Guarino

Let Them Eat Cake

Kevin Siers, Charlotte Observer:

We Should Have Known About the Easley's

Sam Hieb points out that Paul Chesser, formerly with Carolina Journal, previously reported on and warned about former Governor Mike Easley-- on the basis of a number of campaign irregularities that occurred about nine years ago.

And John Hammer expands further on the topic with a major indictment of our state's mainstream media:

The editors at every major newspaper in the state knew that Easley was getting special deals on his real estate purchases and remodeling jobs for his vacation homes and that his wife's job at NC State was not on the up and up. They also knew that Easley was using state helicopters and airplanes for personal travel, as well as being flown all over the state by folks to whom he didn't make monetary payments but did appoint to powerful positions in state government.

All the editors knew this because the Carolina Journal, which we insert in The Rhino Times the first week of every month, had the story...

The editors of the mainstream dailies all knew, but they didn't print anything about it. Why is that? Why weren't the mainstream newspapers interested in printing stories about a corrupt governor? The answer is simple. Easley is a Democrat. If Easley had been caught up in a scandal last year, which was an election year, the election in North Carolina would have almost certainly turned out differently. Beverly Perdue would not be governor because Pat McCrory would have whipped her soundly, if it had been reported that the governor while she served as lieutenant governor might be going to jail. Not only that but it probably would have affected the presidential race as well. It is unlikely that President Barack Hussein Obama would have carried North Carolina if Easley had been led off the podium at some political event in handcuffs.

The major dailies all knew what was going on in Raleigh, but they put their political interests in front of the people's right to know. The mainstream media knew that the governor was using his office for personal gain, but they also knew that if they reported that fact that their buddies in the Democratic Party would probably not win.

Class Size, Budgets and Taxes in Guilford County and the state of North Carolina

Class size in public schools has been a hot topic of late.  Budgetary pressures at the county and state levels of government have prompted consideration as to whether class size should be increased to provide economies for taxpayers.  Standard class size is now 20 in our public schools. 

There was recently a meeting between Alan Duncan, our school board chairman, and our county commissioners, many of whom have been working in a determined fashion to prevent a tax increase to Guilford County property owners.  A discussion took place that reveals much about the state of the dialogue on this particular issue:

Duncan put his comments to the commissioners in the context of the cuts in state funding this year. He said some of the numbers he's seeing tossed around in Raleigh regarding education funding are very scary.

"The latest numbers are, quite frankly, catastrophic in nature," Duncan said.

Duncan also said the county's school system may have to raise the average number of students in classrooms by two students per class. (Duncan did not bring up the point but it stands to reason that could lead to a need for fewer classrooms.)

That comment brought about perhaps the tensest moment of the afternoon: when Commissioner Kirk Perkins questioned if that was really such a big deal. There were audible gasps from some school board members in the room and some inaudible comments by other school officials.

Perkins shot back, "I'm just asking a question – if ya'll want to moan and groan, I think that's disrespectful."

This week Perkins said he thought it was a good question, and he said that, though he's not an expert in education, he grew up in classrooms where the number of students was significantly larger than it is now, and, he said, he didn't see it as such a detriment to his education.

Duncan's comments, of course, were quite foolish.  Suggesting that an increase in class size of two students would be "catastrophic" is very revealing with respect to his political worldview and sympathies.

Red Clay addressed the topic of class size in a recent post.  Bob Luebke, the author of the post, points out that the North Carolina Association of Educators (NCAE) represented budget cuts causing an increase in class size of two students to be "the end of the world as we know it."

It is interesting that both Duncan and NCAE both felt the need to adopt almost apocalyptic language and representations in order to advance their point of view, and dramatize their desire to protect educational budgets.  But Luebke points out that research does not demonstrate conclusively that relatively minor variations in class size make much of a difference with respect to educational outcomes.

Those promoting the "sky-is-falling" approach to public budget discussions appear to be winning, at least in Raleigh.  This has resulted in some interesting charges and countercharges.

Republicans and conservatives claim that state Democrats initially proposed a series of cuts that would elicit the most public outrage so that the state would then be "forced" to raise taxes.  And Democrats charged that too many Republicans opposed budget cuts in committee proceedings-- as if the Republicans have any level of control over the outcome (which they do not).

John Hood states the following:

A better alternative would have been to fashion a serious no-new-taxes budget, a plan truly designed to fund the highest priorities of North Carolina government with available revenues. The House plan was really a scheme to scare moderate lawmakers and the general public into accepting higher taxes.

And he points out that the tax increases the House is contemplating will place us among a small group of states with the highest income taxes in the nation;  and damage the state's competitiveness in the long run.

Don't expect Alan Duncan or the North Carolina Association of Educators to express concern about that.
 

Addendum: The House passed its tax-increase budget early this morning.

More PJTV

I have really come to enjoy a couple of the video commentators on PJTV.   They weave imagery with their audio commentary in a very skillful, entertaining, informative manner.

Sonja Schmidt speaks about Michelle Obama and the adoration she has received from the media.  She also discusses the newfound sense of humor we now see among the political left, even though it may sometimes be just a tad inappropriate. 

Andrew Klavan, meanwhile, discusses bumper-sticker anti-war slogans. 

I hope you enjoy them also.

A Great Talk on the Health Care Debate

Betsy McCaughey recently gave an excellent presentation on the debate regarding health care reform.  It comes in three segments.  All those interested in the topic will find it illuminating.

She offers in the third part an interesting proposal for the states to issue debit cards to enable the uninsured to purchase health insurance:

The AMA's Dance on Health Care Reform

The AMA, which previously has expressed support for universal coverage, this week came out in opposition to the public insurance option sought by Obama.  The AMA's approach in recent years has been to make whatever compromises are needed to retain its "seat at the table" in Washington.  The news this week probably surprised many physicians, including myself.  Here is some analysis and reaction:
 

Cops in Black and White, Part 78

The Bledsoe series continues in the Rhino Times today, and I am providing a brief summary.  In this segment, Jerry Bledsoe analyzes the RMA Report's discussion of the monitoring and the investigations of James Hinson.  Most of the details on these matters have been reported at length in other segments, and we won't repeat these.

The RMA Report failed to provide much of the disconcerting background information regarding Hinson's activities and his employment history with the police department.  In addition, it failed to note some of the legitimate reasons David Wray and his men felt Hinson had to be watched-- including the fact that his phone numbers were found in the cell phone of two drug dealers-- the latter of which, in 2005, was "Fat Sean" Watson.

The RMA presented some false innuendo regarding the reasons James Hinson was assigned to the HELP Program intended to deal with prostitution.  Key facts were not reported or were reported incorrectly regarding the context for this assignment.  The facts regarding Hinson's work with the program also were not reported correctly.

RMA misreported and dismissed as "insinuations' against Hinson certain command-level decisions involving "matters of fact that raised internal concerns within the Police Department".  It falsely reported Scott Sanders was assigned to investigate Hinson in 2005 because of these insinuations.  Instead, Sanders got involved because of the Sean Watson cell phone discovery.  Another false report was that Sanders was approached by Randy Gerringer to place a tracker on Hinson's police car.  Instead, Gerringer suggested that to Tom Fox.

The RMA report falsely reported that the tracker had not been placed on Hinson's police car due to any multi-agency organized crime investigation, even though David Wray previously asserted it had been.  In fact, Gerringer had been asked to track Hinson in response to the revelation regarding Sean Watson's cell phone-- and Watson had, in fact, been arrested in connection with a federal drug task force investigation.

Oppose the State Tax Hikes

Citizens need to let their legislators know of their displeasure with the proposed tax and fee increases associated with the new House budget proposal. 

A website has been developed to assist with this task.  Go here, and let your legislators know of your opposition.

The Way Health Care Reform is Taking Shape, Part 2

Sally Pipes:

(T)he main cost-control idea, other than government-imposed price controls, is a return to HMO-style managed care. They aren’t calling it this, of course. When mentioned, it’s referred to as “coordinated care” or even the welcoming “medical home.” There is sometimes discussion of capitation-reimbursing a practicing physician a fixed amount, per patient, rather than paying for work actually done. Every once in a while the virtue of Kaiser or the Veterans Administration arises.

Make no mistake, they are talking about a new version of the old-style staff-model HMOs, in which each person has a dollar amount attached and the primary care doctor has a financial stake in limiting the intensity of services used.  In other words, the less expensive care patients receive, the more money physician groups or hospitals make or the government saves. The gatekeeper’s job is to keep patients away from the more expensive specialists by steering them to lower-priced alternatives...

It might appear odd then that Democratic Congress members would push right back to where we started. Yet they have no choice. If expensive healthcare coverage is to be expanded to millions of Americans who do not have it, the money must come from somewhere: new taxes, fewer services for those currently insured, less money per patient for physicians and hospitals, or some combination.

Bill Knight, Mayoral Candidate

Bill Knight formally announced his candidacy for mayor yesterday.  I was unable to attend, but Tony and Sam have some details.  Bill's campaign website is here. 

Long-time readers will recall that I promoted Bill's candidacy during the 2006 City Council election season.  I had circulated questionnaires to all the candidates; and Bill's responses suggested to me he that he would be right on most of the issues.  I subsequently got to know Bill, learned of his background, and became convinced he would be great for the city of Greensboro.

Bill has just circulated a letter regarding his candidacy, which I am taking the liberty of republishing here:

June 1, 2009

To my fellow Greensboro citizens, friends and colleagues:

After careful consideration I have decided to seek the office of Mayor of the City of Greensboro in the 2009 fall election.  Greensboro has been my lifelong home, where I attended school, built a business and raised a family: now I want to use my experience and business skills to help restore leadership that I find missing in the halls of city government.    

As the next Mayor of Greensboro I intend on leading the new City Council in addressing some of the issues the current council either ignores or has failed to address.  Important issues that new leadership will be able to take in hand include:

Crime and public safety
Job creation and positive economic development
Control of increased spending, taxes and fees
Restoration of honesty, integrity and accountability to city government
Effective representation and action on the concerns of all citizens

You have choices in the coming election for mayor:  if you think the incumbent mayor is taking Greensboro in the right direction you can vote to give her another term; or, if you think city government needs new leadership and new direction, you should vote for me.  I intend on building a leadership team that will go to work on the most pressing issues before us and deliver results – something lacking over the past few years.     

I hope you will consider supporting me through your financial contributions and word of mouth, and promise to send emails to your friends and associates.  Both of these are critical to my success in winning the election. This will be a tough campaign, but by working together we can succeed and watch Greensboro go forward

Respectfully,

Bill Knight
Candidate for Mayor
City of Greensboro, North Carolina 

Conservative NC Update

The Conservative NC website has a new look.  Check it out.

Congratulations to the organizers of this site for this upgrade, and for having such an impact statewide.

Has the Stimulus Worked Yet?

(HT: Fred)

The "New" News and Record

Although I was disappointed to learn of the business decision to slim down the local daily, I have not been entirely unhappy with the outcome.  In some respects, the News and Record is now a better paper. 

Although I have not analyzed this arithmetically, it seems a higher proportion of the articles in the News and Record are "straight news".   There is less fluff--- less soft, feature-driven news.  And there are seemingly fewer agenda-driven, commentariat-inspired pieces in the news section.  Although the paper is not as thick as it used to be, what remains seems better on average than what we used to have.

John Robinson outlined this past weekend the "watchdog' stories the paper has recently pursued.  While it is good that the paper is doing some original reporting, I could not help but note that, of the seven areas discussed, four included stories that raised red flags for the populace about impending cuts in governmental spending.

There was not nearly as much enthusiasm devoted to the cause of reducing the amounts that taxpayers are forced to to pay state and local government.  The inclination seems to be toward protecting governmental spending-- and against reductions in spending.

Hagan and Sotomayor

Matthew Bales discusses Senator Kay Hagan's support of Obama Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor.

He points out that a recent poll suggests North Carolinians oppose this nomination; so Hagan's support of Sotomayor is not consistent with the desires of the state's citizens.

Bales further reminds us that Hagan made a campaign pledge in favor of gun rights. He points out, however, that Sotomayor's jurisprudence has not always supported second amendment rights.

Raleigh Tax-and-Spend

Tom Campbell, on the state House plan for tax increases:

Were it not for the pain that would be caused to so many it would be good to let lawmakers stew in this pot they created. But if they are going to sell this plan to us as the best solution I, for one, want to hear legislative leaders tell me two things. First, they have learned the lessons from years of piling on new and expanded programs without ever seriously reducing or eliminating older and out-of-date programs. They should own up to the fact that they just cannot continue to increase the size and cost of government with no accountability to us who pay for it. And, most importantly, they  should pledge they are going to change the budget process;  they are going to return to the days of zero-based budgeting where every program comes under the microscope on a regular basis to determine how effective and valuable it is. There is waste, duplication and inefficiency in government but you can’t find it when you aren’t looking and across the board cuts are a lazy man’s way out of budget problems.

No, the part that angers me is that we have been jerked around, much like a puppet. It feels like this was part of a carefully scripted play, a drama in which the outcome was predetermined.

The Way Health Care Reform Is Taking Shape

Over the last couple of weeks, we have been given an indication of the shape that health care reform might be taking as it works its way through the legislative process.  For those of us concerned about socializing our medical care to a much greater extent, it is a sobering exercise to review what is being advocated.

I will discuss these components individually.  And I will also discuss how they compare with Obama's campaign statements. 

There are a couple of source documents to which I would like to refer that document where health care reform seems to be leading.  First, there is a letter from Obama himself.  Second, a policy analysis published by Tanner reveals the likely details, and their impacts.  We will discuss them individually:

1. An employer mandate-- During the campaign, my recollection is that Obama did not initially advocate this measure, but one day in the middle of the campaign it popped up on his website.  Tanner points out that this is a "disguised tax on employment".  It will result in higher prices, lower wages, or decreased levels of employment.  An employer mandate also locks us into the existing employer-sponsored system of insurance, which has contributed so severely to health care inflation and higher insurance costs.  Any mandate must carry a penalty for noncompliance.  How severe should that be-- to the point of driving an employer out of business?

2. An individual mandate-- Obama opposed requiring individuals to buy insurance during the campaign, but he is now open to it; and congressional Democrats are proposing it.  Of course, this is a hefty tax on individuals.  The question is, of course, how it would be enforced, and what the penalties would be.  Ultimately, an individual mandate almost forces subsidies for a public insurance option for those who cannot afford the premiums.  Mandates also will compel the federal government to define a minimum benefit package.  When this is politicized, it will raise costs for everyone; and force more people toward the public insurance plan.  Finally, there will be many people who evade the requirement.

3. The public insurance plan--  Obama has always wanted this.  This plan would inevitably be subsidized by the taxpayers or propped up by the treasury; and would also have preferred rates from providers.  It therefore likely would enjoy a competitive price advantage over other types of insurance.  Individuals and even employers would then be tempted to forsake private insurance in favor of the public plan.

4. Comparative effectiveness research and cost-effectiveness research-- These ultimately lead to governmental rationing of health care. 

5. Elimination of the pre-existing conditions problem--  There is a desire to make it mandatory for insurers to grant everyone insurance, and to employ "community rating" so that people are not penalized for pre-existing conditions.  This would make insurance less affordable, and cause more people (and more employers) to check out of the system.  It would raise insurance costs for those who are more healthy.  It could also lead insurers to favor the healthy over those with chronic disease from the standpoint of benefits.

6. Subsidies for the Middle Class-- Inexpensive, subsidized public options would provide the middle class with insurance.  This would have various nefarious effects on the habits of people; but also would tend to crowd out private insurance.  It would be yet more income redistribution.

7. Greater use of technology--This will not remotely deliver all that has been promised recently.  And the government's involvement warrants grave concern.

Obama demagogued John McCain during one of the presidential debates, and misrepresented the McCain proposal to tax employer-sponsored health insurance benefits (in conjunction with a tax credit).  Now, the Democrats are looking at this type of approach; but it is questionable as to whether it will be included in any final plan because Democrats to some extent have a vested interest in employer-sponsored insurance.

There are also questions about how this all will be paid for.  It will be very expensive unless rationing and diminished access to care hold down costs tremendously.

Obama wants to limit tax deductions for those with higher incomes-- which would represent yet another tax increase on that group-- but Capitol Hill is not readily buying into that option.  Governmentally-imposed rationing and diminished access to care might control systemic costs in the long run.  But Obama and the Democrats ultimately are also looking to tax increases to pay the bills.

This is an exceedingly difficult topic.  Every seemingly well-intended idea offered by the Democrats will trigger certain complications and unintended consequences.  I do not know whether Obama will slam this through the Congress with his supermajority; or if objections to the fine print will cause mutiny among his own ranks.

But it  would be far better to restore a competitive, free market based on individual choice by dealing directly with the primary causes of health cost inflation-- third party coverage, first dollar coverage, and the phenomenon of structuring insurance to insulate individuals and families from the cost of their care.

Mayor Johnson's Handling of White Street Landfill Protestors

Hammer:

A group of about 50 people, who said they lived around the landfill, attended the meeting and many spoke about the need to keep the landfill closed. It was one of the rudest groups that has attended a meeting in some time. The members of this group talked constantly while councilmembers were speaking or asking questions, and they called out frequently when they agreed or disagreed with a statement. Mayor Yvonne Johnson could have helped matters greatly by using her gavel, or at the very least asking people to be polite. Johnson is not so hesitant to ask people to be polite when she doesn't agree with them, but she agreed with this crowd, so she allowed them to catcall, talk and make it difficult for others in the audience to hear what was being said by the white members of the City Council.

One of Greensboro's Options With the Dept. of Justice Investigations

Fight back, like Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  (HT: Fred)

State of North Carolina Tax Increases

Here are the possible damages, as envisioned by the Democrats in Raleigh:

1. The sales tax increases an additional 0.25%, and covers more items

2. Income taxes increase an additional 0.5% for those earning more than $200,000; and an additional 0.75% for those earning more than $500,000.

3. The cigarette tax increases $0.25 per pack.

4. Alcohol taxes increase.

5. Other assorted taxes and fees increase.

These are all proposals from the state House.  But in addition, we have:

6. The gas tax, which was scheduled to decrease by two cents, is now being kept higher.  This is a virtual certainty to occur, because both houses have passed it.

Our own sweet Alma Adams is quoted in Mark Binker's article advocating tax increases for North Carolina families in the midst of a recession.  But the role of Pricey Harrison in leading the charge for these tax increases, as revealed by NC Spin last week, is not reported in the News and Record as far as I can tell. 

The income tax hike on higher wage earners would be in addition to the tax increases for higher wage earners at the federal level.  It will be yet another signal to prospective employers to stay away from North Carolina.

The state Democratic establishment appears to have little insight into the folly of its own ways.  Perhaps they need to consider collectively why our state is doing so poorly during this recession compared with other states.

These tax increases, even though they are quite predictable given the nature of our representation in Raleigh, need to be defeated. 

Update: Earl Jones thinks taxes should be pushed even higher than the House is proposing.  He wants to emulate Barack Obama's approach to stimulating the economy here at the state level.  Amazing.

New Health Care Ad