Three reasons to say yes:

• President Bush on Tuesday, July 25: “Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops.”

• The stem cell veto.  Nothing here but a know-nothing sop to the Christian Right, about all the base Bush has left.

• Parental notification bill.  How many underage girls cross state lines to obtain an abortion without telling their parents, unless they are in a negligent of even abusive family?  No Senator knows, but that didn’t stop 65 of them from voting for another sop to the right.

Click to Read & Post Comments

One of our readers emailed today that Mayor Meeker apparently believes he is Mayor of Downtown Raleigh only.

I can feel his pain.

I sometimes feel that the only news out of the City Council revolves around downtown.

(This week, the two architects on the City Council expressed their dislike for the “vocabulary” of the new RBC building downtown.  What does that mean?)

All the time, I read about the new Fayetteville Street.  I remember the old Fayetteville Street, before they decided to make it a mall.

I read another story about how costly condos are downtown.

Is this a function of the City Council – or The News & Observer’s coverage of the Council?

If they don’t watch out, the next city election may be the Rest of Raleigh vs. Downtown.

 Click to Read & Post Comments

National Republicans are learning what North Carolina Democrats have long known about Liddy Dole: empty suit.

Senator Dole was the target of front-page griping from Republicans in The New York Times Sunday.

They say her performance as chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been lackluster at best, disastrous at worst.

Sounds just like her performance as a Senator from North Carolina.

When will the North Carolina news media print that open secret?

Click to Read & Post Comments

How long will it take for the rumors to start?

Last week, Governor Easley was in Washington for two appearances:

• A speech to the Center for American Progress, a group trying to redefine and reposition the national Democratic Party;

• A press conference with Senator Hillary Clinton and the Governor of Iowa (get it -  Iowa?)

The question Easley may be pondering: Can he run for President without actually campaigning and meeting people?

Click to Read & Post Comments

Last spring, when Spanish sculptor Jaume Plensa sold Raleigh on a $2.5 million outdoor art display with a cloud of floating lights and a wall of mist he opined about the beauty of falling water – how it was special, like rain and waterfalls – and better than the water in old fashioned fountains which shoots upwards.

Turns out there’s a problem Plensa missed. For his mist of water to float downward through his cloud of lights requires some pretty large pipes above Fayetteville Street. So, we’re back to a fountain.

And oh, yes, one more thing. Birds. The city art fathers are now wrestling with the problem of how to keep Plensa’s webs of lights from turning into a roost.

Click to Read & Post Comments

John Edwards is always exhorting Democrats to have more courage. To stand up for their convictions. Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich recently came to Raleigh and challenged Edwards to debate his convictions.

“My challenge to your former senator,” Gingrich said, “Who is running around the country prattling about ending poverty is simple: Take on the teacher’s union…. I’d be delighted to come back down and have a dialogue with Senator Edwards about how to truly help the poor.” (The News and Observer, 6-29-06).

How does Edwards feel about debating his convictions?

No way, his spokeswoman said. She added: “People worried about feeding their children don’t need politicians shooting their mouths off at partisan political events who didn’t do anything significant about poverty when they had the chance.”

That’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Mr. Edwards has been shooting his mouth off about poverty at partisan political forums for two years. And who can remember Senator Edwards, during his six years in the Senate, sponsoring a single ‘significant’ bill about poverty?

Click to Read & Post Comments

Two members of the Blue Ribbon Commission on the Future of Wake County have weighed in on my comments.

First, a businessman I know well who served on the commission says: “The N&O take on the BRC was misleading.   I know that’s a surprise to both of you.”

 He added this from his perspective as a commission member:

Wake County is a great place to live. How do we keep it? The BRC major focus was to have a vision of what Wake Co. should look like 25-30 years down the road.  We did that. Of course, a minor portion of that was the finance group (one of about 8 committees) was to come up with new or different ways to finance the future.  The N&O only focused on this because it was the only really contentious group which included John Hood.  Of course it furthered John’s agenda as well as sells newspapers. To bad the major access of information to the public is through the N&O.  Many good ideas were generated and will probably show up along the way in the future unless somebody reads the report.

We were only to give the Commissioners ideas.  Gary is right that they still have to come up with which ideas work and how to pay for those ideas.   Nobody can guess that far out what the political climate will be let alone what it will be like in two years.  The commissioners will supposedly follow up with the BRC about once a year to discuss their progress.

I learned a lot about how the county works. I was most surprised by several of the people at the County that presented to us and or worked with us during the sessions. They are very knowledgeable and professional. I just never met County officials that left me confident of their abilities.  I wish it could be the same for the Politicians. However, the city politicians (especially the Mayor) seem to be much more annoying and interested in their personal bias.

John Hood Responds:

John Hood of the John Locke Foundation said I took a bit of a cheap shot at the Blue Ribbon Committee, on which he served.  You can read his comments at the end of my first blog. 

He could be right.  Politics, after all, is the art of the cheap shot.

My point was that it is easy to list everything Wake County will need to keep up with a population that is expected to double in the next 25 years.  (That’s right: Double.  Twice as many people as are here today.)

It’s tougher to decide how to pay for it.

And John may be right that the commission had a responsibility to be specific about needs first.

Here is the political challenge: How are elected politicians – especially after what happened on the Blue Ribbon Commission – going to summon the political courage to raise taxes?

Especially when people like John and Carter are waiting to pounce on them?

Well, I’ve been there and done that – with Governor Hunt.

Here’s the secret.  First you squeeze spending.  Then you squeeze the fat out of the want lists.  Then, after everybody starts screaming, you squeeze some more.

And you keep squeezing until you’ve built the political capital to raise taxes: like the gas tax in 1981.

(By the way, that never hurt Hunt politically as much as some people think.  He got credit for guts.  The Helms campaign had plenty else to hurt us with.)

Then, after lots of screaming and squeezing, you propose a revenue solution.  Also known as higher taxes.

You paint a picture of what will happen if there isn’t more money.  Not an exaggerated picture.  An accurate picture of schools, roads, parks, water – all of it.

Then you fight like hell to get a bunch of scared elected officials to go along with you and take the heat.

It just takes leadership.  Question is: Where will that leadership come from in Wake County?

Click to Read & Post Comments

Here’s how the Democrats in the legislature handle the state budget.

For five of the last six years they’ve given us deficits from $200 million to $1.5 billion. Their solution: to raise taxes.

Then, finally, they raised taxes so much we had a year with a surplus. What did they do? They cut taxes a tiny bit and spent all the rest. In fact, they spent so much according to the Democrats’ own fiscal research team in the legislature they’re facing another $500 million to $1 billion deficit next year.

And, now, we begin the cycle again.

But this is an election year and everyone is happy and, next year, when the pain returns there’s no election.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Authorities have arrested three men – and are seeking five others – overseas in a plot to blow up the train tunnels beneath the Hudson River that lead to Manhattan. The New York Daily News also reported the terrorists had intended to blow a hole in the wall of the Holland Tunnel to flood it.

In Israel they have been fighting terrorists for years. I recently asked a friend who does a lot of work in Israel, ‘How do you ever win a war on terrorism?’

Is it possible to destroy the foundation of the power that allows the terrorists to wage war on us – just as we destroyed Germany’s and Japan’s ability to wage war in World War II? My friend made an interesting observation. He said that the power of the terrorists comes from three sources.

One, of course, is their willingness to use brute force. And, he said, the only way to defeat it is to match it with superior force.

The second source of their power is money. He said, ‘Think of it this way. We send the Middle East billions of dollars each year to buy oil. Assume twenty percent of the people in the countries we buy oil from are Islamic fundamentalists. Part of that money ends up making its way into the hands of terrorists. When we buy oil from the Middle East, indirectly, we are providing the terrorists with the money they need to operate.’ Maybe that’s an oversimplification. And it’s certainly not scientific. But he’s got an interesting point. He says to defeat terrorism we need to be free of our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

The third foundation, he said, of the terrorist power rests on communications. The Internet and their ability to communicate and recruit in the Middle East. He said we need to make war on their communications. We need to shut them down so they no longer have the ability to recruit.

I don’t know if he is right or wrong but here is someone who is thinking about how to destroy the foundations of terrorism. He’s not arguing democracy will save us. He’s saying match force with superior force, cut off their money and destroy their communications.

It seems to me this is the kind of analysis, about how to win the war on terrorism, we need to hear from our political leaders – both from Democrats and Republicans.

Today we’re having a debate about what we’re doing to stop terrorism, now, and what we’ve done wrong, and whether to stay the course in Iraq or get out. But what we need is a debate on how to destroy the foundations of terrorism, win the war and end it.

Click to Read & Post Comments

“I believe in a Democratic Party with a little backbone and a little guts.”

John Edwards is again calling on Democrats that have ‘guts;’ this time while campaigning in Ohio to increase the state’s minimum wage.

My guess is you could search Ohio for a week and not find a single Democrat who votes in primaries who disagrees with Edwards. So, why is this a display of courage?

Richard Nixon used to say, ‘I’m going to stand up to forced busing no matter how much it hurts me politically.’ Huh? It didn’t hurt him at all. But a lot of people who opposed busing thought Nixon was taking a real risk standing up for them.

I guess those Democrats in Ohio may think Edwards is taking a real risk, too.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The Democrats

The first election is for the leadership – to be the standard bearer – of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

The other for the leadership of the ‘New Democrats’ or the ‘Clinton Democrats.’

Two years ago, John Kerry won the first election and John Edwards won the second. Then they slugged it out and Kerry won the nomination.

This election Hillary Clinton is leading the race to be the liberal Democratic standard bearer. She has potential competition from John Kerry and Al Gore (unless Gore’s career as a movie producer and climatic scientist turns out to be something other than a vehicle for resurrecting his political fortunes).

John Edwards’ competition last time to be the “New Democrat” standard bearer was General Wesley Clark. He faces tougher competition this time. From former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and, possibly, Indiana Senator Evan Bayh.

The Republicans only have one election and it’s like a swamp.

John McCain is the big alligator in the swamp, right now, because he’s been there longest. And, as the number two finisher six years ago, he’s as close as there is to a frontrunner and Republicans like frontrunners.

McCain’s problem: his stand on immigration, alone, may be enough to scuttle him.

And there are plenty of little alligators in the swamp looking for a conservative toehold. Like Mitt Romney. George Allen. And Mike Huckabee.

Rudy Giuliani is running too but his stand on gay rights may be harder for Republicans to adjust to than even McCain’s stand on immigration. And there’s Bill Frist, who looks like the Washington establishment candidate, who can probably raise a ton of money. But may go nowhere.

So, right now, the interesting thing is the scramble among the little alligators to see which one can get a leg up on the others. Mike Huckabee might be interesting to watch. Huckabee is a man with a message. He’s not just trying to figure out how to knit the pieces together and weave his way through the labyrinth of presidential politics to get the nomination; he has an agenda.

That doesn’t mean he will win. Joe Lieberman had an agenda and where did it get him? But, I suspect, of the little alligators Huckabee may be the most interesting.

Click to Read & Post Comments

It’s hard for me to justify the City subsidizing one business at the expense of another. Should the City give the Marriott $20 million and a leg up over its competitor, the Sheraton across the street? Should North Hills get a tax exemption and a leg up over its competitors Crabtree Valley or Triangle Towne Center? How can the City justify letting one business pay lower taxes than its competitors? Or, for that matter, homeowners?

So, I have doubts about the City subsidizing John Kane’s new mall at North Hills. But what puzzles me is why Mayor Meeker is opposing Mr. Kane. Because if you support subsidizing businesses – as Mayor Meeker has repeatedly – Mr. Kane has a better case, than, say, the downtown Marriott the Mayor gave $20 million too.

Mr. Kane says he will spend a billion dollars of his own money to build North Hills East, which will pay the City $500 million in property taxes over the next 50 years, if the City will help him by granting him a fraction of that amount in property tax exemptions. If you believe in subsidies that sounds like a good deal for the City.

But the Mayor turned thumbs down.

Why is that puzzling? Here’s one example:  Mr. Kane wants to City to do is assist him in building a parking deck for his development. The Mayor has already supported the City building an underground parking garage downtown for his hotel and convention center. So why is spending $40 million to build a parking deck downtown right and building one at North Hills wrong?

Mayor Meeker’s only explanation has been that tax exemptions, like the ones Mr. Kane is seeking, should only be used in underprivileged areas. But those aren’t ‘future’ tax exemptions the Mayor is giving away downtown; it’s cold hard cash. And how can he say downtown is underprivileged? The two tallest buildings in Raleigh, the Capitol, the Legislature, the Governor’s Mansion, and Memorial Auditorium are all downtown. There are museums downtown and so are the headquarters of several of the biggest businesses in North Carolina – like Progress Energy.

It’s hard not to ask the question: If Mr. Kane were spending his billion dollars downtown – would the Mayor be supporting his parking deck?

And it’s hard not to conclude that the Mayor, for some reason, favors subsidizing businesses downtown – but no where else. Perhaps it is as simple as he works downtown and lives downtown and is immeshed in the financial dealings around Fayetteville Street. Or, perhaps, he has a philosophical reason to believe downtown has a unique importance that other parts of Raleigh lack – so businesses there deserve subsidies. Whatever the reason, the members of the City Council should ask Mayor Meeker to explain his policy. Why is it good to subsidize businesses downtown – but not North Hills? Why is it a good idea to spend $500 million of taxpayers’ money to help businesses downtown – but a bad idea to offer John Kane tax exemptions so he will spend a billion dollars of his own money to bring new businesses to North Hills?

Personally, I’d rather not see the City subsidizing hotels or restaurants or supermarkets downtown or at North Hills. But if we are going to have tax subsidies for businesses, shouldn’t we have a debate about whether they should only be downtown?

Click to Read & Post Articles

Downtown Raleigh is a nervous place this week.  Especially the Legislative Building.

Rumors abound:

• FBI agents are interviewing legislators.

• Legislators are secretly testifying before the federal grand jury investigating Speaker Black.

• Indictments are coming down.

Stay tuned.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Was my blog about the Blue Ribbon Committee on the Future of Wake County (“A Blue Ribbon Punt”) too harsh?

One reader says no:

“What a laugh.  The "Blue Ribbon" panel was designed to deflect blame from the big spenders. The scandal in this whole charade is the failure of anyone to mention or factor in the enormous increase in the valuation of the tax base and the resulting huge increase in tax revenues generated without even touching rates.”

But Michael Walden, an NCSU professor who served on the commission, seems to think otherwise.  His opinion is backed up by comments on my blog by John Hood of the John Locke Foundation.

Specifically, Walden wrote in The News & Observer Monday:

“I'll argue that the BRC did reach consensus on several important matters affecting future infrastructure plans for Wake County.”

He said the agreements include:

• That the county has the capacity to fund a notable amount ($7 billion) of public infrastructure in the future with its current tax structure.

• That cost containment of infrastructure projects should be vigorously examined prior to implementing additional revenue strategies.

• That the property tax system should be reformed to have revaluations done every four (rather than eight) years, and commissioners should maintain the property tax rate after revaluations. This change will allow property tax revenues to better keep up with rising construction costs associated with future infrastructure projects.

• That the state be urged to modernize its distribution formula for highway revenues to give a greater share to counties like Wake with high traffic demands.

• That toll roads be used to fund some of the county's road construction needs, provided the toll revenues are dedicated to specific projects and do not
replace existing funds.

• That if new tax revenues are deemed necessary, the first choice be a 1 percent local sales tax, with revenues dedicated to public school construction and transportation.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Republican prospects in the elections this fall are looking pretty glum.

The President’s popularity has fallen, even some Republicans are having doubts about the war in Iraq, and about the only voters who agree with President Bush on immigration reform are people who will never vote for him – or any other Republican.

The Democrats’ reaction to all this has been simple: It looks like we’re going to win this election hands down, so let’s not fumble. So, other than fulminating to appease their core supporters, they aren’t really offering any alternatives on the war or on immigration. They’re content to snip at Bush and play it safe and let nature take its course.

The Republican reaction to the impending electoral typhoon has had two legs: 1) Let’s get all these debates that are killing us off the table and make this election about something else. And 2) At the same time let’s fire up our base.

So, the Republicans want a fight with Democrats on gay marriage – which most voters agree with Republicans on and which lights a fire under the Republican base – and other, similar, issues.

But the real problem for Republicans is the war in Iraq just isn’t going away.

Terrorism was the issue in the 2002 election, Iraq was the issue in the 2004 election and as long as we’re in a war it’s going to go on being an issue in elections.

For Republicans, the bottom line is tough: We seem to be losing the war – or, maybe, it is kinder to say we’re not winning it fast enough – but, either way, all we can say is hold on and stay the course. Which is a harder political sell every day because the course in Iraq seems to be running into a quagmire.

The Democrats’ strategy, though they won’t put it quite this bluntly, is surrender. Get the hell out. We’ve fought the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, so ring down the curtain.

Which, unfortunately, leaves the American people with no one saying, Here’s what I am going to do different to win this war. Which is what someone needs to figure out.

Because if they don’t it looks like voters will face two choices this fall: 1) sticking with Republicans and continuing the war, without what appears to be enough men or soldiers or something to defeat the terrorists; or 2) electing a Democratic Congress and watching them retreat out of the whole mess.

Neither choice has much appeal to voters.

But right now, at least, the Democrats have the upper hand as far as the election goes.

Click to Read & Post Comments

One of our readers offered an interesting perspective on the issue of whether the city should agree to help finance a new North Hills parking deck with developer John Kane:

“Downtown they have taken real tax dollars and spent it on a hotel plus committing a future source of revenue to pay for the Convention Center.

“North Hills is spending future source of revenue that will only exist if when and if Kane spends close to a billion dollars. An enormous difference.

“On top of it all, we don’t know if the money spent on the convention center will ever result in a positive for the area; therefore, a big risk for the City and the County. If North Hills is not successful, it will just take longer to pay the bonds. The risk is with Kane and his partners.

“Under the best scenario, the Kane project will add more jobs and increased economic activity which will help pay for the Convention Center and the hotel.  Who knows: maybe the convention center will be also be successful.”

Click to Read & Post Comments

Local government spending in Raleigh and Wake County is mushrooming.

The City Council wants to spend more.

The County Commissioners want to spend more.

The School Board wants to spend more.

The County Commissioners’ Blue Ribbon Task Force wants to spend more.

And they all want to borrow and raise taxes to pay for it.

What’s going on here?

Mayor Charlie Meeker has brought a whole new philosophy – when it comes to taxing and spending – to local government. And, at last, it’s taken root, reached critical mass and erupted. And it’s not going to be easy to put the spending genie back in the bottle.

The Mayor spent $215 million on a convention center and $20 million on a downtown hotel, then there wasn’t enough money for roads so the City had to borrow and raise taxes. Then the Mayor spent so much in the latest budget he had to raise taxes again.

Let’s look at the latest proposal rattling around City Hall. The proposal to grant North Hills builder John Kane $75 million (and an exemption from property taxes) so he can build a parking deck and develop the land around the old Bennigan’s restaurant across Six Forks Road from North Hills.

Usually, when a developer builds a mall he borrows the money, repays his debt, and pays his property taxes to the city.

Under Mr. Kane’s proposal, in effect the City loans him $75 million to build a parking deck, then he repays the debt with money he would have paid in property taxes.

You can’t blame John Kane for thinking that would be a good deal.

Look at it from his perspective.

He sees Mayor Meeker spending money left and right, for instance, pouring millions into a convention center that will probably lose money – and require tax subsidies – for years. While Mr. Kane is talking about building a mall that will actually make a profit.

He sees Mayor Meeker spending $40 million for an underground parking garage downtown and subsidizing restaurants and supermarkets – so, he thinks, why shouldn’t the Mayor support improving North Hills a little, too?

Then a surprising thing happens.

The Mayor turns his thumbs down on Mr. Kane’s proposal.

Even stranger, the one kind word for poor Mr. Kane’s $75 million loan from the City comes from a Republican – Councilman Tommy Craven.

So, suddenly, we have an odd picture. The Mayor, who’s spent millions on about everything in sight, is against spending another $75 million at North Hills – and a Republican is for it.

What’s happening here? Well, the Mayor’s not against spending money. He just doesn’t want to spend it at North Hills. He wants to spend it in ‘underprivileged’ areas – like downtown. How do you explain a Republican wanting to give a $75 million tax subsidy to a private business? Beats me.

The real problem here isn’t whether the City subsidizing North Hills is a good idea. The real problem is the City – under Mayor Meeker – has opened Pandora’s box by spending taxpayers’ money to help people who own hotels, restaurants and supermarkets make a profit. So, naturally, any businessman, when he sees Mayor Meeker subsidizing his competitors, is going to ask himself, Why not me too? Why not North Hills? Or, for that matter, why not Crabtree Valley? Or Triangle Town Center? Or IBM? Or any of another hundred businesses? After all, if the City is going to subsidize their competitors, shouldn’t it subsidize them too?

In one sense, cutting taxes on anyone in Raleigh these days is so unique Mr. Kane’s proposal has a wayward appeal. But the whole idea of saying to one group of people, You don’t have to pay taxes, when everyone else does is troubling.

The real question is should the City be spending money like water to subsidize everyone in sight?

Councilman Craven aside, the Republicans need to answer that with a big, “No.” They need to stop voting to subsidize hotels and start offering a counter-voice to Mayor Meeker on spending and taxes. And that voice doesn’t need to just be heard in the hallways of Town Hall and in the City Council Chambers. It needs to be heard by the 25,000 taxpayers who vote in City elections. And among anyone else who will listen.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Prospects for ethics reform and cleaning up the ‘pay to play’ scandals took a blow in the State Senate last week.

Senator David Hoyle told the Senate committee considering reform bills that “the issue is too complicated to take up this late in the session” (The News and Observer, 7-13-06). Other senators said the financial disclosure requirements and conflict-of-interest standards in the proposed bills are too tough.

Former Superior Court Judge Robert Farmer, the chairman of the N.C. Board of Ethics, also commented on the ethics bills the legislature is considering. But he doesn’t think they are tough enough. Farmer said:

“That’s just pretend ethics.”

 According to The News and Observer, Farmer said that “lawmakers shouldn’t bother moving forward with ethics and lobbying reform bills without making substantial changes first.” And that “lawmakers need to ban lobbyists from raising campaign money because it creates the appearance that lawmakers’ votes are tied to campaign
donations.”

The House took that provision out of its reform bill.

The News and Observer also reported another surprise in the House bill – which the bill’s sponsors say they didn’t even know was in it. The House ‘Ethics Reform Bill’ allows legislators to hire private lawyers to defend them at public expense.

Late last year, House Speaker Jim Black asked the state to pay “his office’s legal costs in complying with federal subpoenas” in the pay to play scandal. Black’s office estimated the private lawyers would cost $200,000. Governor Easley and the Attorney General said no to all but $30,000. Next time, if the House bill passes the Senate, Black won’t have to ask.

So to clean up the ‘pay to play’ scandals the Democrats in the House have passed a ‘Reform Bill’ that’s “just pretend ethics” and a provision to let taxpayers pay the politicians’ legal bills.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The North Carolina Turnpike Authority’s mission is to build toll roads. Its problem is people feel, with all the gas taxes they’re paying, they shouldn’t have to pay tolls, too.

So the Authority has taken a poll – or more concisely it conducted a focus group – to figure out how to convince voters to support its toll roads. Think about that for a minute: a government agency is conducting a poll to find out how to convince voters to support something they don’t want – I guess, so the agency can stay in business.

What did the “focus group” find? According to the News and Observer (7-12-06), the “focus group participants… initially questioned whether tolls were really needed.”

But the agency kept digging and, according to its director, it finally found a way to sell voters on toll roads. According to Turnpike Authority Director, David Joyner, “If you say ‘toll road or free road’ people will say ‘free road’ every time.” But when you say ‘toll road or no road’ the answer changes.

So, the next time you hear the Turnpike Authority saying your choice is between a ‘toll road or no road’ – remember, that came out of a focus group. So, maybe, it’s not the whole story.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The News and Observer recently asked the School Board for copies of its e-mails – under the state’s public records law – about student reassignments to different schools. (This year 9300 students are being reassigned.) This is a routine request newspapers often make to government agencies and, initially, it was expected it would only take the School Board a few days to comply.

Instead, it took fifteen weeks and cost $17,000 for the School Board to provide The News and Observer with 219 e-mail messages. An average cost of $77 per e-mail. (You can read the story in The News and Observer: “E-mail search a huge chore for Wake schools;” 7-05-06.)

This fall, the School Board is asking voters to approve the biggest school bond ever in Wake County. But you have to wonder how voters are going to feel about paying higher property taxes to give someone who spends $17,000 to produce 219 e-mails – another billion dollars.

Click to Read & Post Comments

When I hear the words “Blue Ribbon Study Commission,” I automatically think: Another politician is punting.

That’s exactly what happened in Wake County this month.

Problem is, the “Blue-Ribbon Committee on the Future of Wake County” punted the ball right back to the politicians.

The News & Observer summed it up this way in a story headlined “Blue ribbon panel stumbles at finish line:”

“Months of wrestling with Wake County's skyrocketing growth ended with a whimper, not a bang.

“A task force of 65 business and community leaders met for two hours Monday to put the final touches on a report on how to handle the hundreds of thousands of residents expected to arrive by 2030.

“But after six months, they still couldn't resolve a central debate over taxes.”

I don’t fault the 65 community big-shots who were appointed to the blue ribbon committee.  They were given an impossible job.

Their assignment: Figure out a way to pay for the billions of dollars on everybody’s wish list for schools, parks, roads, water, sewer, jails, libraries, workforce training and open space.  And, while you’re at it, make the solution popular with every segment of society.

Sorry, Wake County commissioners, there is no way to square that circle.

You’re going to have to do it yourselves.  You’re going to have to figure out what we really have to have.  You’re going to have to decide how we’re going to pay for it.  And you’re going to have to sell the solution to the public.

You tried punting.  But the only real effect that had is to mobilize the opponents of doing anything anytime anywhere.  Like John Hood and the John Locke Foundation.

Now the going gets really tough.  And you’ve got the ball.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The state’s biggest contract is its $171 million Medicare contract. Two years ago, it put the contract out to bid and Secretary of Human Services, Carmen Hooker Odom, announced with great fanfare she was awarding it to Texas computer giant, ACS – and saving taxpayers millions.

Two years later, Secretary Hooker Odom says she is about to cancel ACS’s contract. Despite the state already paying ACS millions to put its new computer system in place, ACS has yet to process a single Medicare claim. And, when the contract is cancelled, the millions Secretary Hooker Odom has paid ACS will have been wasted.

What went wrong? How did Secretary Hooker Odom grant a $171 million contract to a company that has failed even to come close to fulfilling the contract? ACS says it’s the state’s fault.

But here’s a different speculation: Politics?

Back when the contract was awarded former state legislator, Lanier Canszler, was Ms. Hooker Odom’s Deputy Secretary. After the contract was awarded Canszler left his state job and became a consultant – to ACS.

Is there something wrong with a high state official, who works for a department that grants a $171 million contract, going to work with the company that gets the contract? Maybe not. But if the company turns out not to be able to do the work it makes you wonder.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The Democrats in the State House have been conducting their version of ‘damage control’ to dodge the political fallout from the ‘pay to play’ scandals in the House.

What’s their strategy? Well, it’s to pass meaningless reforms and then to proclaim from the rooftops that they have solved the problem. When, in fact, they have passed a bill that does virtually nothing.

How meaningless are their reforms? They put a limit on gifts from lobbyists to legislators of $1,000. But, as one Republican legislator said, What does that mean? Even my wife never gave me a $1,000 gift, even for Christmas. It’s not much of a limit.

Second, the House Democrats took the ban on lobbyists raising money for Speaker Black out of their so-called ‘Reform Bill.’ That takes the only thing out of the bill that would put a crimp in ‘pay to play.’

Nonetheless, their strategy is working.

They are betting they can convince voters – at least until the election – that they have drained the swamp and they’ve talked about their reforms (and how they are cleaning up politics) so loud and long they’ve received a wind-fall of publicity.

The Senate Democrats have a little different strategy. They seem to be taking the scandals a little more seriously. Maybe.

The Senate Democrats killed video poker. They repealed Speaker Black’s eye exams for children. And they have stopped optometrists from writing blank checks – with the amount filled in but not the recipients’ name – to politicians. And they are talking tougher than the House about reform, saying the House bill is not tough enough.

But they have yet to produce their own, tougher, bill.

Give the Democratic Senators credit for a couple of real reforms. But only time will tell if they do actually write a tougher reform bill than the House – or if their tough talk is just a flim-flam.

What about the poor Republicans?

The Republicans should be exposing the Democrats’ scandals at the tops of their lungs. They should be calling for tougher, real reforms. They should be exposing more examples of ‘pay to play’ scandals.

What about the legislation the House just killed to pass a moratorium to stop out-of-state companies from building huge trash dumps in North Carolina? Is there a little ‘pay to play’ going on there? Those companies have hired a healthy list of lobbyists – including Governor Easley’s campaign treasurer, Davis Horne.

Instead, bafflingly, the Republican strategy has been to say, Me, too. They lined up and voted for the House Democrats’ Reform bill. And when they did they gave the Democrats a pretty good way to say this fall, Look, even the Republicans agree we’ve cleaned up the mess. They voted for our bill.

The Republicans should change direction. Instead of, Me, too, they should say, No way. What the Democrats are doing won’t really do a thing to clean up these scandals. Then they should tell voters what they will do, and say, If you really want to clean up this mess vote for us this fall.

Then voters get the last word.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Salisbury attorney, Bill Graham, has spent a million dollars of his own money to pay for TV ads to express his opposition to the Gas Tax. And, now, he’s getting ready to spend another bundle of his own money to say he’s against illegal immigration.

Graham’s potential opponents might call this buying an election but give Graham credit. He has picked two issues Republican voters care about, he’s speaking out and, now, he’s got a million dollars in name identification no other Republican candidate for governor has.

State Senator Fred Smith seems to be the ‘Inside the Beltline’ Republican candidate this election. Senator Smith has plenty of money of his own; he financed his first State Senate race with a quarter of a million dollars. But while Graham is on TV, speaking out, Smith is not. Why? Apparently, Smith has decided to wait until next year. Or the year after.

But by then the election may be all but over. Smith has allowed Graham to build a 20 odd point lead in the primary. Apparently, Senator Smith thinks that is unimportant. That he can make up the lost ground later. And, yes, that is possible. But Graham isn’t just going to sit still and 20 points is a long way for Senator Smith to start out behind.

In the Republican race for governor, Bill Graham has won the first round and it may turn out to be decisive.

What other candidates? At one time there was talk of Patrick Ballentine or Bill Cobey running for governor but speculation has faded. Jim Cain, the ambassador to Denmark, remains a wild card.

Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore, the two Democratic candidates, are both raising tons of money. Both have raised well over a million dollars – and no Republican even comes close (with the exception of Graham who is spending his own money).

Both Moore and Perdue are careful, poll-driven, candidates. Neither seems inclined to take controversial stands. They do not seem to disagree on many issues. The biggest contrast is simply that Moore is a man and Perdue is the first major female candidate for governor. Don’t expect surprises. The Democratic primary for governor promises to be a by-the-book election.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Two news stories from the same day:

• While Republicans in Congress and the Bush Administration fulminate over The New York Times’ “treason” in publishing the banking-surveillance story, Republicans in Congress criticize the administration for not telling them about the program.  They wouldn’t know about it today if they hadn’t read it in the Times – and The Wall Street Journal, I might add.

• A committee of the American Civil Liberties Union – the defender of Americans’ right to dissent – proposed guidelines that would have limited the ability of ACLU board members to publicly criticize the organization.  Somebody realized the hypocrisy, and the ACLU says it is withdrawing the guidelines.

Click to Read & Post Comments

John Edwards has called for us to immediately withdraw 40,000 troops from Iraq. Not next month. Or by Christmas. Or in a year. Now.

Granted we’re in a mess in Iraq.

But where does bringing 40,000 troops home tomorrow leave the troops still in Iraq? Are they safer?

Mr. Edwards is running for President as a Democrat and he has taken a glib, popular stand that will help him win the Democratic primaries.

But what’s his real solution on Iraq? He says he’d pull every soldier out and bring him – or her – home in 14 months. Fine. Who wouldn’t like to see that happen? But where does that leave us? What happens then? Is pulling out of Iraq going to win the war on terrorism? If it is I’m all for it.

But I’d like to hear Mr. Edwards explain how his plan is going to bring us the victory over the terrorist that has eluded us for five years.

Click to Read & Post Comments

I admire what John Kane has done at North Hills in Raleigh.  He’s obviously a businessman with vision and guts.

But I wonder if he knows what kind of political buzzsaw he has walked into now.

Specifically, the anti-developer buzzsaw that seems to be dominating Raleigh politics.

Kane has asked Raleigh and Wake County for $75 million in bonds to finance a parking deck for the next phase of his North Hills expansion.

At first blush, the deal sounds no worse to me than the city directly subsidizing a downtown hotel to the tune of $20 million.  Or sinking millions of dollars more into a downtown parking deck.

But – apparently – the city only subsidizes downtown development. 

Mayor Charles Meeker and City Manager Russell Allen already say they oppose Kane’s request, according to The News & Observer.  And the rest of the City Council is reported to be “wary.”

No wonder.  Council members who aren’t automatically anti-developer have been wary since a blitz of negative, anti-developer direct mail hit in the final days of last year’s city elections.

I’ve been told the mail came from the Service Employees International Union, which wants to be a political power and wants to organize local government employees.

The SEIU’s political play succeeded.  Now anybody running for city office next year has to factor in the anti-developer factor.

The questions to be answered:

• Like cheeseburgers, anti-developer politics may taste good, but is it good for you?

• Why does the city subsidize development downtown, but not elsewhere?

• Is the business and development community in Raleigh politically clueless?

 Click to Read & Post Comments

The Mayor has increased the fees the city charges builders when they submit plans by $150,000.

Sounds fine? Doesn’t affect you? You’re not a developer.

Well, how expensive will the cost of doing business in Raleigh have to be before it does affect you?

Those developers the Mayor uses as political foils serve people who want to build a house or a business in Raleigh – who want to move here and bring new jobs. Because that’s who goes in those buildings. New businesses and new jobs.

Make it tough enough on builders with red tape, grinding regulations, bloated bureaucracies and rising fees and that growth and those new jobs can stop. They can go someplace else.

Mayor Meeker, Councilman Crowder and Councilman Stephenson have turned developers into ‘political villains.’ No doubt that is clever politics. No doubt promising voters they could pay for millions in new spending by squeezing developers helped Meeker, Crowder and Stephenson win the last election.

But what they’re really doing in the long run is saying to new businesses – and new jobs – we’re going to make it tougher for you to come here.

And what happens if they stop coming? All the spending for bonds, for Convention Centers and so on we’ve committed to is going to keep right on and the costs are going to rise and without growth we’re going to see some whopping big tax increases.

There’s a worse scenario. What if businesses start leaving? Granted, we’re a long way from that but it’s happened before in other places.

The Republican Mayors in Raleigh in the 1990’s helped create a low-tax city that boomed economically. Mayor Meeker and his allies are planting the seeds to end that boom.

So next time you hear a politician talking about socking it to developers with a 78% tax increase (which they euphemistically call an impact fee) remember what they’re really talking about is jobs.

Click to Read & Post Comments

When George W. Bush – the “compassionate conservative” – became President, the national debt was $5.6 trillion.

Today it is $8.3 trillion.

That is $2.7 trillion in additional debt.

That is a 48 percent increase.

By the way, if you’re having trouble grasping how much a trillion is: It’s a million millions.

Click to Read & Post Comments

There was a time – when Raleigh had a Republican Mayor – when growth meant no new taxes. Back then, when the city grew, new people and new businesses moved here, they paid new taxes, revenues went up and the city didn’t have to raise tax rates on the rest of us.

Mysteriously, this has changed under Mayor Meeker and the Democrats. Suddenly, the clarion call coming out of City Hall is we have to raise taxes because 10,000 new people are moving here each year.

This is puzzling. Don’t these new people pay taxes? If we didn’t have to raise tax rates to pay for growth when Tom Fetzer was Mayor – why do we have to do it under Charles Meeker? What changed?

This whole call for higher taxes to pay for growth has a bit of a flim-flam at its heart.

What’s really happening in Raleigh is a spending spree. The Mayor’s spending hundred of millions of dollars for a new Convention Center, for new taxpayer subsidized hotels, restaurants and supermarkets. Not to mention millions for Lite-Rail and $150,000 to lure the Jehovah’s Witness Convention to the RBC Center.

Does anyone recall Mayor Fetzer supporting tax subsidies for hotels or restaurants? Maybe that’s the difference. Maybe there is a connection between all the Mayor’s runaway spending and his property tax hikes, school bond tax hikes, car registration tax hikes and tax hikes on new homes.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Put this under the category of non-surprising news: the Mexican election might be stolen.

But the news made me thankful for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. 

Namely, the much-maligned Electoral College.

American elections are going south - literally.  Thanks to Florida 2000, every closely fought presidential election will see charges of fraud.  Just like in Mexico today. 

Robert Kennedy Jr. even wrote in Rolling Stone recently that Republicans in Ohio stole the 2004 election.

But today, at least, the fraud charges focus on a relative handful of votes in one or two states. 

In Mexico, they’re arguing about three million votes nationwide.

In this country, that kind of fight would tie us in knots for years on end.  Think of the new blogs alone that would be created.  Dozens of conspiracy theories would flourish.  Oliver Stone would have to make a new movie every four years. 

Mexico has apparently grown used to corrupt politics and rigged elections.

I doubt Americans would take it.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Republicans are hoping the ‘pay to play’ scandals swirling around Speaker Jim Black will help them retake control of the State House this fall. So it sounds odd that a Republican, Representative Paul Stam, has introduced a bill to delete a key provision from the legislation to end ‘pay to play.’

Money and campaign contributions go right to the heart of these scandals. But Rep. Stam wants to repeal the ban prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for legislators.

A House Committee dominated by Democrats – gleefully, one suspects – reported out Stam’s bill. Now it goes to the full house.

Representative Stam argues we must delete the ban because it violates lobbyists’ first amendment right to free speech (in this case expressing themselves by raising money for legislators).

That argument may not be popular, and it’s certainly not going to help Republicans in the elections this fall, but Representative Stam has a point.

It’s hard to argue that making it illegal for someone to give to the politician of their choice is not a limit on their free speech (no matter how unsavory their reasons for making that donation may be).

On the other hand, the courts have long recognized corruption – and it’s hard to argue ‘pay to play’ isn’t corruption – is one of the few legitimate reasons to limit political speech.

But that’s not my point.

Here’s my point: if Rep. Stam and the House Republicans want to stand up for the First Amendment, fine. But they should go a step further.

They should require lobbyists – every time one makes a contribution or raises money for a legislator – to immediately disclose why.

For instance, if a lobbyist contributes to Representative John Doe the lobbyist should immediately disclose that he or she is also trying to get Representative Doe to vote for a $400,000 grant to, say, the Teapot Museum.

Then the public would see not just the money the lobbyist raised for Rep. Doe but what Rep. Doe may have done for it in return. That might not end ‘pay to play’ but it would make it a lot riskier for Rep. Doe.

Click to Read & Post Comments

Here are two appropriate topics for my Fourth of July post: flag-burning and The New York Times.

The two have this in common: They are the Republicans’ latest ploy to avoid an election disaster in November.

Since W can’t catch Osama, pacify Iraq or convince Americans he has a plan to win the war, he discovered two new threats to domestic tranquility: the (apparent) legions of flag-burners across America and the (alleged) traitors at The Times.

Apparently, he thinks our nation is not strong enough to withstand however many real flag-burners there are – or stand knowing some facts about how government is snooping on us all in the name of keeping us safe.

For my part, I’d rather take my chances knowing what the government is up to.  Maybe there are some anti-big government conservatives among you who not only trust Big Government, but also trust it to tell you you need to know.  Not me.

As for the flag-burners, their very offensiveness is the best argument for letting them have at it. 

I believe Old Glory, the Bill of Rights and the nation will do just fine with no flag-burning amendment and a little more sunshine on Washington’s snooping.

Click to Read & Post Comments

The News and Observer reports the maintenance for the RBC Center is going to cost $60 million over the next 16 years (6/27/06).

Who can argue with that? We built it, we’ve got to take care of it. But there’s a warning here.

When the City Council or County Commissioners spend $100 million for an arena or $215 million for a new Convention Center it doesn’t stop there. The costs just keep on adding up. For years. For instance, how much will it cost to operate and maintain the Convention Center over the next 16 years? Another $60 million?

That’s real money. And that is one reason when politicians – like Mayor Meeker – go on spending tears it leads to huge tax hikes down the road.

By the way, the City Council just voted to spend $150,000 to lure the Jehovah’s Witnesses Convention to the RBC Center. I guess they decided they didn’t need the money for maintenance. Or, maybe, they’ll just raise taxes when the maintenance bill comes due.

Click to Read & Post Comments

John Edwards is telling Democrats they need backbone. Mr. Edwards is also running for President on the courageous platform of eliminating poverty. He says he can do it – or a lot of it – for $20 billion.

Lyndon Johnston couldn’t eliminate poverty with the whole Great Society program. The trillions we’ve spent on welfare since have hardly made a dent in poverty. So how on earth is John Edwards going to solve the whole problem with $20 billion?

Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

Click to Read & Post Comments

The State Senate’s budget increases government spending a whopping 9.4%. But it turns out the Senators are the ones holding the line.

The Governor wants to increase spending even more: 9.6%.

And the House topped him: 9.7%.

The Governor and the Senate want to spend 90.5% of the state’s $2.4 billion surplus – and return 9.5% to taxpayers. 

The House wants to raise spending 94% – and return 6% to taxpayers.

On the other hand, the Democrats in the legislature – it seems like – have spent 90% of their time bragging about their tax cuts. And only 10% talking about their spending increases.

Click to Read & Post Comments