Guarino

Junket for Guilford Schools HQ Raises Questions

We learn over at Ed's that a local developer is funding an expedition for Yvonne Johnson and Skip Alston to go to D.C.  The purpose?  To fish for stimulus money to fund construction of the recently conceptualized consolidated Guilford County Schools administrative building.

Keith Brown is precisely right to raise questions about the propriety of this arrangement.  We have to wonder what any given developer might have to gain by stepping forward and funding this effort.  It is wrong for Johnson and Alston to accept this type of funding.

But the News and Record reports today that a non-profit subsidiary of one of our local foundations is greasing the skids on this effort.  It is called Gate City Co.  There is flowery language about non-profits, developers and governing boards acting in coordination.  But that sounds to me as if certain elites and oligarchs are facilitating things--  and perhaps with an agenda to get the taxpayer to pay for it?

It is appropriate to question whether the stimulus money is going to fund the whole thing-- the entire construction effort.  If not, local taxpayers will be stuck with the remainder of the tab.  This is a difficult economic time for taxpayers, and there is ample pressure on our county budget. 

It is also appropriate to ask whether this particular edifice is truly needed.

Some of us regard it as dishonorable when our local and state governments go to the feds looking for stimulus money.  We all pay for federal spending, directly and indirectly; and the mounting debt is a serious problem for our nation.  Why should we think it is good for our local units of government to participate in the nationwide grab for stimulus money?

It seems some leaders within our local units of government have their priorities wrong.

Update: Some additional perspective from Piedmont Publius, who asks why the downtown ballpark has not attracted much additional development.

The Kay Hagan Health Care Shuffle

There has been much discussion over the last week on the topic of Kay Hagan's position regarding health care reform.

First, we saw Mark Binker pen a prominently-placed piece in the News and Record asserting that Kay Hagan's handling of the issue is a reflection of her overall political moderation.  Hagan had been expressing some degree of opposition to the costs associated with health care reform, and also to the "public insurance option".

Of course, in the perspective of the media, moderation is good, even if it is a cover for liberalism.  And in the eyes of the local media, Kay Hagan is also very good.  Placing a label of "moderate" on a liberal politician like Hagan might make them appear more acceptable in the eyes of the masses.

It turns out that she has a record at the state level.  She was a legislative leader during a time when state spending rose dramatically; and we are now seeing massive budget shortfalls because of this record of profligacy.

In any case, there has been a passionate reaction from the political left to Kay Hagan's display of so-called moderation on health care reform.

We saw a flurry of commentary that suggested liberals were quite unhappy with Hagan's "moderate" stance.  The media reported she had a significant equity interest in certain health care companies.  The liberal blogs began profiling her in a manner to pressure her to conform; Move-on.org got involved; and an ad or two was produced to apply even more political pressure.

And Hagan responded.  She told us that her goal was not to defeat health care reform; but rather her goal was to produce a better bill that could pass.

One of the interesting things about this whole discussion is the liberal/moderate continuum.  It was always to their political advantage for the liberal Democrats to paint Hagan as a moderate-- and for Hagan to pose as one--- because it would help her get elected in a state like North Carolina.  However, the moment she begins to talk about governing like a moderate, the liberal forces move to squash her like a bug.

It seems moderation will only take you so far in the Democratic Party. 

But there is yet another interesting dimension.  Some of us observing from the sidelines have felt that Kay Hagan will vote in favor of whatever Democratic health care reform package reaches the floor of the Senate--- regardless of the noises she is making now, and regardless of whatever might be in the final bill.

Some of us feel that we are observing a delightful political shuffle in which the local media is complicit.  Create the appearance of moderation, then vote as a liberal.  Vote as a socialist. 

I hope that is not the outcome, but if it is, I hope everyone will recognize it, and acknowledge it vociferously.  Indeed, I hope everyone will shout it from the rooftops if it happens.

We simply cannot permit a huge deception to be inflicted upon North Carolinians without letting the people know what is truly happening.

Sotomayor Reversed on Ricci: What will be Impact on GPD Case?

A couple of commenters here had predicted that Sonia Sotomayor would be reversed with the Supreme Court soon deciding on the New Haven Ricci case.  But it turns out to have been even worse, according to Wendy Long:

Frank Ricci finally got his day in court, despite the judging of Sonia Sotomayor, which all nine Justices of U.S. Supreme Court have now confirmed was in error.  She essentially committed judicial malpractice. 

That even Justice Ginsberg and the dissenters would have remanded — undoing what Judge Sotomayor did — confirms that Sotomayor is a far-left liberal judicial activist who ignores the law and rules on her own personal agenda, even beyond the current liberals on the Court.

There is nothing moderate, mainstream, or nonideological about that. This demonstrates that the White House spin on this nominee is a pure fabrication.
 
Usually, poor performance in any profession is not rewarded with the highest job offer in the entire profession.
 
What Judge Sotomayor did in Ricci was the equivalent of a pilot error resulting in a bad plane crash. And now the pilot is being offered to fly Air Force One.

There is already some discussion that this decision might have limited applicability to other cases.  I suppose we will see, in the long run, how it will affect the recent complaint against the Greensboro Police Department being explored by the federal Department of Justice.  That particular complaint also was with regard to preemployment testing.

Update: Sam Spagnola thinks this decision will have significant repercussions beyond the case that was decided upon.

Christian Aid Worker from Tennessee Reportedly Killed by al-Qaeda

Was told by a friend that a Christian aid worker from the United States has been killed ostensibly because he was attempting to spread the Gospel in the northwest African nation of Mauritania.  Mauritania is an Islamic nation.  Apparently, al-Qaeda is taking responsibility for the murder.

The name of the deceased is Christopher Leggett; and his hometown was Cleveland, Tennessee. 

There May Be More to Latest Duke Scandal than We Initially Knew

Thomas Lifson, American Thinker :

Identity politics are probably...involved in understanding the media response. Again, (Mike) Adams:

The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement.

I am afraid that as far as the media and academic communities are involved, it is not the crime itself that matters, but rather whether the alleged perp is a member of an "oppressor" group. Although white, Lombard is gay, so in the interest of avoiding unpleasant stories involving homosexual adoption, the media is anxious to shut down public interest in the affair...

Stanley B. Chambers of the Raleigh News and Observer (hat tip: C. Edmund Wright) brings is the following nugget:

Lombard, a licensed clinical social worker with a master's degree in social work, is a health-disparities researcher who studies HIV/AIDS in the rural South.

This means that Lombard toiled in fields of the victimology industry, mining data for correlations that would underwrite government favoritism of victim groups.

A victimologist victimized at least one child in the most heinous way. The ultimate victim(s). And the media see no hypocrisy, and want to make sure the public doesn't either.

Deterioration in Bioethics

George W. Bush had an outstanding President's Council on Bioethics that wrestled with such questions as embryonic stem cell research and cloning.  It was composed of intellectual heavyweights like Leon Kass who paid particular heed to the concept of "ethics".

That has now changed.  Barack Obama has scrapped the old council. And according to World:

Obama indicated that he plans to appoint a new bioethics commission that will offer “practical policy options” rather than functioning like a “philosophically leaning advisory group.”

So that is the new spin.  On questions of ethics and human life, do what is practical rather than what is right.  Ethics thus become situational under the new President.  I suppose we should not be surprised.

But there is another interesting dimension.  Most people know about Rahm Emanuel-- the former Chicago congressman who is Obama's chief of staff.  But fewer know that Rahm has a brother who happens to be a physician-- and his name is Zeke.

Zeke Emanuel, partially by virtue of his status as a physician and his relation to Rahm, has been granted a high level of access and influence as a White House health care policy advisor.  He, of course, favors a pathway to universal coverage; and will advocate the administration's position.

But it also turns out that Zeke has a significant background in bioethics.  And it seems likely that he shares Obama's worldview on that topic.  I do not know, however, to what extent he will influence Obama's new commission on practical, situational bioethics.

Ben Holder's Campaign Event

I had the opportunity to attend Ben Holder's campaign event this evening.  The affair was pretty well attended.  I was glad for Ben.   

It was good to see and speak with some old friends in the blogging community; and also to meet some other folks for the first time.

It seems almost superfluous to say that Ben Holder would be quite an improvement over the incumbent.

Update: Tony Wilkins has a photograph of the five bloggers who were present.

Superhero

Andrew Klavan offers some video commentary spoofing Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Is the $30 Million Urban Loop Loan Going to Happen?

A source provides me with some information suggesting that it is unlikely that $30 million will ultimately be loaned to the state DOT for the Urban Loop.   Recall that the News and Record editorialized on the matter a couple of days ago; and was dubious regarding the idea.

Some citizens cannot fathom, however, the representation made last year that we had to refrain from paving local streets because a tax increase was not then being approved.  We now are being told that there is $30 million in transportation bond money available to loan to the state for completion of the Urban Loop; but apparently we would have to raise taxes to enable adequate maintenance of existing roads.

FreedomWorks Looks at North Carolina

A national organization called FreedomWorks is asking North Carolinians to contact their state legislators about the looming tax increases we are facing.

It is a bad reflection on our state when we attract attention from an organization such as this.  Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey is one of its leaders.

Government Health Care (Warning: A Bit Graphic)

(HT: Keith)

Tax Increases vs. Spending Reductions in Raleigh

Brian Balfour looks at the budget passed by the North Carolina House, and finds that the amount of tax and fee increases is 2.56 times greater than the amount of spending reductions.

There was a political attempt made by House Democrats to represent this as a "balanced" approach.  But Balfour points out that it is, in fact, out of balance, in favor of tax increases. 

Rick Lazio To Emerge Again?

Newsmax is reporting that former New York Congressman Rick Lazio is planning a run for governor next year.  The current governor, David Patterson, is considered very vulnerable politically at this time.

Recall that Lazio ran for Senate against Hillary Clinton in 2000 after Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the race.  His candidacy imploded when he appeared overbearing with his demeanor toward Hillary during a highly publicized debate.

I find several things interesting regarding this new development.

It has been rumored that Giuliani is also considering a run for governor, so this news raises the question of a primary between the two men.

Lazio appears to be a good man, notwithstanding the error in judgment that he made during the senatorial debate nine years ago.  He is a part of a "tradition" of Republicans of Italian descent from Long Island and Staten Island-- the same tradition from which I myself came, although I have never met Lazio.  His political career began after I moved south, as far as I know. 

One other piece of trivia: "Lazio" is also the name of the region of Italy in which Rome is located.

Keeping One's Own Insurance

Notwithstanding the President's reassurances, one of the key health care bills requires a minimum standard benefit package.  That will raise costs; and force people to pay for things they do not want or need to pay for:

Cops in Black and White, Part LXXIX

Jerry Bledsoe continues to eviscerate the RMA report with his most recent installment.  I will summarize here, but will not attempt to cover all of the details in this segment, many of which have been discussed during previous installments.

Bledsoe's report today focuses on the RMA report's discussion of the various investigations and inquiries into James Hinson's activities.

The following are the false or misleading statements or implications made by the RMA report as reported today by Bledsoe:

1. That Scott Sanders was the primary operative of the "secret police"

2. That Randall Brady and David Wray presided over the "secret police"

3. That James Hinson was relentlessly investigated without cause

4. That Hinson was never a target of a federal investigation

5. That a tracker was placed on Hinson's police vehicle based on "rumor, innuendo and ... frustration" that surveillance of Hinson could not be maintained

6. That Randy Gerringer made an assumption that Hinson was cheating the city when he had difficulty locating him; and that he reported this assumption to special intelligence officers.

7. That Hinson's working off-duty jobs while on duty was a focus of his investigation in the beginning.

8. That the US Attorney's office had investigated Hinson during 2002 and found no evidence against him

9. That special intelligence officers spent 16 months investigating Hinson from 2002-2004 and found no evidence to support criminal charges

10. That Internal Affairs (Ryan Walton) conducted a thorough review of the the criminal investigation of Hinson and found no evidence of administrative rule violations

11. That during meetings with command staff in June, 2005, Wray and Brady failed to notify them of the US Attorney's 2002 investigation and the Internal Affairs review conducted by Ryan Walton

In addition, the RMA report failed to report that Hinson's cell phone numbers had been found in the cell phone of a major drug dealer; and a number of Hinson's other questionable activities.

To read the installment, go here. 

Greensboro City Taxes, Fees and Roads

Two bits of surprising news were in the paper this morning.  First, we learned that Greensboro residents will not face any tax or water fee increase this year.  Second, we learned that Robbie Perkins has maneuvered to use $30 million of transportation bond money for the Urban Loop.

There is something fairly opaque about the city of Greensboro's finances.  Just a couple of weeks ago, we learned from the Rhino that city staff had been obfuscating before the city council in order to justify a water rate increase.  And we also learned that the city has approximately $75-80 million in fund balances-- far above what the law requires.  While this might suggest good stewardship, it also explains why the city manager has had the capability of pulling money out of a hat whenever there might be a desire to fund a pet project.

The huge fund balance led John Hammer to conclude that the city could have given us a significant tax cut.  Mike Barber later echoed this sentiment at the council meeting this week.  And after Hammer's report was published, the City Council dug further-- in spite of staff's efforts to becloud the situation-- and found the water fee increase was unnecessary.

And then, lo and behold, Perkins finds $30 million for the Loop.  It makes one wonder whether it is regarded as a development project-- in spite of the protestations we have recently heard that the city did not mean to withhold information from unsuspecting homebuyers in the vicinity of the now-storied road.

We have traffic back-ups and bottlenecks in various parts of Greensboro.  All that bond money has been sitting around, and has not been used to alleviate those situations.

In any event, I suppose we should count our blessings.  Local taxes are not going up this year.

Addendum: Sam Hieb has more.

Some of the Detestable Aspects of Health Care Reform

Health care reform might sound good to some people.  But one of the sordid aspects of pursuing reform is that Democratic interest groups already appear to be lining up to demand inappropriate considerations.  Some examples:

1. La Raza is demanding that illegal aliens be covered.

2. One of the proposals being circulated is to tax employer-provided health care benefits above a certain threshold value.  But now there is also a proposal to exempt union members and their families from this tax.

3. It is my understanding that there is a possibility that any new plan(s) may be required to cover abortion on demand.  I have read online about language in at least one of the proposals requiring that "family planning services" be covered; and we have to presume that abortion would potentially be a part of that.  Pro-abortion groups were invited to the table when meetings were held regarding health care reform several months ago.  Pro-life groups were not.

This is all awful stuff-- to require that taxpayers and premium payers subsidize the prerogatives of these interest groups; and to demand that they pay for items on which so many folks have basic political or moral disagreements.  But that is one of the prices associated with politicizing health care at the federal level.

What is the Source of the Problem with the Urban Loop Mess?

The News and Record has been running a great series on the Urban Loop mess.  An article on Sunday attempted to discern who is to blame.  The verdict?  An uncoordinated system in which communication fails.

Let's look at one key passage:

So who’s at fault? DOT and city government point to each other as the bulwark against such problems.

“We lean on the city and the county; they get these things (planning updates) and they know what’s coming,” said DOT division engineer Mike Mills. “We depend on them to tell the developers and I’m sure they do tell the developers.”

City officials respond that state DOT controls where the road goes. The city can’t tell a developer not to build simply because DOT knows some additional land will be needed there, they say.

“There are a lot of preliminary things that get kicked around,” said Adam Fischer, acting city transportation director. “We hesitate to make those official, because they are preliminary.”

“We’d hate to tell a property owner, 'Oh, here’s this preliminary plan that’s going to take place,’ ” he said, “when we know full well, from experience that plan could change. And the final design actually may impact him more, it may impact him less, we don’t know.”

Now let us consider all that we have learned about our city government over the last several years.  We know that we have machine government in Greensboro in which the Melderec forces hold considerable sway in conjunction with the Simkins PAC.

Put yourself in the shoes of a city staffer, or even a department head.  Let's say that you learn a major road may be running in the midst of some land that might be suited to development-- or that is in the process of being developed.  How likely is it that you are going to jump up and down, and call for a time-out? 

Remain mindful that development interests have considerable pull at the Melvin Municipal Building.

That staffer or department head is going to think back at the auditor employed by the city who wanted to look at Project Homestead.  He might think about David Wray or Mike Baron-- and contemplate what happened to them.

How likely is it that staffer or department head is going to be sensitized to the need to apply the brakes-- to make sure things are done right-- at the risk of his own neck?  This is one of the corrosive aspects of machine government that, unfortunately, the News and Record did not discuss. 

It seems if you are going to do "analysis" in the news section, you might want to look at the total picture.

The "Right" to Health Insurance

I had the opportunity last night to read a great article co-authored by Lee Kurisko, MD, a Canadian radiologist who moved to the US after years of enduring the system north of the border.  He has some important insights with regard to how socialized medicine affects patient care, and how it compares with the American system-- because he practiced in both environments.

Dr. Kurisko had some particularly good comments regarding the "right" to health care.  This is a concept that is critical to understanding the oncoming blitzkrieg of Obamacare:

The United States is unique among nations in that it was originally based upon the value of individual liberty: freedom from coercion. No individual or government had a presumptive claim to the property or labor of others.

Liberty requires rights. Rights are a just claim to freedom of action. The original rights as recorded were "negative" in that they implied the absence of interference. The only individual obligation was to refrain from interfering with others. In contrast, positive rights impose an obligation for someone to do something for others. The Bill of Rights is a list of negative rights.

A "right to health care" implies that someone has to provide it. But what of the liberty rights of physicians, nurses, and other medical workers? Or the property rights of taxpayers and entrepreneurs? Some rights must be abrogated to meet the demands of a positive right. President Obama and other politicians who call a professional service a "right" do not understand the founding principles of the United States.

Over the last couple of weeks, some great questions have been raised about the defects in the various proposals to bring more socialism to American medicine.  It appears some in Congress are expressing serious misgivings about what is being proposed-- at least preliminarily.  

Jim Geraghty has provided some analysis about some of the Democratic senators who have expressed various doubts.  He does not discuss Kay Hagan-- and we will talk about her on another day. 

But it is clear that delivering on a putative "right" to health care is turning out to be a bit more complicated than it otherwise might seem.

 

Health Care Cooperatives

One of the new buzzwords in the debate regarding health care reform is the formation of non-profit "co-ops" as an alternative to a new public plan.  Michael Tanner of Cato has some observations:

A closer look suggests that the only thing intriguing about the co-op alternative is whether it is a completely meaningless construct or simply camouflage for the “Public Plan” option...

Supporters of government-run health care have no intention of letting the co-ops be independent enterprises that operate by the same rules as other insurers. This is not really about creating more choices and competition. In fact, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) makes it clear, for example, that the co-op's officers and directors would be appointed by the president and Congress. He insists that there be a single national co-op. And Congress would set the rules under which it operates. As Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) says, "It's got to be written in a way that accomplishes the objectives of a public option."

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks likes a duck, it’s probably a duck...

If a "co-op" is run by the federal government under rules imposed by the federal government with funding provided by the federal government, it’s simply government-run health insurance by another name. Opponents of a government takeover of the health care system should not be fooled.