|
Vajda: Eszter Vajda, Host
McCullen: Kelly McCullen, Legislative Week in Review
Henry: Johanna Henry, Legislative Week in Review
Adams: Rep. Alma Adams, (D) Guilford Co.
Blackwood: Rep. Curtis Blackwood, (R) Union Co.
Glazier: Rep. Rick Glazier, (D) Cumberland Co.
Stam: Rep. Paul Stam, (R) Wake Co.
Weiss: Rep. Jennifer Weiss, (D) Wake Co.
Daughtridge: Rep. Bill Daughtridge, (R) Nash Co.
Sutton: Rep. Ron Sutton, (D) Robeson Co.
Black: Rep. Jim Black, (D) Speaker of the House
Ross: Rep. Deborah Ross, (D) Wake Co.
Owens: Rep. Bill Owens, (D) Co-chair, House Appropriations
Bingham: Sen. Stan Bingham, (R) Davidson Co.
Goforth: Rep. Bruce Goforth, (D) Buncombe Co.
Justus: Rep. Carolyn Justus, (R) Henderson Co.
Cooper: Roy Cooper, N.C. Attorney General
Guy: Robert Guy, Dept. of Corrections
Scherr-Freedman: Deborah Scherr-Freedman, Science Dept. Chair, Wake Forest-Rolesville Middle School
Greaves: Ellen Greaves, Exec. Dir., Professional Educators of N.C.
Dornan: John Dornan, Exec. Dir., Public School Forum
Capps: Rep. Russell Caps, (R) Wake County
Brunstetter: Sen. Pete Brunstetter, (R) Forsyth Co.
Joyner: Irving Joyner, Vice Chair, Wilmington Race Riot Commission
Clinton: Lottie Clinton, Wilmington Race Riot Commission
Umfleet: LeRae Umfleet, Principal Researcher, N.C. Dept. Cultural Resources
Wright: Rep. Thomas Wright, Co-chair, Wilmington Race Riot Commission
Betts: Jack Betts, Charlotte Observer
Smith: Barry Smith, Freedom Newspaper
Bolton: Kerra Bolton, Asheville-Citizen Times
McCullen: One dollar is the price of the House minimum wage debate lawmakers agreed a bill would pass and disagreed on whether it would help. Video poker’s days appeared numbered; we will tell you why. And some believe supply and demand means math and science teachers could require higher pay than other teachers. That is next.
[INTRO MUSIC]
Voiceover: Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting UNC-TV.
[THEME MUSIC]
Vajda: Hello everyone, I’m Eszter Vajda. Thanks so much for joining us.
McCullen: And I’m Kelly McCullen. The commission reviewing the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot released its official report this week. The report offers facts and some remedies that we will review for you tonight.
Vajda: Also there has been some mention of paying math and science teachers more than other teachers. Johanna Henry looks at that issue. But we begin tonight with the minimum wage.
MINIMUM WAGE
The House approved the minimum wage hike this week. The 72/43 vote backs a $1 an hour increase. The debate on the floor centered on whether paying $6.15 an hour will create jobs or cost jobs.
Adams: This vote will support 139,000 working poor people in North Carolina, those people who work hard every day, two and three jobs, and who simply can’t make the ends meet.
Blackwood: They’ve got to make more for the company than their salary, their Social Security, their unemployment, their retirement, their sick leave, and so forth.
Glazier: But there does not appear to be any significant job declination as a result of minimum wage increases and there does not appear to be significant price increases as a result of incremental minimum wage increases.
Stam: If you want to be charitable and you give your money to someone else, that is charity. If it is a state legislator you take tax money and give it to the poor or whatever that is legislative discretion, which may or may not fit with your philosophy. But if you just order person A to give money to person B, that is not charity or discretion, that is bad economics.
Weiss: If you are against this increase then it sounds like you are just against the minimum wage because the minimum wage is not what it used to be.
Daughtridge: The intent of increased minimum wage may be to help living conditions of the poor workers, but it actually condemns many to chronic unemployment. What happens is, as opposed to market-driven wage, it forcibly raises the cost of inexperienced and unskilled labor.
Vajda: The bill is now in the Senate although the provision was included in their version of the budget. Meanwhile Governor Easley proposed an 85 cent hike in his version of the budget but says he does support $1 an hour raise.
VIDEO POKER
McCullen: A bill banning video poker machines is one step closer to law. The House passed a Senate bill which begins a phase-out later this year. The bill [Senate 912] would allow stores to own two poker machines at one location beginning this October 1st. Only one machine per location would be allowed by March 1st of next year. A complete ban takes effect July 1, 2007. The bill exempts the Cherokee casino and military bases.
Sutton: It doesn’t do it as quickly as I would like but I am satisfied with it the way it is. I think it is a shining example of what happens here in Raleigh when you come up with 170 different people on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers, you work out a compromise that everybody can live with.
Black: The thing that is different for me is that we finally reached an agreement that would give people a chance in a year to find a job. I never ever liked the idea of my, with the stroke of a pen, eliminating 2,000 jobs.
McCullen: The Senate has passed a video poker ban several times before but Speaker Jim Black blocked it. The video poker industry was a large contributor to Black’s campaign and the subject of State Board of Elections’ investigations.
VARIOUS BILLS
Vajda: As a result of the Board of Elections hearing, several ethics and campaign finance bills are making their way through the General Assembly. The House unanimously passed restrictions on how campaign checks should be handled and how those checks must be filled out. All lines on a campaign check must be completed [House 1848]. Those making contributions on behalf of another person or group have 20 days to make that delivery. Legislators must keep record of those contributors.
Ross: The bill does two things; it makes it clear that we can’t have blank checks that are just given over to an intermediary where somebody fills it in. But the person who the check is intended for has got to be designated by the person whose check it is. And also makes, sets up the rules for intermediaries so that intermediaries serve really just as couriers for the contributions and can’t be making independent decisions or altering contributions as they go along the way.
Vajda: The Senate debates the bill next.
McCullen: The Senate will also consider a bill that requires campaign treasurers to be trained. The House measure puts the State Board of Elections in charge of the instruction. Another bill to reform lobbying is stalling in a House judiciary committee [House 1849]. Members say they want to make sure the measure is complete and correct. The bill defines the relationship between lobbyists and lawmakers and sets restrictions for gifts and expenditures. More bills linked to ethics and lobbying reform are expected.
Vajda: House members continued work on the state budget this week. The Senate passed a 2006/07 fiscal year adjustment bill last week. House Appropriations chairs say the bill needs work. Members say the budget will be stripped of some special provisions added by the Senate. The governor introduced his version last month.
Owens: The governor has sent word through his staff on a number of issues. They are important to him and the state and we’ve certainly taken those into account and think he had a good budget. I think basically the Senate had a good budget. And we will have a good budget; we just need to work out the minor differences of opinion.
Vajda: The House is expected to roll out its version of the budget in the next couple of weeks. A bill [Senate 1289] to ban kids under 18 from chatting on phones while driving passed out of a Senate judiciary committee this week. After some debate senators included hands-free devices in the measure as well. Bill sponsors say that kids do not have the motor skills to be able to drive and talk on cell phones.
Bingham: It is a tragic thing; you look in the newspapers all over this state and you see teens that are killed in horrible accidents, they run off the road not paying attention. And anything that is distracting from that contributes. So whether it be a cell phone, whatever it be, you know, it just takes time and experience so this will save children’s lives.
Vajda: Offenders would be fined $25 under this measure. The full Senate takes up the bill next.
QUESTION OF THE WEEK
Cell phone use by teens was our question of the week last week; 60% of you said “Yes, teens should be banned from driving and chatting on the phone,” 40% of you say, “No.” Thanks to all who participated.
McCullen: A House judiciary committee keeps sex offenders laws moving this week. They are considering a House-select committee’s earlier recommendations. Two bills were reported favorably already with more bills being considered early next week. The House judiciary four committee favorably reports out the first bills based on the House select committee on sex offender registration laws recommendations. House bill 1871 would require the Division of Motor Vehicles to check new or renewing drivers’ license applicants with the national sex offenders’ registry. Sex offenders who have registered in other states would register with North Carolina’s registry before receiving any DMV-issued cards.
Goforth: I think you are talking about maybe a minute or so to check the registry and be sure that if they are registered in another state, they should be registered in North Carolina before they obtain their license.
McCullen: County sheriffs would provide written proof when a sex offender registers in North Carolina. The DMV would recognize the document.
Justus: People are very much in favor of this bill. I’ve gotten a lot of e-mails about it.
McCullen: House Bill 1903 offers $303,000 which fully funds the North Carolina Sex Offender Watch Program. It would hire two computer forensics investigators, two additional DNA analysts, and three trainers for the Justice Academy. The bill boosts the online and e-mail alert system, detailing where registered sex offenders live and places offenders move.
Cooper: This new proposal provides for better maps with red dots so you can tell exactly where sex offenders live. We have about 9,900 in North Carolina registered right now.
Justus: A lot of work ahead, but we really need to stop this problem. I can’t think of anything any worse.
McCullen: The Department of Correction supports House Bill 1902’s proposed satellite tracking of high-risk sex offenders. The bill authorizes $1.3 million to begin the tracking of 300 registered sex offenders. A Senate budget provisions offers $1.7 million the first year. North Carolina would pay $9 per offender per day to use the DOC-endorsed GPS tracking system.
Guy: The active system which we are proposing in our recommendations and you have in your bill today for you is real-time data, 24/7; it is continuous information about offenders’ location and the immediate notification to the parole officer of any violations of that tracking.
McCullen: A judiciary committee continues work on House Bill 1902 next week. They will be considering levels of offender tracking and what crimes would qualify an offender for global tracking because not all sex crimes require registration. But the bills are moving.
Goforth: I think in the next couple of weeks we will have them through the committees at least.
McCullen: The Senate is also moving legislation to track sex offenders by satellite.
Vajda: North Carolina serves over 197,000 children with disabilities but many state laws don’t mirror federal measures. A comprehensive House bill [House 1908] clarifies the services available for people with disabilities. House Bill 1908 also closes the coverage gap for kids ages 3 to 21. Disabilities include mental retardation, autism, and deafness. The bill would also allow sanctions against counties that don’t adequately serve affected children.
Glazier: It provides additional services to families and children who have special needs and really creates a process that we hope is streamlined and easier access and more consumer-friendly for everyone involved in the special ed process.
Vajda: Another provision of the bill removes pregnancy as a disability.
McCullen: Senator Hugh Webster introduces a bill [Senate 2020] raising lawmakers’ salaries. The last legislator pay raise came 11 years ago. Senate Bill 2020 would offer a 40% pay increase and authorizes $1.8 million to cover it. Non-leadership legislators would receive salaries just under $20,000 plus $784 a month for expenses. Leadership positions would receive a range in pay hike. This bill sits in the Appropriations Committee.
The General Assembly is discussing several eminent domain bills right now; one bill [House 2213] banning the seizure of private property for private economic development sits in a House judiciary committee. Its House Bill 2213; it would call for a 2007 state referendum on a new Constitutional amendment. It would also require just compensation and the right to jury trials in all eminent domain cases.
Stam: The people need to be secure in their homes and private property that will not be taken away from them just to transfer it to some other private entity because somebody else thinks they can make more money out of it.
McCullen: Bill sponsors include Republican and Democratic representatives. Concerns over eminent domain have increased since the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a Connecticut town to seize houses so developers could build a hotel and convention center.
Vajda: Some lawmakers believe North Carolina needs more math and science teachers. One solution is a pay hike.
McCullen: Johanna Henry follows a Senate budget provision addressing math and science teacher pay. Johanna?
MATH AND SCIENCE TEACHER SALARIES
Henry: Eszter and Kelly, this small paragraph in the Senate’s proposed budget would set up a pilot program to study paying math and science teachers in middle and high school more money. The hope is the extra money would bring more teachers. But should one teacher make more than another just because of the subject they teach? Some say, “No.” They say it may work in other fields but teachers are in class of their own.
Deborah Scherr-Freedman’s eighth grade science class is studying climate change.
Scherr-Freedman: If you’ve already got your yellow paper, join with your group and start your well.
Henry: The kids don’t know it but they are learning deductive reasoning skills. Scherr-Freedman says the atmosphere isn’t the only place to study a change in climate.
Scherr-Freedman: If we are going to attract not just math and science teachers but good math and science teachers, then we’ve got to give them an incentive.
Henry: As chair of the science department at Wake Forest/Rollesville Middle school, Scherr-Freedman says it is difficult to get good science teachers into the classroom. She says when a teacher leaves the students often have a substitute for several weeks or even months. Sometimes schools even compromise on experience and qualifications for new teachers.
Scherr-Freedman: We frequently do just to get someone in the classroom to teach and frequently those people that are in the classroom, once they are in they are in. And sometimes you have to make trade-offs.
Henry: A proposal in the Senate’s budget for a pilot program would give 10 math and science teachers in three local education agencies each a $15,000 salary supplement. The idea is to attract more math and science teachers. But some teachers in other subjects aren’t happy about the proposal. Scherr-Freedman knows first-hand that discrepancies in salary do not go over well. She was hired as a Wake County teacher during a hiring freeze 15 years ago.
Scherr-Freedman: I came in as a novice teacher, three or four years’ experience, making more than ten-year veterans did. I learned very quickly not to discuss salary because it was just wrong. But that—if there is a downfall to the program that will be the downfall.
Henry: Students in North Carolina visit the Museum of Natural Science then head across the street and visit the History Museum. They are taught that both subjects are important, so does a new proposal make math and science more important than other subjects?
Greaves: We want to be careful about making sure that we are addressing all subjects.
Henry: Ellen Greaves is the executive director of Professional Educators of North Carolina. They represent more than 7,000 teachers and educators in the state. The organization has not taken a position on the proposal because it represents teachers outside math and science that would not be getting additional money. Some of those teachers are upset.
Greaves: I work hard. I have put in 10 years. I am going to stay with teaching. I am an effective teacher. Why should somebody who is just coming out of school make more money than I am making?
Dornan: I am not saying this is an easy change to make; it really goes against the culture of education which is now decades and decades old. This is going to be painful and there will be teachers that are very unhappy about it and the transition will be tough. But I don’t know how else we are going to solve our problem.
Henry: John Dornan is the executive director of the Public School Forum, a public policy group that works to make North Carolina Public Schools better. He says it is not about who has more experience, it is about supply and demand.
Dornan: The problem is we don’t have the same shortage of supply. We are not having trouble finding senior high school English teachers. We are having a huge problem finding high school math teachers. And we are back to the supply and demand issue. Whether they are teaching the same, working the same hours, have the same number of kids; that really isn’t the issue. We can’t get them; that is the issue. We are not getting them into our schools.
Henry: So how did North Carolina get into such a math and science teacher crunch? According to Dornan there are several reasons. One, fewer students are graduating from college with a degree to teach math or science. In fact two years ago between all North Carolina colleges, only three students graduated with a physics teaching degree. Two, there aren’t enough teachers graduating each year to keep up with the state’s growing population. North Carolina only graduates about 10% of the teachers it needs each year. Three, and here is where the money comes in, students graduating from college with skills in math and science can earn about $15,000 more each year by going to work outside the classroom. So getting back to the original question, are math and science more important than other subjects?
Dornan: When it is all said and done, math and science are more important than some other subjects. Are all of them important? Sure. Do all of them have the same impact on our economy, on the ability of young people to earn incomes? No.
Henry: On a trip to India earlier this year, educators saw first-hand how students in India are passing U.S. students in math and science. Dornan says in international comparison tests, students in the U.S. place in the bottom third.
Dornan: These students, unlike ours, not only didn’t hate math and science, they loved it. I mean it was, and this was true, girls and guys. I was amazed that, how the kids would joke about, “Well, the girls are better at science, guys are better at math.”
Henry: And loving science is exactly what Deborah Scherr-Freedman wants her students to learn. Educators say maybe if the pay is better some of them will want to teach science, too. One final note, Deborah Scherr-Freedman says she’d give up any pay raise for a smaller class size but she says getting more people interested in teaching math and science may help that happen. Back to you.
McCullen: Should math and science teaching positions receive higher salaries than other teachers? E-mail your thoughts to unctv.org/legweek. We will read responses next week.
Vajda: Several immigration-related bills are making their way through the General Assembly. One measure would allow law enforcement officials to detain people they believe are undocumented aliens. Under this bill a judge would determine if the suspect is a risk to the community. Officials would also check a suspect’s citizenship, that is status with federal immigrations agencies. The bill’s sponsor Representative Russell Capps says the measure gives law enforcement officials more tools.
Capps: I think it is important because more and more we are seeing undocumented workers involved in instances where they flee the scene. We have no indication of whether they are okay or not. We are concerned about terrorists. It could be a terrorist that has come in from another country; we don’t know. So we need to deal with undocumented workers. We need some means to hold them until we can determine what their problem is, what their motive is.
Vajda: Since only money bills are allowed to be introduced during the short session, a resolution was proposed to allow the bill to be considered.
McCullen: Republican Senator Jim Forrester files legislation to hopefully study using school, prison, and other buses for transporting illegal Mexican immigrants back to Mexico. The bill [Senate 1959] creates a 22-member commission. It would study reimbursing agencies for using their busses, carrying liability insurance, and guaranteeing proper food and sanitation for people on those busses. Senator Forrester recommends $30,000 to conduct this study.
Pete Brunstetter begins work at Forsyth County’s new state senator. He replaced temporary senator William Miller. Miller was appointed when Senator Hamm Horton passed away earlier this year. Brunstetter won a three-way Republican primary in May and he faces new opposition this fall. So former Senator Miller asked the governor to appoint Brunstetter so he could finish Hamm Horton’s term then assume the permanent Senate seat in 2007.
Brunstetter: I think the first part of the job is to learn. Learn what the processes and procedures are, learn who the players are, learn what the important legislation is and then find a way to make an impact as soon as possible.
McCullen: Senator Brunstetter is an attorney by trade.
1898 Wilmington Race Riot
Vajda: It is known as the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot but some have called it a massacre. The number of dead is still in dispute. This week a legislative commission revealed their findings to help distinguish fact from fiction.
Joyner: On one hand we are proud of the work that we’ve done and what we’ve reported. We are not proud of the report that we have had to offer here today. This is clearly an indictment of the North Carolina government, the Democratic and Republican parties.
Vajda: Over 100 years after the race riots of 1898, a commission says it is time that the truth be told.
Clinton: Simply to tell the truth. Is there anything else?
Vajda: The truth they say is that in 1898 a group supported by the state’s Democratic Party overthrew the African-American leadership in Wilmington. A riot erupted and Blacks were killed.
Joyner: The growth of Wilmington was stunted as a result of what happened in 1898 and Wilmington has never recovered economically, socially, or politically.
Vajda: The commission is made up of 13 appointees by the governor, House of Representatives, Senate, county, and city. Since its formation in 2000, they have held meetings, hearings, and heard presentations from experts about Wilmington and the 1890s.
Umfleet: Some of the movers and shakers, not only in local politics but state and national politics—
Vajda: Back then historians say Wilmington was bustling and thriving in all levels of society, Black and white. Republicans were in power and African-Americans in the majority. But others wanted control and launched the first and only coup d’etat in U.S. history.
Wright: Nowhere else in American history had such an event occurred this way that just banished people or ousted them from political office and just disenfranchised people from political and social, economic wellbeing.
Vajda: According to the report the result was an economic loss to the region. There was an exodus of African-Americans and the event spread like wildfire around the region and the country.
Umfleet: It became part of a larger problem and it became the Negro problem across the country; people were talking about the race problems in the Carolinas. And it became an example of a problem that everyone saw across the country.
Vajda: The report chronicles the life of African-Americans in New Hanover County from the 1860s to the advent of World War I. Their recommendation: First, repair the social, economic, civic, and political damage that resulted from the period. Second, revitalize the area with economic development.
Joyner: This nation should look at and talk about trying to make up for the harm that resulted from what happened in 1898 even though it is 100 years later.
Vajda: But while no specific monetary compensation was requested, members of the commission do ask that the event be commemorated, honored, and remembered.
Wright: Certainly it sets the record in order. It sets the record straight that now there is an official document verifying and proving that this is a part of North Carolina’s history but more importantly American history.
Vajda: Researchers from the Office of Archives and History in the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources helped put together these findings. The 400-plus page report including pictures by the commission is online. Go to NCculture.com to read it.
Legislators and General Assembly employees got rid of old electronics the right way this week; they recycled them. Legislative pages, members of Synergy Recycling, and volunteers collected old computers and monitors. Organizers say that while electronics may be outdated, they are still valuable.
McCullen: A bill to raise the minimum wage has been introduced several times in the past but this week the House approved a hike. Eszter speaks with lawmakers on opposing sides of the issue.
MINIMUM WAGE DEBATE
Vajda: Representative Daughtridge, Representative Adams, thanks so much for being here.
Adams: You are very welcome. Thanks for the invitation.
Vajda: Representative Adams, this is a historic vote. You’ve introduced a bill to raise the minimum wage for many years. Why do you think this was the year that it passed?
Adams: Well, I think the timing is right. Again we’ve had a lot of job loss in North Carolina. I think it is an issue that the people have kind of gotten onto and they’ve started talking about it to the extent that there have been a number, a lot of research done on it. We have had three polls and response from the citizens of North Carolina who have indicated that overwhelmingly a large percentage of the individuals have indicated that it was time to increase the state’s minimum wage. So I think all of those things looking at the economy and so forth, the loss of jobs, the fact that people are talking about the issue, interested enough in it that those things contributed to it.
Vajda: Representative Daughtridge, why isn’t this a good time to raise the minimum wage?
Daughtridge: Well, I agree with Representative Adams that it was a well-orchestrated event in trying to get the public opinion behind it. And it is a good opportunity to talk about it and Alan Greenspan said it, it makes good political conversation but it makes very poor economic decision. And why I think that it is not a time to raise minimum wage because it is not effective in accomplishing the goals that it sets out to do. And hopefully what I will be able to do in a few minutes is to try to explain why it is not the best choice of accomplishing that goal.
Vajda: Representative Adams?
Adams: Well, I think the goal, I know that the goal is to give people who work hard every day, who work two and three jobs, an opportunity to earn more money so that they can do, provide for the basic necessities. And I think that we have achieved that. It is not going to get people out of poverty. You’d probably have to take it to $10, $15 in order to do that. But certainly giving individuals $2,080 more a year will enable them to provide for some of the basic needs.
Vajda: Representative Adams, critics say that it is mostly teenagers doing summer work that make minimum wage. Who else makes minimum wage?
Adams: Well, that is not what the data shows. I consider a teenager to be under 21. We are talking about people who are over 21, many of them over 25; 50, I think it is something like 54% so that is not accurate data that suggests that it is only teenagers. But again even young people need to earn a wage to provide for those things that they need. Many of them are—you know we have a generation now of young parents, many of the people who earn that wage are providing as head of households for their family. A lot of young people are helping support their families, they are going to school, they need money to pay tuition and that kind of thing so. I think if you work and you do the same work, then you deserve the same wage.
Vajda: Representative Daughtridge?
Daughtridge: I, this is part of the misconceptions that make it popular. The specific numbers are exactly from the U.S. Census Bureau are that 27% of the people who make minimum wage are teenagers. Another 20% are under the age 24. Seventy-five percent of the people making minimum wage work less than 20 hours a week. So you’ve got teenagers, first-time job entrance, and you’ve got part-timers earning the minimum wage. The average family wage of a minimum wage earner is $43,000. What this tells you is that you’ve got a group of people working in a family; you may have two people working, you may have another teenager working. So this gets back to my point is that you only have 19% of the people who get minimum wage that have children and are head of household. So you really aren’t, with all of the minimum wage you are putting out there, you are not targeting the exact people who need the help. And this is what the key component is. And the other key component that I will get into a little later is the potential of the training jobs that could potentially be lost and need for skills that won’t have the opportunity to be provided.
Vajda: Well, let me ask you, Representative Daughtridge, if, as you say, it does not target the working poor, what would you suggest be done for the working poor?
Daughtridge: Well, I am glad you asked that because I certainly wouldn’t want to say that something doesn’t work without having an alternative plan. An alternative plan that I would suggest is to earn income tax credit, which is a federal credit. They now have 11 states that also do the earned income tax credit. When you give money in an earned income tax credit it is kind of a three-phase type of program. The first phase is—first of all you have to have a job. And it continues to go up and it goes up to about $4,500-$4,600 and it plateaus out and then it starts trailing down in phase 3 up until somebody earns a wage of about $37,000. It goes directly to the poorest of the poor and the key thing is they have to have a job. So you are encouraging work, you are emphasizing the work ethic. So it is targeted to the right people and you are creating a work ethic all at the same time. This was first passed in 1975; there have been four increases since then. It has been increased when the budget went up, it was been increased when the budget went down, when taxes went down, and it has been a bi-partisan approach. So this is something that both sides of the aisle—President Clinton thought that it was better than a minimum wage increase in actually targeting the people that we want to target and it has worked. What they have seen is that especially working women, it has brought them off of welfare and it has given them the opportunity to have jobs and earn more money because of this earned income tax credit.
Vajda: Representative Adams?
Adams: Well, I mean I support earned income tax credit but I think you are going to have to have a series of things; I don’t think it is going to be one approach to getting people out of poverty. This is just a first step. The data does show that 139,000 people in North Carolina are affected by this minimum wage and so you know I think we are going to have to do a variety to things in order to get people where they need to be. I think some of the data that I’ve heard from Representative Daughtridge is national data, too. And we are looking at those studies and those polls that have been done in North Carolina.
And I would also say that President Clinton does support increasing the minimum wage, even the federal wage. I mean I have talked to him and his wife as well, so there is a lot of support for it. I don’t think we can ignore almost 70% of the people in our state who have said that it is time to increase the state’s minimum wage. Again if you look at just the mere numbers and you see what it is costing people for basic necessities, those of us who don’t make a minimum wage, how much it costs you to put gasoline in your automobile, how much it costs you to buy medicine, how much it costs for food and all of those things, it is just in my opinion an ethically/morally right thing to do.
And a lot of people in the state agree with that and I think that the earned income tax credit and all of those things are going to be good, they are going to help us, they are going to help people advance even a little more. But this was just a minor step, it was a first step but I think it also gives people the hope that they need.
Vajda: Representative Daughtridge, let me go back to the ethical point of view of this that some supporters of the bill say that North Carolina can be a leader in the nation by increasing the minimum wage because a number of other states have a higher minimum wage. What about the ethical standpoint?
Daughtridge: I agree with the point of the moral and ethical issues because who wouldn’t want to address poverty? And who wouldn’t want to have the best job opportunities available for North Carolinians? I am absolutely for it. What I am saying is—and North Carolina does not have an earned income tax credit—I am saying that there are alternative ways to spend our money, that we can target those people even better than the minimum wage can. Why do we want to be a leader in minimum wage increases when we see not only nationally but on a world-wide basis that a higher minimum wage raises unemployment? You look at all of the European countries, they have a higher minimum wage and their unemployment is higher. You look at people who have no minimum wage—Switzerland and Hong Kong—their unemployment is like at 1.4%. So there are specific studies that have been done. They did a survey of all of the economists in Britain, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, the United States—all of them had said the predominance of all of them said that minimum wage increases increase unemployment. Ninety percent of all economists in the United States agree that increasing the minimum wage increases unemployment.
Now the bad thing about this is the unemployment that we are decreasing is the people at the very bottom. These are the people who need the training wages to learn the skills so that they can continue to get better jobs with higher skills and higher pay. Sixty-five percent of the people on a national basis—I will say this—do get an increase in their minimum wage in the first year. Talking specifically about some North Carolina firms, you look at firm like Golden Corral that has 58 stores and 4,500 employees; they call it a training wage. And basically within about six months or so they have moved people up to the next level because they have been trained and they have skills.
So this is what I am terribly concerned about is the unemployment of our teens and this is the way that they get started and get their original set of skills so that they can move up in the job framework.
Vajda: Besides teens in an age of outsourcing to India and China for lower wages, is this the right time for a raise in the minimum wage? Some critics say it is a big job loss for North Carolina.
Adams: I think it is the right time. Again, we have people in these United States of America in our state of North Carolina that we need to be concerned about. And I would say to Representative Daughtridge and other individuals that you need to look at those states within the United States of America, those 22 states have indicated that when they had raised the minimum wage that there has not been a decrease in terms of jobs, that in fact there has been an increase, not only in production but unemployment has gone down. So that is just not, I mean I don’t buy that.
And the data that we have shows that what he is saying, while it might be true in Britain and those other places, we represent, I do, citizens here in North Carolina. And if you compare North Carolina with the other states in the country then it will, I think it will bear out the fact that we are going to have the same kind of success here in North Carolina because we have increased this minimum wage. And we have only done it by $1. That is not a living wage. And I think we need to work toward that. And that is why we need to do a combination of things in my opinion to really get people to become self-sufficient.
The other thing is I think we have to respect work and people’s right and desire to work, and while we can find other ways to help them and we should, we should celebrate work. That is what we try to encourage in this country, people to work. These are people who want to work, who want to earn money for the families that they have. So you know I think that we should give—we should try to under gird that and I think that what we have done is going to benefit a number of people in North Carolina—a number of children that we say we care about. I am not talking about those who may go to work at 17 or 18-years-old, but those who are in families where the mother and the father—or where it is just one parent there working to take care of them but who don’t earn the wage to do it.
Vajda: Representative Daughtridge?
Daughtridge: Well, once again I agree with the theory of what she wants to accomplish but 85% of the people receiving minimum wage are not in the poverty level. Some of them are 300% above poverty level; the majority of them are. Only 15% are at poverty level. And when you look at what the earned income tax credit does, it says three-fourths of its money goes to people with wages of $5,000 to $20,000. That is a true targeted—it goes exactly where it needs to go.
And what we are seeing here is—and I disagree totally about her ideas of other states with higher minimum wage having lower unemployment—looking at gross figures that is true but the whole economy is rising, the tide is rising, but if you look at where the job production would have been if it had not have been for the minimum wage, it is less jobs than it would have been. And all of the economists come out with all the studies and they all run between 2% and 3% of decrease in jobs for every 10% increase in minimum wage. And we are talking about a 20% increase in minimum wage. And more specifically we are talking about an 8.5% decrease in Black teenagers because they are at the entry level and these are the exact people that we need to keep from dropping out of school, we need all the teenagers that are dropping out of school and idling themselves.
Another point is that it increases it up to 20% of teenagers that idle themselves—and by that I mean they don’t have a job any more and they are not in school. And this is, it is a tremendous problem we have to look for of dealing with the economy of our state is we have to have a trained work force and we need everybody in our state involved in the workforce. And the way to get them involved is with a starting wage and when you increase the minimum wage it is just unfortunate law of economics that you decrease employment. And it is an irrefutable law of economics.
Vajda: Representative Adams, I’ll let you have the last word.
Adams: Well, the starting wage will be a higher wage than what it is right now; you know that is still minimum and that is still what it is going to be called. But I would also say that I am concerned about any child who drops out of school and they are not all—they don’t all look like me. I am sure Representative Daughtridge knows that. So, but I think what we have done, we have given people who really have not had much hope an opportunity to have that hope and an opportunity to feel like they are at least at the end of the day, at the end of the week when they get paid, however they get paid, that they are going to take home a little more money and that means that they are going to be able to deal with some of those basic necessities that many of us just take for granted.
Vajda: Representative Daughtridge, Representative Adams, thanks so much for a great discussion.
Adams: Thank you.
McCullen: The House bill raising the minimum wage takes effect July 1st.
Vajda: For more analysis on the happenings this week Kelly sits down with three members of the Capitol Press Corps.
ANALYSIS SEGMENT
McCullen: Joining us now are Jack Betts with the Charlotte Observer, Barry Smith with the Freedom Newspaper family and Kerra Bolton with the Asheville-Citizen Times. Ladies and gentlemen, let’s start with the minimum wage and Jack Betts, why the resignation on part of the opponents of minimum wage this time? They went without a whimper really.
Betts: Well, Kelly, I think they recognize the reality. Polls have showed that people by a wide margin support raising the minimum wage for the first time in 9 or 10 years. And the issue has been around a while; some other state politicians have given this issue some credibility. State Treasurer Richard Moore has called for an increase in the minimum wage, former U.S. Senator John Edwards has. And I think there was a recognition that the minimum wage at $5.15 just isn’t enough to live on and those who get paid that, which includes quite a bit of the state’s workers—over half of them over 20, you know means that the rest of the state’s taxpayers subsidize those folks because they don’t get in the main healthcare, they don’t make enough, they need public assistance in a lot of ways so I think it is, this really was an issue whose time was right finally.
McCullen: How about it, Barry?
Smith: Yes I think they were reading the polls. I think another thing is we hear numbers like 100,000 to 130,000 people making the job and there are millions of people employed in this state; relatively few people really make the minimum wage. And so I think probably we heard a lot of people talk on both ends of the spectrum here how if we raise the minimum wage it is going to hurt a lot of businesses on the one hand. On the other hand we probably hear that a lot of people are going to be helped by it. The fact is probably somewhere in the middle—probably not a lot of businesses are going to be hurt that much. And you know you get a little bit of help and every little bit does help but I just think they probably decided it is not worth fighting about.
McCullen: Take from the mountains?
Bolton: Well, I think what businesses are really worried about is the ratcheting effect—I mean I think that as everybody has pointed out so far that you know many people aren’t making $5.15 an hour. They are making $6.00 an hour. And so there is a concern by some businesses that once you raise it to $6.15 an hour you give credibility to raise it even higher to perhaps $7 or $8 or even $9 an hour and I think that is where the fear is coming in.
The other thing is I talked to a source who was telling me that there is a national Democratic movement to increase the minimum wage—and Democratic with a big “D.” And so I think that when Richard Moore addressed the state’s Chamber of Commerce in January and called for an increase in the minimum wage he was getting ahead of the curve because from what I hear the Democrats will be spending some money on that issue this year nationwide.
McCullen: Representative Alma Adams has fought for a stand-alone bill for a few years now. She finally got it. Why was that important for those bill co-sponsors and herself to get a stand-alone bill?
Bolton: Well, because then you don’t mix it in with other issues like the tax credit for small businesses which happened last year and you get to vote this one up or down and you get to claim victory for just this particular issue rather than claiming victory for half an issue.
Smith: Of course that has only happened in the House so far; that hasn’t happened in the Senate yet. We don’t know what the Senate is going to do on that. They included the raise in the minimum wage in their budget plan so some of the senators are saying well, okay we are going to have to have some relief for small businesses in order for this thing to fly. It may happen all together, it may happen separately, but it looks like it is going to happen.
Betts: Governor Mike Easley has signed on to it; you know he proposed an 85 cent increase in the minimum wage when the talk became $1 an hour but he signed on with that as well. And so I think all of that made this action inevitable.
McCullen: Jack, how does it mesh together, a Senate budget provision with a stand-alone bill now?
Betts: Well, that is less problematic than it sounds like. This is not untypical of the legislature to—you will remember last year the House passed a stand-alone lottery bill and the Senate had already passed amendments to the lottery in its budget bill for a lottery that the Senate had not yet adopted. All of that sounds more complicated than it really is; there is some typical inter-chamber jockeying going on here. And they will work it out one way or the other and in the end it won’t matter much what form it takes so long as it is done.
McCullen: You don’t think there is a way they can—there are no poison pills that would take the minimum wage out of the debate at this point?
Smith: I am going to be surprised if that happens. You never know. You never know until probably the last day of the session. And this could end up being something that is kind of held over until the last day of the session. That bill could be held in a committee because the Senate wants the House to act on another bill. Those sorts of things could come into play.
McCullen: The House is working on the budget, its version of it. How fast are they working, what are you hearing?
Bolton: Pretty darn fast. I mean we are hearing June 10th for them to be wrapping things up and have it released June 16th and so that is pretty fast for them. And I think that there will be fewer special projects that have been in there in the past. I think the momentum is to not have those things in the bills and to—also to have a cleaner budget which is something that comes up in a lot of ethics conversations.
Betts: A new experience for this legislature.
Bolton: Exactly!
Betts: Isn’t it? Usually we, in recent years we have seen budgets, even supplemental budgets like they are doing this year in the off session, that are just loaded up with pork barrel projects, with special provisions that are not clear upon reading them what they do. We are seeing relatively fewer of those as I think both chambers are making an effort to clean up their acts.
Smith: Yes I think Kerra is right, it is fast, at least for modern day standards. I can remember being here, Jack, you probably remember this too back in 1980 I think it took three weeks to get the whole session done. So we are talking about a couple of weeks out and six weeks into the session getting it done. So by modern day standards it is very fast.
McCullen: You hear a little talk about sunshine and letting the sun shine in on the process. How well have they done, Kerra?
Bolton: Well, it depends because the Senate has said that they were going, that their conversations would be open with the House but then members of the various committees could meet one-on-one and the chair, excuse me, the chairs could meet one-on-one and that wouldn’t be open, and Basnight and Black could meet one-on-one and that wouldn’t be open. So basically what is open and where is the sunshine? I think there might be some sunglasses going on.
McCullen: Sunburn, Jack? What do you think?
Betts: Some sunburn and some myopia. Budget making always involves some trial and error at this stage. For instance the Senate budget bill does have a special provision in it that repeals the infamous governor’s eye care program that House Speaker Jim Black slipped into the state budget last year to require preschoolers to get thorough eye exams that caused such a commotion.
But the Senate in repealing that feature had a little three or four-line thing and by mistake they referred to the wrong section of General Statute 143B which creates the government agencies. And instead of repealing the vision care program, they repealed the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Planning and Policy. And so they got section 34 rather than 35 so that is just one of the kinds of small errors that show up in budget bills and they get most of that fixed in conference committee.
McCullen: Barry what are they, what are House members saying about the budget that Senate version now that they are getting a peak at it and are dealing with it?
Smith: Well, I think a couple of things that House members are saying but they want to do differently anyway. I understand that there is a movement to help the counties out a little bit with Medicaid, maybe what is it? The figure is $65 million I believe for that to relieve some of the Medicaid burden for counties. I’m hearing some talk too that there might be more in the House budget for low-wealth schools. I think the Senate took some of that expansion, or took that expansion out, $40-some million I believe, and that might be something that the House is going to do.
McCullen: What are your House sources saying about it?
Bolton: Mostly what Barry said and I hate to—what Barry said. I mean the county Medicaid share means a big deal, especially in western North Carolina. We have Swain and Graham Counties that spend more on Medicaid than they do to operate public schools so that is a big issue out there. I think though we are going to hear from the locals because I think they want, you know that old saying, “It is pork barrel as long as it is in somebody else’s district.” And you know there are a lot of special projects that people want and they see the state having this surplus and they figure why shouldn’t they get a little bit of that back? So that will be interesting to hear what the constituents think of the budget.
McCullen: Jack, what will come out of the Senate budget at the House?
Betts: Well, beyond what we’ve already talked about, there may be some resistance to cutting the top income tax bracket. I am not sure how that is going to work out. That is what House members are hashing out right now. But I think as a practical matter, what I have heard from a great many members of the legislature, including such Republicans as Richard Stevenson of Wake County, who think this is a pretty spare budget given the legislature’s recent history and it does the right things, particularly for education. And because of that this budget sailed through the Senate and it is probably going to move pretty quickly in the House as Kerra said, perhaps as early as by July 16th.
McCullen: Barry, catch us up on video poker. Where are we standing with the bills?
Smith: Okay, the House has at long last passed a bill that would bring an end to video poker. It is going to be about a year down the road and that is a little unsettling to some people who want to see video poker done away with in this state. But it will happen within about a year. Now the Senate has passed a different bill and the Senate wants to end it right away. That is—I think the Senate though is going to go ahead and go along with what the House wants to do because they’ve tried to get this since what, 2000? And now it looks like it is finally going to happen.
McCullen: Kerra, Speaker Black says he expects a lawsuit if this bill becomes law and it will defect the Cherokee casinos. What are you hearing out of Asheville?
Bolton: Well, as far as we know, in terms of the lawsuit is concerned—I mean this bill doesn’t effect the Cherokee. And so I am not sure if there is a Cherokee lawsuit coming. What I do know is that some of the video machine operators are upset because you know basically you are, not only are you putting them out of business but they say there was a 2000 law that would regulate them that hasn’t been properly enforced because the state hasn’t given sheriffs enough resources to enforce the illegal machines that are in the state. So if a lawsuit would come, I think it would come out of that line of reasoning.
McCullen: Jack, were the arguments strong for the change of heart by some House leadership members, particularly Speaker Black? He says he wouldn’t want to, with the stroke of a pen, cut jobs and now we don’t have to do that with the lottery. Does that hold up for you?
Betts: Well, a recent study of the economics of video poker suggested that the number of jobs that would be lost with the abolition of video poker is much smaller than the Speaker has been saying several years, that it supports 5,000 jobs in North Carolina. A recent study said it may be a third of that number. And the Speaker has also said previously he thought that the lottery would probably in time make video poker less and less popular and pretty much take care of it. But those who listen to the sheriffs’ argument that video poker is kind of the crack cocaine of video gaming in that it is addictive and it harms a lot of families just wanted it done, especially now that we have the lottery. The Senate wanted it done right away. The House’s bill to phase it out by July is actually on reflection going to happen fairly fast. The first third of the machines have to be out by October. I think by the end of the year you can still have one video poker machine and so they will be gone, reduced sharply and then gone by about this time.
McCullen: And you see a compromise going easily. Now Barry how do you, how does the pro-lottery but anti-video poker leaders out there reconcile the philosophical differences on this, that one is worthy and one isn’t?
Smith: I think that one is pretty easy. I think what we are doing is we are eliminating the competition for a lottery. There is gambling, people who want to gamble are going to have to go to the lottery now; you are not going to be able to put a few quarters in a machine and play video poker.
Betts: So it puts a government monopoly on the thing rather than the private enterprise and lets the government get all the money.
Smith: Exactly.
Bolton: And there are some states that have a state-operated video poker that is run in conjunction with the lottery to boost lottery sales. And so the video poker people thought that is what would happen in North Carolina and they would be in on it because like in Oregon the private people run it or they operate it, but the state gets the sales. So that looks like the state is going to get more money.
Smith: But if you look at South Carolina, too, video poker went out at about the same time the lottery came in, so it is not likely that is unusual to happen.
McCullen: It is always nice to have you join us here on Legislative Week in Review. Kerra Bolton from Asheville Citizen Times, Jack Betts, Charlotte Observer, and Barry Smith with the Freedom Newspapers, thank you so much.
Vajda: If you have any questions or comments about our show e-mail us at LegWeek at UNC-TV.org or call us at (919) 549-7830. That is going to do it for our show tonight. Thanks so much for joining us. I am Eszter Vajda.
McCullen: I am Kelly McCullen. Have a great weekend.
[THEME MUSIC]
Voiceover: Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting UNC-TV.
|
