Civitas Review Online

Brutal cold is being predicted by one of the most accurate meteorologists in the nation, Joe Bastardi from Accuweather.  From his blog on Dec. 25th.

“What is facing the major population centers of the northern hemisphere is unlike anything that we have seen since the global warming debate got to the absurd level it is now, which essentially has been there is no doubt about all this.
For cold of a variety not seen in over 25 years in a large scale is about to engulf the major energy consuming areas of the Northern Hemisphere. The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 north world wide in over 25 years in my opinion.”

Bone chilling cold predicted for the majority of the northern hemisphere.  What might this mean to the climate change crowd and the pending CO2 controls desired by the EPA?

The Tax Foundation sums up the major state tax rate changes passed in 2009. As I had noted before, North Carolina was unique in the southeast in that we raised taxes far more than other states in the southeast – both in the number of taxes raised and the amount of the tax hikes.

A review of the Tax Foundation’s national roundup reveals that North Carolina indeed lead the nation in raising tax rates.  Five major taxes were examined: individual income, sales, cigarette, alcohol and the “Amazon” tax.

North Carolina opted to raise all five of these taxes in 2009. By comparison, only one other state (New Jersey) raised three of those tax rates, and no other state raised more than two.                                        

Five states, in fact, managed to lower their personal income taxes this year.

There’s no doubt the recession hit state budgets hard in 2009. But North Carolina taxpayers may want to begin to question why our state lawmakers raised the rate on more taxes than any other state in the nation.

Back in April, I blogged about the silly “jobs now” signs that North Carolina will be placing by government-funded construction sites. The signs are merely there to reinforce the easily seen “benefits” of government stimulus spending.

But as everyone knows, government can not spend money without first taking that money out of the economic system. This WRAL.com story reveals how much those signs are costing taxpayers.

The state Department of Transportation has spent $135,000 in taxpayer funds to install signs touting road projects paid for with more than $800 million in federal stimulus money.

….

The federal money the DOT is using to erect 54 signs across the state – each costs about $2,500 – doesn’t come from the economic stimulus package. It’s discretionary money the state could have used on road construction or maintenance.

“It irritates me,” said Wes Lewis, who drives by one of the signs almost daily. “I think the money could be better spent somewhere else. They could use it on the road. If they want to let everybody know, they could put it in the paper what they’re using the money for instead of spending so much on signs.”

Perhaps some industrious individual will make signs to post outside businesses laying off workers or shuttering their doors completely – the signs can read: “Putting Americans Out of Work: These jobs lost because the federal government is consuming massive amounts of scarce capital, putting it out of reach of private entrepreneurs.”

The full poll results for December will be released on the website tomorrow, but if you’ve missed any of the results so far, the press releases are up on our website here.

A couple of tidbits before the full poll comes out tomorrow:

Generic legislative ballot is back to a 3 point Democratic advantage after Republicans took a 1 point lead last month.

56% of North Carolinians  say that the state is headed in the wrong direction.  This has been fairly consistent over the last 4 months or so.

Improve the economy/create jobs continues to be the only issue out there that voters want addressed.  55% say it is the most important issue, followed by hold down taxes/spending at 14% and reduce health care costs at 10%.

This month we asked about the supposedly dreaded “v-word” (vouchers)  in a very straightforward question — do you support or oppose giving parents vouchers to send their child to any school they choose.  67% of voters supported vouchers.  Only 24% opposed.  Among African Americans, the support goes up to 72%.

It doesn’t matter how you word the tax “reform” proposals being debated by the General Assembly, voters don’t like taxing services.  In prior polls we had asked if voters supported or opposed reducing tax rates but extending taxes to things like auto repair, home repair, etc.  This month we changed the wording on the question so that the tax rate reductions were the last thing respondents heard — “support or oppose extending sales tax to auto repair, home repair, etc. but reduce overall rate of sales and income taxes.”  And guess what?  Voters still don’t like it.  52% were opposed.

Again, full poll results tomorrow on the website.

Looks like Nebraska Senator Ben Nelsonwasn’t the only one receiving goodies in the health care bill. National Review spotlights the special exemptions and handouts given to a number of Senators who voted in support of the bill.

Anybody realistically think such political patronage and cronyism will actually stop once the U.S. completely politicizes the medical care industry?

Despite the lack of recent media coverage of the continuing scandal known as  ACORN, America’s leading “community Organizers” are still at work.  What you don’t hear from the so-called “mainstream” media are shouts from members of Congress like Rep. Steve King of Iowa who recently told the American Spectator,

“It’s thousands of times bigger than Watergate because Watergate was only a little break-in by a couple of guys,” said King. “By the time we pull ACORN out by its roots America’s going to understand just how big this is.”

By no means, is this story over, no matter how much the Left tries to ignore it.  This Daryl Cagle cartoon says it all:

ACORN in Action

Yesterday’s Asheville Citizen-Times had this article chronicling the (surprise!) poor track record of one of North Carolina’s largest corporate welfare programs.

Many companies celebrate receiving one of North Carolina’s top two kinds of economic-development grants, only to never fulfill enough of their job-creation promises to collect the money.

The state has closed the books on 26 One North Carolina Fund grants targeted to Western North Carolina jobs, but only six companies walked away with all or most of the money touted when the grant was announced, a Citizen-Times analysis found.

But central planners, such as NC’s deputy commerce secretary Dale Carroll, think the incentives game does no harm to the economy if the recipients of corporate handouts don’t live up to their promised job goals, and thus don’t receive any of the taxpayer-funded grant money.

The good news, said Carroll, who oversees incentives programs as deputy commerce secretary, is that no money will go to companies that fall short.

“We pay them following the performance or the lack of it,” he said. “It’s a built in safeguard.”

I wrote the following letter to the Asheville Citizen-Times in response to Mr. Carroll’s comments:

Dale Carroll, deputy commerce secretary, apparently believes there is no harm done to the economy with the practice of targeted corporate handouts, as long as no money is disbursed to companies that fall short of their promised job goals. (Volvo reflection: most NC job grants tumble, Dec. 21)

He is mistaken.

Our economy is an incredibly complex, dynamic and unpredictable process whereas entrepreneurs compete with each other to most efficiently satisfy consumer demand. Thus, the allocation of scarce resources such as money, labor, land, machinery and countless others are combined and directed in response to, and anticipation of, societal needs.

When politicians and government planners such as Mr. Carroll interfere with this process with targeted incentives, they distort the decisions made by the millions of participants in the marketplace. Such distortions serve to delay economic progress because the market’s resources are combined in a less efficient manner than they would have been without government interference.

More importantly, the freedom of consumers to dictate to entrepreneurs how society’s resources are allocated is whittled away by the political favoritism utilized by the likes of Mr. Carroll.

Even if no taxpayer dollars end up being given to a company, the incentives game is far from costless.

Something else the central planners will never address is the chaos left in the wake of incentives deals. Even if one of these companies “succeeds,” what are the unseen costs? The unfair advantage these companies are granted by political priveledge helps to undermine their competition. These competitors may then be forced to lay off workers or close up shop entirely.

And what about when the companies receiving incentives fail, what is left?

People are put out of work, land and buildings are left stranded, and capital equipment that were created and combined for very specific purposes are likewise left idle. These resources need to be put back to use in other purposes, and in some cases will need to be destroyed (and perhaps sold as scrap). The economic costs of having to destroy now useless capital equipment needs no explanation. Moreover, the process of re-allocating still useful resources to appropriate uses is not costless, and takes time. This process results in unemployment and idle resources, resulting in a major drag on economic progress. 

But politicians and central planning bureaucrats can’t bother with such details when they can search for their next corporate handout in order to generate a press release and ribbon-cutting ceremony to convince the public that they are “creating jobs.”

I attended part of last week’s public hearing on a proposed rule change to allow the admission of illegal immigrants to North Carolina Community Colleges. For the better part of an hour I heard teachers, students and former community college officials say education is a right (it’s not)  and how North Carolina can’t turn it’s back on these children ( Last I checked, according to the NC Comm. College System, the average age of a community college student in North Carolina was 32).  From what I understand, there were only a handful of individuals who spoke out against the proposed rule. Most notably, Ron Woodward of NC Listen and Bill Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration. 

While the event was technically listed as a hearing, the timing was certainly curious.  It was known last August that a hearing had to be held for the proposed rule. Why wait four months and schedule it for the Friday before Christmas?  Not unless you’re trying to influence the turnout and generate support on one side or the other.  A late December meeting would maximize the opportunities for students and teachers  to attend, since many are already done with semester exams.  Most everyone in the working world hase their days planned. Moreover, most have a few other things to do the week before Christmas. 

Does the turnout for Friday’s hearing represent what North Carolina thinks about illegal immigration? Hardly. A February 2008 Civitas DecisionMaker Poll, showed 68 percent of voters opposed community colleges admitting illegal immigrants. Similar immigration questions in other polls have produced nearly identical levels of opposition. 

Last month Civitas Institute crowned our “Bad Bill of the Year“. More than 10,000 votes were cast for 32 “Bad Bills” in a March Madness style tournament.  What “Bad Bill” caught the ire of voters? SB 848, sponsored by Senator Charlie Alberston (D-Duplin), would allow illegal immigrants to enroll in North Carolina’s community colleges and universities.  

If you think North Carolinians favors the admission of illegal immigrants, think again.  Rulemaking is oftentimes the last refuge of those who lack the votes to get a bill passed. Take note citizens, November 2010 is less than a year away.

As you’ve probably heard by now, the U.S. Senate cleared an important hurdle over the weekend in their efforts to further politicize the delivery of medical care and health insurance in America.

It should also come as no surprise that political backroom deals and favors were involved. In particular, Sen. Ben Nelson (D – Nebraska) needed a little “convincing”.  According to this N&O article, “Nelson won a list of benefits for Nebraska including a commitment for the federal government to pick up the full tab of an expansion of Medicaid.”

As my Civitas colleague Marianne Suarez noted recently,  the Senate’s proposals to expand Medicaid would impose an additional $600 million annual burden on taxpayers here in North Carolina.  But to get Sen. Nelson to sign on, a provision was included to force taxpayers across the nation bail out Nebraska (along with Mass. and Vermont) from their rising Medicaid burdens. As this article in The Hill notes:

Nebraska will receive $100 million in assistance for its state Medicaid program under provisions negotiated by Sen. Ben Nelson (D) in the Senate’s healthcare reform bill.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) informed lawmakers on Sunday night that the section of the manager’s amendment to the Senate’s health bill would cost $1.2 billion over 10 years.

Nelson managed to win a share of the section of the manager’s amendment on Equitable Support for Certain States, which will provide Nebraska, along with Massachusetts and Vermont, support in paying its share of additional costs to Medicaid in the health legislation.

So not only would North Carolinians have to pony up another $600 million to finance our own Medicaid expansion, but thanks to “vote buying we can believe in” we would be forced to subsidize a share of $1.2 billion in Medicaid expansion in three other states as well.

If you think the process to pass this “health care reform” legislation has been ugly, just wait until you see how it will be administered.

Legislators, desirous to make a name for themselves, love to come up with trendy new laws that sound good, but exist only to hamper freedom without a basis in science.  No, I’m not talking about Global Warming, but cell phone use.  Yes, those awful cell phones are rotting your brain or at least should come with a warning saying pretty much that.

AUGUSTA, Maine – A Maine legislator wants to make the state the first to require cell phones to carry warnings that they can cause brain cancer, although there is no consensus among scientists that they do and industry leaders dispute the claim.

And she comes from Sanford (well Maine, but still.)

Maine Rep. Andrea Boland, D-Sanford, said numerous studies point to the cancer risk, and she has persuaded legislative leaders to allow her proposal to come up for discussion during the 2010 session that begins in January, a session usually reserved for emergency and governors’ bills. Boland herself uses a cell phone, but with a speaker to keep the phone away from her head. She also leaves the phone off unless she’s expecting a call. At issue is radiation emitted by all cell phones.

Maybe we’ll see such interesting activity in our GA this year.