|
Crowley: Tim Crowley
Vajda: Eszter Vajda
Henry: Johanna Henry
Jones: Marilyn Jones, Peek Creek Resident
Smathers: Pat Smathers, Candon Mayor
Beatty: Bryan Beatty, Sec., Dept. Crime Control & Public Safety
Nesbitt: Rep. Martin Nesbitt, [D] Buncombe County
Gillespie: Rep. Mitch Gillespie, [R] McDowell County
Troxler: Steve Troxler, NC Agriculture Commissioner
Miller: Rep. Paul Miller, [D] Durham County
Forrester: Sen. Jim Forrester, [R] Gaston County
Albertson: Sen. Charlie Albertson, [D] Duplin County
Boseman: Sen. Julia Boseman, [D] New Hanover County
Sauls: Rep. John Sauls, [R] Lee County
Brock: Sen. Andrew Brock, [R] Davie County
Basnight: Sen. Marc Basnight, [D] President Pro-Tempore
Black: Rep. Jim Black, [D] Speaker of the House
Apodaca: Sen. Tom Apodaca, [R] Deputy Republican Whip
Allen: Robert Allen, Lottery Supporter
Mills: David Mills, Common Sense Foundation
Frowner: James Frowner, Lottery Supporter
McKenzie: Johnsie McKensie, Lottery Ticket Salesperson
Staley: Jerry Staley, Lottery Supporter
Lee: Howard Lee, Chairman of the State Board of Education
Rustin: John Rustin, N.C. Family Policy Council
Wiley: Rep. Laura Wiley, [R] Guilford County
Folwell: Rep. Dale Folwell, [R] Forsyth County
Goodwin: Rep. Melanie Wade Goodwin, [D] Richmond County
Wilkins: Rep. Winkie Wilkins, [D] Person County
Rand: Sen. Tony Rand, [D] Majority Leader
Berger: Sen. Phil Berger, [R] Minority Leader
Bolton: Kerra Bolton, Asheville Citizen-Times
Dyer: Eric Dyer, Greensboro News and Record
Schreiner:Mark Schreiner, Wilmington Star-News
Narrator: Coming up: Will western counties flooded last fall get some financial relief? We will have an update. And some lawmakers think this year is the right time to take a chance on a statewide lottery. Plus, a number of controversial bills have already been filed this session. We will let you know how these could affect you. That and more coming up next.
[THEME MUSIC]
Voiceover: This program was made possible by contributions to UNC-TV from viewers like you. Thank you.
[THEME MUSIC]
Crowley: Good evening everyone. I'm Tim Crowley.
Vajda: And I'm Eszter Vajda. Thanks so much for joining us. State lawmakers and the governor's office are trying to hammer out the components of a flood aid package for communities damaged last fall. We have the latest details.
Crowley: Tonight we take an in-depth look at a proposed state lottery. While some residents are crossing the border to play and those who are trying to keep the game out of North Carolina. Orientation is also a rite of passage for freshmen lawmakers. We will talk to some of them about their experience.
Vajda: But we begin on an update on the flood aid package.
[BEGIN TOP STORY SEGMENT - FLOOD RELIEF]
Vajda: Last fall's hurricane season took a tremendous toll on western North Carolina communities. This week residents and officials converged on the capitol to ask lawmakers for help. Several options are on the table, but the amount of money and the source are still up in the air.
Hurricanes Ivan and Frances hit with a powerful punch, leaving communities in shambles.
Jones: This is our house before, and this is what it looks like after.
Vajda: Marilyn Jones says she will never forget the day Frances arrived. It was September 16th. Rain had been falling all day. Jones was home with her husband when they heard a loud roar.
Jones: We saw this wall coming at us which was trees and debris from homes that had come apart above us and I was scared to death and I was screaming.
Vajda: Jones and her husband ran. When they returned the next day, they found the house they built and lived in for thirty years had been toppled.
Jones: Oh, I was devastated. It looked like a bomb had dropped on us.
Vajda: Jones is among the thousands of people who had their homes destroyed or damaged because of the hurricanes. But it wasn't only homes. Businesses, government offices, roads and fields were destroyed. Canton Mayor Pat Smathers says residents are still recovering after what he calls a hydraulic tornado swept through town.
Smathers: We have damage of $9 million to town facilities.
Vajda: Both Smathers and Jones received small sums of money from FEMA, nowhere near what is actually needed. At the state level, Governor Easley allotted about $90 million in December to help victims of the floods. But both Jones and Smathers say more needs to be done. How much more? Some estimate over $300 million from both federal and state funding.
Nesbitt: We just really do need some help and we needed it yesterday.
Vajda: At a hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Hurricane Relief, officials laid out the extent of that need. Bryan Beatty, state secretary of crime control and public safety, says five months after the disaster, local and state personnel are still recovering and rebuilding damaged areas.
Beatty: Well, we have really worked around the clock for the past several months in trying to provide assistance to assess the damage, determine exactly what was needed, then now to look at, scrub the numbers, make sure that we are not duplicating any of the efforts or wasting taxpayer dollars.
Vajda: Senator Martin Nesbitt has introduced the Hurricane Recovery Act of 2005. The bill would transfer $225,000 from the state's emergency savings account, or rainy day fund, to help hurricane-impacted communities.
Nesbitt: In essence we've got to help these people with a hand up, not a handout. We don't want-they can't make everything all right. We are not asking to put everybody back where they were, but just give them a little bit of help to get them up and going.
Vajda: Representative Mitch Gillespie introduced a similar bill in the House.
Gillespie: Well, we need to act down here as fast as possible and go ahead and get a hurricane relief package out to help western North Carolina. We have been sitting out there in the west for five months now waiting for something to be done.
Vajda: Earlier there was talk from Democrats in the House of Representatives of a temporary half-cent sales tax increase to pay for hurricane relief. Representative Gillespie says that although mountain communities need help now, he would vote against any bill that would include a tax hike.
Gillespie: All we want to do is raise taxes to help us with our budget problems down here and it is not about helping western North Carolina. Of course, we are going to get our money for that, but they just want to raise additional tax revenue to use for the rest of State government.
Vajda: Meanwhile, Governor Easley is asking the General Assembly to approve $61 million from the rainy day fund. That on top of the $90 million he already secured. It is a sum substantially less than what House and Senate members are proposing. But after the inadequate amount she received from the federal government, Marilyn Jones says the State is her only hope.
Jones: I am very disappointed. I didn't know anything about FEMA but I have learned a lot. That we cannot rely on that.
Vajda: Jones and the thousands of others across the State are now relying on the State government to follow-through and not let them down.
Since 1999 six hurricanes have blown through North Carolina. One official says the State has had more natural disasters in the past six years than any other state.
Crowley: The state has a new commissioner of agriculture. Friday the State Board of Elections certified Republican Steve Troxler the winner. The Democratic challenger Brit Cobb through a letter conceded the race. Troxler says he is ready for the challenge.
Troxler: I think it will enable us to go through a smooth transition now into the department and do what I have always wanted to do and that is work for citizens of North Carolina and the people in agriculture and agribusiness in this state.
Crowley: The race for Agriculture Commissioner has been tied up in the courts and at the Board of Elections after more than 4,000 votes were lost on election day in Carteret County. Troxler had a more than 2,000 vote lead. There is one statewide race that is still undecided, the superintendent of public instruction race is still in the courts.
Vajda: A number of high profile and controversial pieces of legislation have already been filed in the House and Senate in the opening days of session. Representative Paul Miller has introduced two of those. One would raise taxes on a cigarette to six cents. That would mean that tax on a pack of cigarettes would go from a nickel to $1.20. Miller says that with two half-cent taxes expiring on June 30th, the state needs to raise more revenue.
Miller: I think with the tobacco buyout program and with the fact that a lot of the health costs that we have to bear as a state are due to smoking, I think it is a fair way to in fact try to get revenue in for the state.
Vajda: Funds from Miller's proposed tax increase would pay for public health costs in the state.
Representative Miller also introduced a bill that would place a moratorium on executions. Miller says in recent years there have been several cases where prisoners on death row have been exonerated. He says the state needs to take a break and study the issues concerning the death penalty.
Miller: I think we have a good chance of having this type of legislation pass. I think that there is a lot of understanding in the House that, whether you are for or against the death penalty, the last thing you want is someone to be put on death row that was not guilty of the crime.
Vajda: A similar bill passed in the Senate last session but never was voted on in the House.
Crowley: President Bush during his State of the Union address this week called on a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Some Republicans want North Carolina to join 11 other states to accept a constitutional amendment that states marriage is between one man and one woman. North Carolina has a law stating that already, but supporters of a constitutional amendment say this step needs to be taken.
Forrester: Eleven other states passed constitutional amendments as you know in November of this year to protect marriage between one man and one woman and I think we ought to have a constitutional amendment so if it is challenged in the courts, then they cannot rule it unconstitutional.
Crowley: Democratic leadership in the House say a constitutional amendment isn't needed since the state law is already in place.
[BEGIN SEGMENT - BILLS]
Crowley: At least one Senator wants the video poker industry to fold in North Carolina. Senator Charlie Albertson has filed a bill again to ban video poker except on federally-recognized Indian reservations. The Senate has adopted a ban in the past but it has stalled in the House.
Albertson: I guess we've learned again just keep trying and we might have some success before it is over with. I still believe strongly in the fact that we ought to ban these machines from our State because law enforcement has requested it very strongly and I want to be on that side if I can.
Crowley: A similar bill has been filed in the House but some House leaders say they would prefer stricter regulations of the industry than a complete ban.
Vajda: One of the first bills filed in the Senate would make it a misdemeanor for a person to sell, rent, or distribute a violent or obscene video game to kids under 18. Games that show dismemberment, death, and aggravated assault would be included. The bill's sponsor says parents need this tool.
Boseman: I think parents have had enough, that they shouldn't have to put up with it and parents need really good tools to help make decisions for their children. They need this tool in place so that they can tell if some of these video games may be inappropriate. It is not a censorship by any means. We just want to make it a little better and protect the children of North Carolina.
Vajda: The measure would also require video game retailers to inform consumers that a video game rating system is available.
Crowley: Some lawmakers want their terms in office to be longer under legislation filed in the House. Representative Stephen LaRoque and John Sauls introduced a bill to amend the state's constitution to extend representatives' terms from two to four years. Saul says this way representatives can better serve their constituents instead of campaigning so much.
Sauls: My constituents tell me it is ridiculous when they see me campaigning and then a year later we are siding up to run again. It is a two-year term, so you have one year that you are campaigning, you get elected, you have one year that you serve.
Crowley: Sauls says the reason he feels the bill was not passed in the past is because legislators fear it will be perceived that a longer term is self-serving. By the way, a bill to make Senate terms four years has been introduced in that chamber.
A bill filed this week would make the presidential primary in North Carolina earlier. Typically the presidential primary is held in May. The bill would make the new date in February. Supporters say it would bring in a lot of money to the state and make North Carolina more of a player on the national scene.
Brock: We may have two individuals or more that could be on the ticket next time around, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side. And I think it would be a good position for North Carolina if we could be the state with the largest population with the earliest primary.
Crowley: Supporters of the measure are touting it as an economic tool since candidates and the media would spend a lot of money in the state during that time period.
Vajda: Two other bills filed this week would cap certain jury awards and medical malpractice lawsuits and would cut in half the number of Council State seats selected by voters. The sponsor of the Torte Reform Bill says limiting the jury awards in malpractice suits would be the most effective way to reduce insurance premiums for doctors. But opponents of the caps cite a recent report by the North Carolina Bar Association that found a cap wouldn't do much in the state. Tim?
Crowley: The other bill would cut the number of Council of State members elected every four years to five from the current ten. The bill's sponsor says the protracted fight over the state superintendent and agriculture commissioner elections prompted the legislation. Under the bill voters would chose only the governor, lieutenant governor, state auditor and state treasurer as well as the attorney general. The others would be appointed by the governor.
The organization that bills itself as the state's Chamber of Commerce held its annual legislative conference this week. North Carolina Citizens for Business and Industry hosted lawmakers and other officials at the event. The group focused on economic development and heard from state legislative leaders like Senate President Pro-Tem Marc Basnight who spoke about the challenges of the General Assembly.
Basnight: Without your help, we can't succeed. You see failure among two people and they separate, they can't live together. You see churches divide. So, I want you to understand how difficult it is for people from diverse backgrounds, different views, and different dreams try to conclude this job of managing your money and making law in a very short period of time. And a very small reward. A very small reward, other than the satisfaction that you may glean out of what you accomplished.
Crowley: Speaker Jim Black also addressed the conference. He says the best way to improve the State's economy is by improving the State's education system.
Black: The best way that we can get companies to come to North Carolina is to improve education, our community colleges and our universities, our K-12, and to let them know that we are ready to train and retrain workers and we are open for business. We do need some tax policy reform in North Carolina, but everybody seems to be willing to cut a tax but nobody seems to be willing to replace it with anything and you cannot educate children, build roads, and have safe neighborhoods without some revenue.
Crowley: Republican leaders also got the chance to speak with business leaders and others in the group. Senator Tom Apodaca asked the majority party to listen to good ideas from Republicans and offered up these proposals.
Apodaca: Our proposals will include lower business taxes, tax credits for small business, and a reduction in the personal income tax rates. These ideas are proposed with one idea in mind, a better business climate for North Carolina that produces good jobs and additional tax revenues.
Crowley: NC CBI is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with about 2,000 member companies.
Vajda: The state treasurer's office is suggesting that North Carolina limit additional borrowing for the next three years if it wants to maintain fiscal health when it comes to debt. The treasurer's annual debt affordability study shows the state's debt level remains favorable to other similarly situated states. Treasurer Richard Moore recommends considering a cap on debt service of 4¾% of the state's budget.
Crowley: The dropout rate for North Carolina junior high and high schools rose slightly in the 2003-2004 school year for students in grades 7-12. The rate was 3.29% during the last school year, up from 3.23% the previous year. The vast majority dropped out during their high school years.
Vajda: Governor Easley's campaign is giving back an $8,000 donation from a Charlotte businessman who says he is puzzled about the fuss over his contribution. The controversy may stem over the business. The contributor, David "Slim" Balkum, runs 17 topless clubs, 12 of which are in North Carolina. Balkum says he doesn't see the problem since politicians also take money from hog farmers, drug and tobacco companies.
Crowley: Many around the legislative building are betting this is the year to pass a lottery. The issue has passed the Senate but has never passed in the House. With the Democrat majority in both chambers this session and a few members changing their position on a state lottery, at least one education official says the state lottery is closer than it ever has been. In fact, at least one lottery bill has already been filed. Johanna Henry followed some North Carolinians determined to strike it big.
[BEGIN SEGMENT - LOTTERY]
Henry: North Carolinian Robert Allen plays the South Carolina lottery because he says it is a challenge, it is fun, and he has a chance of winning. He and others here say it is high time they be allowed to play in their own state.
Allen: North Carolina is the wrong state to be patronizing. I like the weather, the location, but the politicians are still fifteen years behind the times.
Mills: The fact that it is voluntary is really beside the point because the state is engaging in this kind of directed, targeted advertising trying to encourage poor people to make bad decisions. It is that business that the state gets into that is very different and that makes it irrelevant the fact that it is voluntary.
Henry: David Mills runs the Common Sense Foundation, a liberal think tank that finds itself joining conservative groups against a state lottery. They say a state-run lottery is different than other vices left up to citizens.
Mills: Why doesn't state government open its own Café Risque right down here on Jones Street? Why aren't the Legislators running some kind of striptease. I mean, it is absurd. I don't think it is something people would want to see necessarily, but it is a type of thing that really shows why state government should not be in that business. The question of whether that business ought to exist is something else entirely, and those businesses do exist in North Carolina and they do make money and they encourage people to make probably decisions that are not in their long-term best interest, but they do exist. And the difference is the state is not supporting them, the state is not running their business, the state is not profiting from their business.
Henry: But folks here at Ruby's on the South Carolina border say they resent legislators and lobbyists trying to save them from themselves.
Allen: If you are poor, you are going to take a chance to be un-poor. And if you are not going to buy milk, you are not going to buy milk. Whether you are poor or rich.
Frowner: Look at the other states. If this is the case, we are no different than the other, you know, the other 49 states. They have poor people, too. And they have lotteries, too. And they are playing and you don't see anybody complaining and whining about that. So, I mean, I tend to disagree with the statement that it, you know, it is going to hurt poor people. It is not.
McKenzie: I think they can afford it. I don't see anybody in here spending their grocery money, the house rent, or anything like that.
Henry: Here at Ruby's, 99% of the traffic is from North Carolina, customers who say they had rather their lottery money go to North Carolina's education system.
Staley: You can go to any lottery store that is close to the state line and the majority of the license plates are North Carolina plates.
Henry: Governor Mike Easley has campaigned on the issue of lottery money for education, for college scholarships, early childhood at-risk programs, and other projects.
Lee: This to me is a supplement, not an actual base of funds we should depend on.
Henry: Chairman of the State Board of Education Howard Lee says a statewide lottery would bring cushion money, funds that could be used to ease tight spots in the budget. But those against the lottery say any money gained would be offset by a reduction in tax money now given to the Department of Public Instruction.
Mills: It is just moving money around. It is a game that most state legislatures are playing with lottery money, and that means there is no real increase in education funding.
Henry: But Chairman Lee says North Carolina can learn from other states, especially California, and ensure the overall education budget increases.
Lee: I am hopeful, based on what Governor Easley is saying, that we will have legislation to guard against that. I know that bill drafters in the past have been very concerned that we create such strong legislation that there will not be the opportunity for future legislators to come and make those kind of adjustments.
Henry: As for the argument that a lottery takes money from its poorest citizens and gives it back to those less poor in the form of college scholarships, Lee says just the opportunity to get a college education does benefit the poor, even if they aren't the only recipients of lottery scholarships.
Lee: I think the problem poor people have, in having once been poor myself, is finding hope between where they are and where they would like to be. If somebody waves a golden ring and says you grab it and you can go far, there is more motivation to work hard to grab that ring than if somebody is continuously waving a rusty spoon in front of you and saying, "Maybe some day you'll get something to eat."
Henry: So how much would North Carolina make in a state lottery? It is hard to put a number on how much and how often citizens would play to scratch and win. Some both for and against it put the number somewhere around $300 million. According to Citizens United Against the Lottery, for every dollar gambled, 50% goes to payouts, 15% goes to the company running the lottery, and 35% goes to the state.
Rustin: It is not the cash cow that a lot of people think that it is. And so when you put that into perspective, and then on top of that you consider all of the social costs, the economic problems, you know, the bankruptcies, the costs that are required to treat people with a gambling addiction and the resulting family problems, divorce, domestic violence, child abuse, it certainly adds up.
Henry: As for that money slipping across the border and benefiting other state education systems, John Rustin with the North Carolina Family Policy Council says it is not as much as you might think.
Rustin: If North Carolinians are spending $200 million in other states, 50% of that money is coming back in prizes and those state governments are actually keeping only about $68 million. And again, when you pair up $68 million and compare that to our $16 billion budget, that is probably less than half a percent.
Henry: But whether it is 35 cents on the dollar or 75, the parking lots of border lottery stores are full of North Carolina cars. Spending money that many like Robert Allen want to stay in our state.
Crowley: One lottery proposal would let local counties decide whether or not they want to have a lottery. State Board of Education Chairman Howard Lee says he doesn't support a segmented lottery bill.
[BEGIN SEGMENT - FRESHMAN LAWMAKERS]
Vajda: Thirty-three freshmen Legislators joined the General Assembly this session, among them, three returning members. One of their first duties is attending a four-day orientation.
In the House of Representatives there are 21 new members, 12 on the Senate side. In January new members took part in four days of orientation. Topics included how to draft bills, dealing with the media, and background on their top issues that will face lawmakers. Here is what some legislators say will be their top priorities this upcoming session.
Wiley: I think our budget is going to be a challenge, to put it that way. I think healthcare is going to be a large issue here in the State of North Carolina, as it is across the United States.
Folwell: As legislators, we have to find a way to reduce our budget growth that is going on at the State level so that more businesses will come into North Carolina, reducing the cost of living and doing business here. The realization that that needs to occur is the most important issue, I think, facing us over the next two years.
Henry: Many legislators say they look forward to serving their constituents but there are some challenges.
Goodwin: I believe the most difficult challenge I am going to face personally is balancing the various roles and responsibilities that I have. I am a mother of a two-year-old, I am a wife, I am a small business owner, and trying to juggle all of those responsibilities effectively is difficult.
Wilkins: I had to give up my job to do this. I was a newspaper writer editor for 30 years and resigned at the end of April in order to file for this House seat. So, I have effectively not had a paycheck in about seven months. That was difficult.
Henry: In the Senate there are six new Democrats and six new Republicans, while in the House of Representatives ten new Democrats and eleven Republicans have been elected.
Vajda: The four-day orientation was held at the State Legislative complex in Raleigh and the Institute of Government in Chapel Hill.
[BEGIN NEWSMAKERS SEGMENT]
Crowley: Now for more on the session that has just recently gotten under way I am joined by Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand and Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger. Thanks for joining us. Senator Rand, one of the first items of business that Senators and the House have all been dealing with right now is some type of a flood aid package for folks in the west. Where does that stand right now? Early on we heard about this idea of a tax increase and now that has kind of been taken off the table, now looking towards a rainy day fund; where do we stand right now in terms of that?
Rand: It is, we are going through the figures trying to get the best handle we can on really the extent of the damage and what the federal funds are available to take care of it and how the State can fit into that, how we need to do it. And we are trying to get a firm grasp on the amount of money we need before we figure out where you will get it from. And that is where we are right now. There is a tremendous amount of work being done by staff, by the governor's people, all over to get us a good grip on it then we will figure out where to go.
Crowley: So is the idea of a temporary tax to come up with some money off the table or is it still kind of in.?
Rand: I don't know if anything is off the table, as I said, we've got to figure out first how much money we need and then we will see where to get it from.
Crowley: Senator Berger, what are your thoughts about that flood aid package? Some Republicans have been real hesitant about that temporary tax increase as an idea to solve the issue.
Berger: I think most legislators have some concern about raising taxes for that or for anything else. And I think Senator Rand is right; we need to see exactly what it is that is needed and then we can look at what is going to be the best way to meet that need. And the one thing I would say is we need to move with deliberate speed and hopefully that is what is ongoing and I certainly feel that is the case at this point.
Crowley: The Governor proposed another $61 million yesterday. Both bills in the House and Senate call for $225 million out of the rainy day fund, so is $61 million enough or not?
Rand: Well, that is what we are trying to determine. We are not sure; we are trying to figure out how the federal program fits and then what the state program fits into it and how we go about it and the extent of everything. And we are trying to shake down all the figures and get everybody together and compress it and figure it out and we are just not there yet but I think we are very close.
Crowley: I want to get both of you to address this. One story that has kind of come out of this is really where is the federal government in this mix? We heard from the Canton mayor this week who said they have gotten less than $150,000 to try and rebuild their town and were real disappointed in the federal allocation towards their town. Is that kind of an issue that you think senators will address this year, trying to figure out why they haven't gotten the assistance they feel they need?
Rand: That is kind of outside of our sphere of influence, if you would. I think we continually ask our congressional delegation to be as aggressive as they can in this regard and to make sure that we are fairly treated. And there have been some criticisms of FEMA. Whether they are justified or not, I can't really tell you right now. That is something we want to get a better grip on, too, and we hope the federal government will give us the assistance we need and that we deserve and we will look at that and get through all of that too, I think.
Berger: I would say that it is important for the local officials to communicate, not just with the federal officials, their elected officials, but also with their state senators and state representatives. If they've got a problem with what is going on at the federal level, we may be able to help in terms of communicating with those people and we do need to hear about that.
Crowley: One of the phrases, last week I called it kind of cliché, now for the last four years, billion dollar budget shortfalls. The first phrase you hear when you walk in the door to open up the session. Senator Rand, what are some of the things that Senators are trying to do to look at addressing that budget gap and will the first big decision really be on the temporary tax increases that expire in June?
Rand: No, no the first big decisions will be made will be what programs we are going to fund and how much you should do and what the availability is and then we will have to see where we are and we will look at what things we can do without and what things we can't do without and then we will have to make sure that we have sufficient funding to do those things that are deemed essential. And if something is not deemed essential, then it will have to go by the wayside. But that is what we will do, and then we will see what we have and then we will have to try and make it all fit together.
Crowley: Senator Berger, I know that Republicans always want to have influence in the budget process. What are some of the things, sitting here next to Senator Rand, that you would like to say when considering budget items and things like temporary tax increases to help fill the hole.
Berger: Well, I am glad to hear him say that we are going to start looking as far as the spending side, and we will see what programs are needed and then we will look at the revenue side. I think that is important. Another thing that we need to make sure that we do is let's not, let's not burden the budget with any new programs this time because all we do when we continually add new programs is that we put more pressure on the revenue side. And everybody knows that what that means is more taxes, and so, if we can hold the line on creating new programs I think we will be in pretty good shape. The other thing is we need to structurally try to do something so that we don't have a built-in deficit next time. So the good news is, in that regard, we really don't have any more one-time resources that we can depend on so we are going to have to find or at least utilize the recurring resources and hopefully next time we won't be talking about a billion dollar deficit.
Crowley: Is there something lawmakers can do to try and-we've seen this four years in a row-try and fix the structural problem or is that really such a huge issue that it may take several years to really address the structural part of the budget.
Rand: It is a significant issue and it is something that I agree with Senator Berger that we desperately need to do. We don't need to have to come up here and have these, as you say, the song of the year, the billion-dollar deficit. And we have been recreating our economy. As we all know, North Carolina has had a tough time and we are trying to stabilize our economy and we are looking at the whole picture of where our state gets its money and where the money should come from and how much money there should be. And we need to look at all of that. That is a very, very broad ranging, complicated discussion to have and will it take several years? It is too early to say right now. But we, it is something we desperately need to do because we need to get the best handle we can on this now.
Crowley: Senator Berger, one of the things that political watchers say may have the best chance of passing this year out of any other year is a lottery. Where do Republicans stand on that this year, knowing that it may come up again?
Berger: I don't know that you can necessarily pigeon-hole Republicans or Democrats as either for or against the lottery. I think it is, it seems to me it is more of an institutional question in the General Assembly. Historically the conventional wisdom is that the Senate would pass a lottery bill and where it runs into problems is the House. If you want to generalize, I would say that most Republicans probably would be against the lottery, but I do think there probably are the votes in the Senate to pass it.
Crowley: What is your personal viewpoint?
Berger: I am opposed to it. Have been since the first time I ran for office.
Crowley: Senator Rand, you have been a proponent of the lottery in the past, sponsored the bills in the past. Will you sponsor another bill, will you wait for House action this year, and does it have the best chance of any.
Rand: I think it has the best chance this year because of the continuing economic problems and the continuing flow of money from North Carolina to the surrounding states, every state that touches us now has a lottery and the people of North Carolina contribute significant amounts to these other states and we feel that this money would be better used to support North Carolina schools and that kind of thing. And so, I think it has a better chance this year, but we will have to see. But we will move forward with it.
Crowley: Why do you oppose the lottery, Senator Berger:
Berger: I just think it is bad public policy for the State of North Carolina. I don't think the dollars that we would realize from a lottery will solve all of the problems that people attribute to those funds. It seems to me that it hits disproportionately on those folks who probably can least afford it and I think it is one of those things that we are telling people through advertising if you look at other states that this is something that they ought to do and I just don't think it is a responsible thing for us to be involved in.
Crowley: You've heard those criticisms in the past of the lottery, what are your responses now to that?
Rand: Same thing. People are doing it. When you talk to people around, as I, you know, go around and talk to people, they would prefer this to any sort of, they feel this is a better way of raising money than most ways. And since they are perfectly willing to participate, it seems to me something we should do. If you don't want to play, you don't have to play.
Crowley: I know this is another issue that both of you have been involved in over the last couple of years and that is trying to find some resolution, some solution, to medical malpractice reform. Senator Berger, there has been another bill introduced this year limiting the damages to $250,000, I believe. What are your, what do you think will come out this session in medical malpractice reform as the leader of the Republicans in the Senate? What is kind of the goal for Republicans in this issue?
Berger: Well, Republicans in the Senate would like to see North Carolina join the growing list of States that have addressed this issue in what we feel is a meaningful way. And most States that have addressed the issue and that have seen some amelioration in malpractice rates have done it with some sort of a cap. I don't know that there is any magic number as far as a cap. Certainly we would like to work with the Democrats in the Senate and with the members of the House to try to find a solution to this problem. Our medical community really is in almost a crisis as far as this is concerned, particularly when you are talking about the OB/Gyn specialties, the surgical specialties, and emergency rooms at hospitals. It is truly a problem and we have got to find a way to resolve it. From an economic development standpoint it seems to me that it is something that needs to be addressed as well, simply because many businesses look at those sorts of issues when they are trying to decide whether to locate in a state or whether to expand their operations in a state. And as we continue to be in a smaller and smaller minority of states that have not really addressed this issue effectively, I think it will affect our economic development efforts.
Crowley: The Senate has done a lot of work on this over the last couple of years. Is the cap the real issue?
Rand: The cap is one issue. Our staff is unanimous in telling us the cap is probably unconstitutional in North Carolina. We need to look at that and then there are so many other things. As you know, last year we passed a bill; there has been no action taken on it. I thought what we passed was certainly a significant change in the way of doing business and we tried to address the issues that Senator Berger is talking about, emergency room physicians, OB/Gyn, those kind of things. We tried to help them with their problems and we do need to do something about this and we do need to move forward and try to make sure that we do things that will reduce the cost of healthcare and will provide some protection to our physicians, but we have to be careful in the way we do it.
Crowley: President Bush this week on the State of the Union called again for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages. There has been a bill filed in the Senate. Senator Berger, what are your thoughts and Republicans' thoughts about trying to get that pushed through this year?
Berger: Certainly. We have concerns about what is happening in other states with reference to really an assault on traditional marriage and we are wanting to make sure that North Carolina law is prepared to deal with that issue. There are some who feel that we have a defensive marriage act in place and that that is enough. I think there is an honest difference of opinion about that. We feel that a constitutional amendment is something that is necessary. What we would like to do is have an opportunity to debate that issue on the Senate floor and we hope that that bill will come up for debate.
Crowley: And you think the law is enough, Senator Rand?
Rand: Well, I, the Defense of Marriage Act that we passed several years ago is very clear and the overwhelming majority of our Supreme Court is Republicans. I can't imagine that they would overturn that law. And so I think that the law in North Carolina is clear. I can't imagine that anything would be done with it, but we will talk about this and see what people think about any needs and this is one of the things we will look at. We have a number of constitutional amendments being introduced this time, and so we may have a broad ranging discussion on what North Carolina's constitution needs to look at. But I am one who always thinks that you should be slow in changing your constitution much because the law of unintended consequences always comes in.
Crowley: The, after November's election we saw some voting issues come up. There are still a couple of decisions that still need to be made. How will the Senate and lawmakers deal radically in trying to change election law or just what kind of scope can we look at right now in trying to fix what happened?
Rand: I can't imagine that we would deal radically with it. I think we do need to straighten it out to make sure that we don't have the continuation of the kind of things that we've seen. I think we, I would like us to go to some system where we have some paper trail. We have optical scanners at home. They are counted by machines; it works very well. But if there is any question, you open it up and you've got all the ballots there. And I don't know why we don't kind of institutionalize that. I think in an area like down in Carteret County where the votes were lost, they know who the people were, they know what the census was whose votes were not counted. There should be some way to let those people vote again or, I don't understand everything about that. But we ought to simplify that and so we won't have a continuation of this. This should not be the way we do our business.
Crowley: Senator Berger, what changes do you think ought to be addressed with regards to that issue?
Berger: I don't know that we need to make any radical changes. I have some concern about stepping in and doing too much too fast. We have got a committee that is looking at the issue. I would like to see what their report is. They certainly are studying it in more depth than I have had an opportunity to study. There is a lot of sentiment to having a paper trail. I am some concerned about over-reliance on paper, just as some people are concerned about over-reliance on machines. And we need to strike a decent balance as far as that is concerned. And hopefully the committee will come up with some good recommendations.
Crowley: Lastly, we've seen a bill filed in this regard and this may be an outcome of the election and that is appointing fewer Council of State positions, electing fewer, appointing more. What are both of your feelings on that? Let's start with you, Senator Berger.
Berger: I would like to look at it a little more carefully. I am some concerned that we see this once Republicans start getting elected to Council of State positions and so I am not sure that it is the right thing to do at this point, but I would like to look at it. We elect more people statewide than just about any other state, maybe than any other state. And it, maybe it is time to take a look at that.
Crowley: What are your thoughts on, Senator?
Rand: I think we should look at some consolidations. We can save money. I've introduced several things about that in the past and so I don't really view it as a partisan issue. I think the governor and lieutenant governor should run as a team. I think electing them separately is not in the best interest and I've served with a Republican governor and a Democratic lieutenant governor and a Democratic governor and a Republican lieutenant governor. And those things don't work very well. And so I think it should be a team ticket and I think we can effectuate some savings with consolidation and putting some departments together. And I think we should look at that and view it as whether or not we save enough money to make it worthwhile. And I think it will be an interesting debate and I think we ought to just look at it and see what we think. But we will have to submit it to the people and see what they think, too.
Crowley: Senator Rand, Senator Berger, thanks for joining us. Good luck this session.
Berger: Thank you, Tim.
Vajda: Both Senate leaders say other issues that could arise include a debate over the death penalty moratorium and a video poker ban, two issues the Senate approved last session.
Crowley: Now for more on the week's events, Eszter talks with three members of the Capital Press Corp.
[BEGIN ANALYSIS SEGMENT]
Vajda: Joining me is Kerra Bolton, of the Asheville Citizen-Times, Eric Dyer, Greensboro News and Record, and Mark Schreiner of the Wilmington Star-News. Thanks so much for joining us and we are going to start right off talking about the hot topic of the week, the Hurricane Relief Fund Act which, there have been two bills proposed, one in the House and one in the Senate, and of course Governor Easley has his take on how much people need. Let's start with you, Kerra. You write about a lot of the people affected by this hurricane. Which proposal do you feel will be best for the people there?
Bolton: Well, I can't comment on that because I am a reporter and this case is not in my column role, however, what it looks like is that there may be some sort of compromise between state lawmakers and the governor. For example, House Democrats are considering on Monday to introduce a bill that would not include the half-cent sales tax increase and also if they are looking at their numbers, gauging where they can come closer to what the governor is proposing.
Vajda: Eric, the half-cent tax increase is not off the table yet, you writing about Greensboro.
Dyer: Well, I've, it seems like the half-cent tax, I don't know what other, my colleagues would say, but when the House Democrats voted earlier this week and toward the end of last week they had hoped that some Republican members, at least from the western part of the state, would be willing to go along with the half-cent sales tax for the rest of the year or the last nine months of the year to make sure that the state could replenish its rainy day fund and not go into a hole to provide the relief. And when it seemed like most of the Republicans in that area were not going to go along, Democratic leaders were like, well, we are not going to stick our necks out to do a tax increase if it is going to be used for political ammunition.
Schreiner: Right, and I think this points out two things. One is, maybe there is a thought out there that the first bill of the year would be a tax increase? And I think the second thing is the tricky interplay between Republicans and Democrats in the House and exactly how that relationship is going to work.
Dyer: Well the biggest thing, I think, that Kerra might know, I mean, we were hearing all week long and we've been hearing what lawmakers have been hearing and what reporters have been hearing, there is a lot of concern, is why is it taking so long for the state to get money together?
Bolton: Five months later.
Dyer: Well, people will point back to 1999 when Hurricane Floyd hit eastern North Carolina, came in the middle of September and by early December there was a special Legislative session to approve some extra money. And, I mean, you know, right. We are here in February, so Kerra has heard, you've heard a lot of the same thing.
Bolton: I was going to say the crux of the story is that people are still waiting. There are people who started to rebuild their businesses after Frances, once Ivan hit they quit. They decided, there is one guy who had his own auto parts store; he is now working for a local car dealership as a result of it. And maybe had he been able to get some kind of state loan, small business loan, he might have been able to keep his business afloat. So, it has real consequences for people in western North Carolina who are waiting for this aid.
Schreiner: There are going to be references to Floyd as the precedent for a lot of things, but I think one thing to remember is that there was a great push to put together the package for Floyd and then the criticism then was that months and years later there was unspent money in the accounts. And so, we are faced with a situation now where the criticism is the money isn't moving fast enough, and the criticism then was, well there was all this rush at the beginning but then where was the follow-through? So, I don't know if Floyd is the best precedent to set.
Bolton: And that is why the governor is justifying an incremental approach to funding aid. For example, he released $61 million this week for crisis assistance housing and to help local governments with infrastructure and public health needs. And his reasoning, according to the press release we've all received, is that an incremental approach is better than just sort of flashing out money, but as they argue about what is the best approach to do this, I think that people in western North Carolina are beginning to be a little impatient.
Vajda: Exactly. Is there a sentiment right now that the federal government is not doing enough? Everyone is saying, you know, FEMA gave them an inadequate amount of money. I mean, how much, they need help somewhere.
Bolton: Well, Canton Mayor Pat Smathers came to Raleigh on Wednesday to talk to state lawmakers about the aid that they need. You know, in Canton they sustained $9 million in damage and they got $143,000 in aid. So you can see the wide disparity. So people are really looking for the state to help them. The other thing is that FEMA has limits that they give to individuals so, and I think the limit is somewhere around $10,200, and a lot of times that may not be able to help people rebuild.
Vajda: Let me put you guys on the spot real quick. Prediction? Is it going to go forward sooner rather than later and which proposal? Kerra?
Bolton: Well, it takes basically three days to pass a bill. If they introduce something they can all, meaning the Democrats, Republicans, everyone can agree with on Monday and get it in Tuesday and Wednesday, they can vote it out by Thursday. If they are going to argue about territory it is going to take longer.
Vajda: Think that is going to happen?
Bolton: Who knows.
Vajda: Eric?
Dyer: I would go along with Kerra's prediction. I just don't.
Vajda: No one is willing to jump out there and make a prediction.
Dyer: I've been around here long enough not to make predictions. We have heard plenty of people say it will be done in three weeks or three days and it gets done never or four or five months down the road.
Vajda: Are you willing to?
Schreiner: Oh, absolutely not [LAUGHTER].
Vajda: All right. Well let's talk about some of the other controversial bills that have been introduced. It seems tobacco and cigarettes are taking a hard hit all of the sudden. First there was Representative Miller wants to increase it to a six-cent increase and then, no smoking in restaurants. And of course it is off the Senate floor, so, you just wrote something about that.
Dyer: Right, well the lawmaker who did the bill for, Representative Hugh Holloman from Davidson County is one of the new House Democratic Whips, and he introduced legislation this past week that would ban cigarette smoking in all restaurants across the state. There are, from what I can tell, there are maybe 10, probably 11 states across the country that have banned smoking inside enclosed-it covers restaurants but a lot of times it goes beyond that. Whether, you know, he is not sure how far this will go. I mean, this is still a state in which breaking down barriers on tobacco is very difficult. A lot of attention was given when the Senate did ban cigarette smoking on the Chamber floor last, a week ago. The House did that two years ago, and the talk about raising the cigarette tax has been around a while. But, you know, as the budget situation becomes a little bit dicey or lawmakers are just trying to find places to find extra money, that is certainly one place that supposedly will get more attention this year.
Schreiner: Well, every year that goes by this idea of increasing the tax on cigarettes I think comes closer and closer. It is a nickel a pack, it is the second lowest in the country. Right next door in Virginia, which is a major cigarette producing and tobacco producing state, it has been raised to 20 cents on a State level and various counties have the ability to raise it higher than that. So, there is political cover developing. And then I think the big change was the federal buyout of the tobacco quota holders, which is important throughout state, particularly in the southeastern corner of the state. That means something like $4 billion going to quota holders and so the great argument against increasing cigarette tax was always well, this will decrease consumption which will ultimately hurt the producers. Producers have their buyout so I think it is, you add in fiscal problems and it might be enough to push it over. But then again, we might be having the same conversation next session.
Dyer: We don't make predictions. It is hard to make predictions on these things. Again, these bills are introduced every year and it is just when does that critical mass hit? And like, for a ban on cigarette smoking in all restaurants; well this is the first time, I think, I've seen this bill filed. This is something that, you know, if it ever becomes law it may not happen this year. It may be a several year bill.
Vajda: Well, let me ask you, Eric, I know in Massachusetts it was a big debate when they were trying to ban it and they ultimately banned it from restaurants. Businesses and bars were saying, "We are going to lose business." Is that something that you heard or something that you covered in your story?
Dyer: Well, that is sort of an initial look at it. I mean, a number of people, we put out a response as to some people who are on this email network of readers what they thought and got a lot of responsive people saying, "Yeah, why should I as a nonsmoker have to go to, when I go to a restaurant have to breathe in secondhand smoke?" But you have a number of people who say, you know, the government should not be regulating this. Let individual businesses do.
Vajda: What's next?
Dyer: Exactly. And there are still a lot of restaurants in this state, certainly that, and bars that are attached to restaurants that are served as partial restaurants, that people go there smoking. And so, I mean, that if this legislation does gain a hearing this year, gets some traction, I am sure we will hear plenty of arguments from both sides. It is a very emotional issue for a lot of people.
Vajda: Kerra, why do you think that tobacco and cigarettes are taking such a big hit this year?
Bolton: Well, I think as Eric said, it is not just this year, it is every year that these proposals come up. And because state lawmakers are pressured to find at least $1.2 billion in revenue somehow, they know that sin taxes, whether it is alcohol or cigarettes, are sort of easy hits where yes, there will be some groaning from people but it won't reach critical mass when there was no buyout or if there was not such a large nonsmoker movement that seems to be happening.
Vajda: Let's talk about one of the other bills introduced by Representative Miller and that is the moratorium on the death penalty. And of course, last session it passed through the Senate. Kerra, no predictions made but what do you think about putting a moratorium on the death penalty and will it go ahead this year?
Bolton: Well, the Senate did pass it in, I think it was 2003? Yeah, the Senate did pass it and it was not along partisan lines and it was actually the most interesting debate that I have heard in the legislature on any issue. I think there is momentum to at least have the bill heard because we are dealing with a situation where we have one Speaker this go-round and we don't necessarily have the urgency in terms of keeping a coalition together. I think that this bill will fall out along whatever lines, along the convictions of the people in different districts. But will it pass? I have no idea. And then the other thing is, Speaker Black is a very cautious Speaker. He usually brings bills to the floor when he knows he has all the votes to pass is, so that is another thing to sort of watch out for.
Vajda: Mark, what do you think is going to stand in this bill's way?
Schreiner: Well, I, like we talked with tobacco, it is one of a glacial topic that moves in sort of inches every year and I don't know. I think the idea that maybe what may happen in the House is that the pressure will be, let's just talk about it, let's bring it out, let's have one of those honest debates like the Senate had. I don't know about passage, but I don't think it is an issue like last session in the House where it just won't even come up. It has got to come up I think in some way. And this is given the fact that because of, we have had one death row exoneration in the State in recent years, and a couple of life term exonerations and so I think that is having an effect on people and also the actual innocence commission on the part of the judiciary, so it is a topic that may continue to move towards a vote, but I can't say when that would happen.
Vajda: Okay, we only have a few seconds left. Eric, any thoughts on the moratorium?
Dyer: I agree with Mark. It is, it has a better shot of at least a hearing in the House this year than it did the last two years.
Vajda: All right. Kerra, Eric, Mark, thanks so much for joining us. And back to you, Tim.
Crowley: If you have any thoughts or comments about any of the issues we have covered, call us or email us at 919-549-7830 or e-mail us at legweek@unctv.org. That is our show for tonight. Thanks so much for joining us. I'm Tim Crowley.
Vajda: And I'm Eszter Vajda. Have a terrific night everyone.
Voiceover: Funding for this program is made possible by UNC-TV members.
|
