax system doesn’t look very likely. Specifically, as mentioned above, perhaps the most significant tax change would be to apply the sales tax to services. But research shows this may not produce a reliable revenue stream during downturns. According to the Federation of Tax Administrators, North Carolina already levies the sales tax on 30 services. 

Year-over-year sales tax collections for NC, as of April and reported by the National Council of State Legislators (pg. 19), were down 4.1%. Some of the states that tax many more services, however, didn’t fare any better. For instance, Connecticut taxes 79 services and saw a drop of sales tax revenue of 6.4%, New Jersey taxes 74 services and saw a drop in sales tax revenue of 8%. Some of the states that tax a high number of services, however, did show modest gains in sales tax revenue, but it is far from a sure thing.

Tax reform will serve as no excuse for lawmakers to continue their dangerous habit of ramping up spending commitments during good times only to find themselves wrestling with budget deficits when recession hits. 

If you think changing the tax code without also taking a more measured, responsible approach to spending will magically “end boom and bust budgeting”:  think again.

This is already out making the rounds but had to post it as it just is plain scary. This would frighten me if they were doing this for ANY president!

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKIzVZtbFUA&feature=player_embedded

Rebecca Hagelin’s article in today’s Washington Times highlights the seemingly never-ending trend affecting the nation; female oppression. However, she argues, the source of this oppression is not what one would automatically assume. It is not a lack of college scholarships or athletic opportunities for women; it is not a shortage of women in business, law or medicine nor is America missing labor laws to protect women in the work place from discrimination. Rather, the main culprit of today’s female oppression—bitter, unhappy, and resentful feminists.

Feminists today are not like the feminists who demanded female suffrage decades ago, feminists today target women and in the end are actually hurting them. Hagelin cites the example of “women’s studies” classes on college campuses who preach victimization and promote gender warfare. “Professors convince female students that having children is beneath them, that men are the enemy, that their fulfillment lies in wallowing in self-pity.”

The consequence of a generation of manipulation and misconceived “sexual power”—decreased female happiness. The National Bureau of Economic Research reveals in a recent study that despite the tremendous prosperity and “advances” of women’s rights, “women in the United States have become less happy, both absolutely and relative to men” than women were in the 1970s. Surprised?  

But as Hagelin points out, a fresh face of femininity has found its way onto college campuses across the nation under the leadership of the Network of Enlightened Women (NeW). Started by University of Virginia student, Karin Agness, NeW seeks to “encourage women to embrace their femininity and traditional values in order to ultimately reclaim their happiness.” This week marks the fifth anniversary of this NeW voice of female reason and its presence is coming for the first time to North Carolina university campuses this semester.

NeW chapters are in the grassroots stage at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, N.C. State and Raleigh’s own, Meredith College. North Carolina NeW chapters will challenge the victimhood mentality of feminists on college campuses, fight back against single-minded careerism and resist the ever-growing hook-up culture. NeW women will champion the value of hard work, self-determination and personal responsibility while offering a fresh alternative to the feminist agenda that dominates these college campuses.

Our North Carolina universities are part of Executive Director, Holly Carter’s expansion project. Her goal: start and support 25 new chapters on college and university campuses nationwide. Carter says, “Culture matters, and NeW is seeking to improve America’s cultural foundation.” Welcome to North Carolina!

You can now vote for you favorite “Worst Bill” of the year. The polls are open! Over the course of this year Civitas wrote on 32 bills as our “Bad Bill of the Week.”  Unfortunately 32 is really not enough to cover all the “Bad Bills” introduced this year in the General Assembly but these are bills that struck our fancy and help to illustrate some of the ridiculous actions of our elected officials.

Hope you enjoy and don’t forget to vote for you favorite team “Bad Bill“.

Last week, a Petition for Discretionary Review was filed in the North Carolina Supreme Court regarding the case of Boseman v. Jarrell. State Senator Julia Boseman (D-New Hanover) and her former lesbian partner, Melissa Jarrell, are still wrapped up in a custody battle over a child born to Jarrell by artificial insemination during the relationship. The case raises serious concerns about the future of same-sex adoption and the sustainability of marriage statutes in North Carolina, Tami Fitzgerald of the Christian Action League clarifies:

“Because Melissa Jarrell and Senator Boseman cannot marry under North Carolina law (same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying), they did not qualify for a step-parent adoption. Therefore, the adoption was performed as a “direct placement” adoption, which mandates the severance of parental rights and responsibilities of the birth parent and substitutes the adoptive parents. Durham District Court Judge Marcia Morey, however, ruled that Melissa Jarrell was allowed to waive the severance of her parental rights, issuing an adoption decree that “does not sever the relationship of parent and child between the individual adopted and that individual’s biological mother.” The ruling was clearly contrary to the language of the adoption statutes, which mandates severance of parental rights by the birth parent.”

Senator Boseman and Jarrell ended their lesbian relationship after the adoption was granted causing Boseman to seek joint custody of Jarrell’s now six-year old son. Eventually the ruling was appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals and on August 18, the appeals court issued a unanimous decision upholding Boseman’s adoption of the child, declaring her a “legal parent.” The Court concluded that the adoption decree, “even if erroneous or contrary to law, was not void.” When this story first broke over the summer, newspapers reported that around 400 of “direct placement” adoptions have been performed in Durham and Orange Counties signaling the gravity of judicial misconduct.

Now, attorneys for Jarrell have filed Petition for the North Carolina Supreme Court to hear the case and answer the question of whether same-sex adoptions are permitted under current North Carolina law:

“They argue that the Court of Appeals’ decision creates chaos within the adoption system as to whether same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples may adopt children in North Carolina, whether rogue judges like the ones in Durham and Orange Counties should grant these adoptions not expressly permitted by North Carolina law, whether state agencies are required to recognize such adoptions, and whether natural parents may waive the statutory mandate that their parental rights are severed by the adoption.”

At this point, Jarrell and her attorneys will wait to hear whether the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case and answer these critical questions or decide to let the Court of Appeals’ decision stand and accept “erroneous law.”

Click here to read a full review and chronology of the custody dispute.

An article posted on WRAL.com today discussed the highlights of a public meeting held in Buxton (an Outer Banks community) on the possibility of an offshore wind farm in the area. According to researchers:

“If all the usable waters are fully developed, offshore wind farms could supply 130 percent of all the power used by North Carolina in 2007.”

Yes, I’m sure if we spent a few million dollars on tax subsidies for the construction of several hundred turbines (not to mention system upgrades, underwater cables, etc.) and spread them out over several hundred square miles, we would likely generate a fair amount power. But at what point does the actual cost outweigh the perceived benefits?

“Wind generates about 1 percent of the country’s electricity but is the fastest-growing type of renewable power.”

Let’s just say there’s a reason it’s only 1%. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the capacity factor of the conventional power plant ranges between 40 – 80%, while the average wind facility’s capacity factor ranges between 25 – 40%.

Meaning, that when you look at what a plant was capable of generating over a year,  a wind facility generates roughly 25 – 40% of that amount. Why? Well because wind, by nature, is intermittent and thus it’s impossible to count on it to blow at any consistent rate over any amount of time.

Supporters of wind energy will claim that it’s not fair to compare the capacity factor of wind to other types of energy, say nuclear for example, because they’re are too different. However, just for reference, the average nuclear plant has a capacity factor of 93%. In this case, I’d say “different” is better.

Wind power is only “growing” in popularity because of new and continued tax rebates and government subsidies (including funds from the Obama administration’s stimulus package).

So short answer: Yes, offshore wind energy costs far too much to be truly good.