NC Civitas Blog

Congress is moving ahead with a $26 billion bailout bill that pays for extra Medicaid expenses and protects teacher jobs. According to the Department of Public Instruction, North Carolina would receive about $300 million in grants and protect about 4,800 teaching positions. Of course the money has state law makers and educators salivating. So much so that they seem totally oblivious to the strings that come with the federal money.

For starters, Federal regulations stipulate that the funds must supplement — and not replace — state funds for education. Second, regulations stipulate that next year’s state spending on education as a percentage of state spending – must be equal to or higher than this year’s total state education spending. The strings ( or should we say noose) are meant to expand total spending on education. At a time when most states are struggling to address large budget deficits, how prudent is it to accept money that mandates unacceptably high state spending levels? What’s worse is the federal money penalizes states that take steps to live within their means. The federal regulations encourages states – no matter how dire the economic situation – to just keep spending . This is irresponsible.   In several states the lure of federal money has led to the cannibalization of agency budgets to find monies to meet spending levels.

Of course, one question that has been largely ignored in the discussion is: how will states continue to pay salaries and services next year when federal monies go away?

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the Obama administration goal is to make states more dependent on the federal government. The lure of federal largesse would be less appealing if states knew and understood the real costs to accepting federal money.

© Bob Luebke for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

This poll of 600 likely general election voters in North Carolina was conducted July 19-21, 2010 by Tel Opinion Research of Alexandria, Virginia. All respondents were part of a fully representative sample of registered voters in North Carolina. For purposes of this study, voters we interviewed had to have voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.

The confidence interval associated with a sample of this size is such that: 95 percent of the time, results from 600 interviews (registered voters) will be within +-4% of the “True Values.” True Values refer to the results obtained if it were possible to interview every person in North Carolina who had voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.

ol#results li { list-style-position:inside;} ol#results td { border:1px solid black;padding:3px;} ol#results tr:hover { background:#C4BDA7;} ol#results thead { font-weight:bold;background:#C4BDA7;} ol#results table { margin:5px 0 20px 0; width:350px;} td.num { width:50px;} td.option { width:300px;} ol#results thead, ol#results thead tr, ol#results thead td { width:350px; }

1. Affiliation: Democratic 44% Republican 33% Unaffiliated 23%
2. How likely are you to vote in the 2010 election for national and state offices: Definitely voting 63% Very likely 26% Somewhat likely 10%
3. In general, would you say you are more or less interested in the upcoming 2010 elections than you were in the 2008 Presidential Election? More 32% Less 22% Same 44% Not sure 2%
4. Do you feel things in North Carolina are generally headed in the right direction or have gotten off on the wrong track? Right direction 26% Wrong track 15% Same 44% Not sure 2%
5. If the election for North Carolina State Legislature were held today, would you be voting: Democratic 39% Republican 39% Neither 8% Not sure 14%
6. When you think about voting for a member of the State Legislature, what issue or problem should be their highest priority? The economy and jobs 42% Holding down taxes 9% Same 44% Government corruption 5% Reducing health care costs 7% Illegal immigration 5% Improving public education 12% Moral issues 3% Government spending 13% Not sure 4%
7. Opinion of Bev Perdue: Favorable 33% Unfavorable 37% No opinion 54% Not aware 5%
8. Opinion of Richard Burr: Favorable 34% Unfavorable 29% No opinion 29% Not aware 9%
9. Opinion of Elaine Marshall: Favorable 24% Unfavorable 14% No opinion 31% Not aware 31%
10. The Tea Party movement: Favorable 31% Unfavorable 33% No opinion 26% Not aware 9%
11. Opinion of Barack Obama: Favorable 46% Unfavorable 43% No opinion 11% Not aware 0%
12. Opinion of B.P.: Favorable 14% Unfavorable 62% No opinion 20% Not aware 4%
13. Opinion of British Petroleum: Favorable 13% Unfavorable 53% No opinion 24% Not aware 10%
14. Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president? Strongly approve 27% Somewhat approve 19% Somewhat disapprove 16% Strongly disapprove 30% Not sure 7%
15. If the election for United States Senate were held today would you be voting for Republican Richard Burr, Democrat Elaine Marshall, or Libertarian Mike Beitler? If not sure/refused… are you leaning toward Republican Richard Burr, Democrat Elaine Marshall, or Libertarian Mike Beitler? Burr 32% Lean Burr 12% Marshall 28% Lean Marshall 10% Beitler 1% Lean Beitler 2% Not sure 15%
16. When someone talks about “cap and trade” proposals, what do you think they are talking about? Help protect environment 6% Will mean high taxes/energy 7% Involves import/export 5% Trade with other nations 10% Anti-business 1% Energy issue 2% Oppose cap/trade 1% Stock market 1% Oil well problem/BP 1% Sending jobs overseas 1% Other 1% Not sure 64%
17. Do you think the economy is getting better, worse, or staying the same? Better 28% Worse 32% Same 39% Not sure 1%
18. Do you think stalling economic recovery will lead to another recession? Yes 54% No 26% Not sure 19%
19. Who do you think is most to blame for the current economic problems in the United States: former President George W. Bush or current President Barack Obama? Bush 47% Obama 18% Both Equally 16% Neither 16% Not sure 3%
20. Would you be more or less likely to vote for a candidate for Congress who supports the Obama economy recovery agenda? Much more 24% Somewhat more 18% Somewhat less 12% Much less 29% No difference 11% Not sure 7%
21. Do you support or oppose the Obama Administration’s decision to stop the Arizona immigration law from taking effect? Strongly support 23% Somewhat support 13% Somewhat oppose 34% Strongly oppose 11% Not sure 19%
22. Do you believe Attorney General Roy Cooper should join with nine other state Attorney Generals to support Arizona’s enforcement of new immigration laws? Yes 51% No 28% Not sure 21%
23. Do you approve or disapprove of federal tax dollars being used to pay for abortions under the recently passed national health care reform bill? Strongly approve 13% Somewhat approve 12% Somewhat disapprove 13% Strongly disapprove 54% Not sure 8%
24. How closely have you followed the actions of the recently adjourned General Assembly during the past session? Very closely 8% Somewhat closely 31% Not closely at all 58% Not sure 2%
25. From what you’ve read, seen and heard of their actions, do you think they have taken positive steps to move the state forward? Yes 24% No 40% Not sure 36%
26. Do you agree or disagree that members of the General Assembly should earn more than the income earned by the average North Carolina citizen? Strongly agree 9% Somewhat agree 18% Somewhat disagree 19% Strongly disagree 46% Not sure 8%
27. Do you feel members of the General Assembly should collect per diem, travel reimbursements and other subsistence all year round or only while they are in session? All year round 6% Only in session 90% Not sure 4%
28. Currently guest chaplains in the North Carolina House of Representatives are forbidden from mentioning Jesus in the prayer opening the session each day. Do you agree or disagree with this policy? Strongly agree 15% Somewhat agree 12% Somewhat disagree 14% Strongly disagree 56% Not sure 3%
29. Do you support or oppose banning juice boxes in day care centers because it is argued that it contributes to childhood obesity? Strongly support 15% Somewhat support 13% Somewhat oppose 22% Strongly oppose 40% Not sure 11%
30. Do you support or oppose banning whole milk or chocolate milk from being served in day care centers? Strongly support 11% Somewhat support 9% Somewhat oppose 22% Strongly oppose 52% Not sure 6%
31. Do you support or oppose a study to determine if government should regulate beauty pageants for children under the age of 12? Strongly support 24% Somewhat support 11% Somewhat oppose 14% Strongly oppose 43% Not sure 8%
32. Do you support or oppose using tax dollars to finance the campaigns of candidates for State Treasurer, Agriculture Commissioner and other State offices? Strongly support 7% Somewhat support 9% Somewhat oppose 13% Strongly oppose 63% Not sure 8%
33. Are you so dissatisfied with the direction North Carolina is headed that you believe all incumbents should be voted out of office, regardless of party? Yes 28% No 60% Not sure 12%
34. Are you or a member of your household active in the Tea Party movement in North Carolina? Yes 5% No 94% Not sure 1%

As we move into the dog days of August, the calendar will quickly turn to September and election season will be in full swing.� Before that begins, it makes sense to stop and see what the landscape looks like right now by analyzing some of the details of the legislative district polling that Civitas has done over the past couple of months.

Part 1: Unaffiliated voters on the move
Part 2: Is It Just “The Economy, Stupid”?
Part 3: The Obama Effect
Part 4: The Intensity Gap and Definite Voters

Part 1: Unaffiliated voters on the move

Unaffiliated voters are the fastest growing segment of voters in North Carolina and there doesn’t seem to be anything to change that fact anytime soon.� Since January 2009, the number of registered Democrats in North Carolina has decreased by 106,000 – for Republicans it has decreased by 60,000 voters, but the number of unaffiliated voters has actually grown by 35,000 to more than 1.4 million voters (23.36% of all voters).

In 2008, those unaffiliateds were supporting Democrats by wide margins.� In Civitas statewide polling in October 2008, unaffiliateds favored Democratic legislative candidates on the generic ballot by a 37-29 margin.� But things have shifted 180 degrees in less than two years.

In Civitas’ July 2010 statewide poll, unaffiliateds now support Republican legislative candidates on the generic ballot by a 31-27 margin. �This may be an overly conservative estimate of unaffiliateds move towards the GOP.� According to Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling’s latest statewide survey, they have unaffilateds breaking 42-18 for Republicans over Democrats.

If we turn our attention to Civitas’ district polling, the advantage for Republicans among unaffiliateds becomes more evident.� In only one of the 15 districts polled do Democrats have a generic ballot advantage with unaffiliated voters.� However, it seems to be nothing more than an aberration when looking at the other 14 districts.� The smallest lead in the remaining districts is 11 percentage points in HD 116 (44-33) and ranges upwards to a 45-percentage point lead (60-15) in Senate District 1 (Basnight).

The chart of all districts is below:

Generic Ballot
Unaffiliateds �

%Dem

%GOP

GOP Margin

SD 43

17

50

+33

SD 45

26

40

+14

SD 50

30

48

+18

SD 9

24

45

+21

SD 8

20

52

+32

SD 10

36

34

-2

SD 19

13

48

+35

SD 25

15

57

+42

SD 1

15

60

+45

HD 116

33

44

+11

HD 25

14

43

+29

HD 6

14

52

+38

HD 51

25

54

+29

HD 36

29

43

+14

HD 103

26

47

+21

If unaffiliateds are the deciding swing voters in competitive legislative districts, these numbers should give Democratic candidates concern.� The fact that their support never climbs above 36 and in many cases never gets out of the teens, should be a wakeup call that those voters who swept Democrats into office in 2008 have shifted course �and are unhappy with the current direction.

In part two, we’ll explore just what issues are driving these unaffiliated numbers – and it’s not just the weak economy, there’s a undercurrent that is motivating unaffiliated voters.

Francis DeLuca talks on Viewpoints Radio Show: August 6, 2010

Recently the Raleigh News & Observer’s website carried a picture of a man and a woman conversing in front of the Wake County Schools building. The caption identified them by name and explained that the woman was in favor of the current busing policy that the existing board majority is slated to end, while the gentleman was not. While the reader could see the conviction on both of their faces, the two appeared to be enjoying a peaceable, issues-based, civil discussion.

How sad it is that this portrait could not serve to personify the rest of the day’s events. The ensuing calamity has been repeated in local media ad nauseum—by the end of the day the picture on the front page of the N&O’s website had been changed to reflect the city’s percolating restless mood—young men and women being led into a police van, the countenance of self-proclaimed defiance and victory on their faces. Unfortunately for the protestors—led by the state NAACP and President Rev. Dr. William Barber—they failed to accomplish little of what they set out to do. Rather than appealing to facts and reason as a basis for standing against the new school board majority’s proposed policy change, they appealed to empty emotion and came away from the protests looking not like voices of rationality, but as a disrespectful body unwilling to concede the current failures of the Wake County School system.

One goal should be shared by both parties in this debate: to step back, take a deep breath, and discuss the abeyant benefits and drawbacks of the proposal rationally. The day before the melee, the local media didn’t help the situation with the above the fold headline: “Wake schools fight to get loud.” While the News & Observer’s inflammatory heading is frustrating to those attempting to engage in honest debates about the potential merits and drawbacks of the proposed system, one cannot assign too much blame. They are simply trying to sell newspapers, and conflict like Wake County currently finds itself embroiled in sells newspapers. That doesn’t mean the citizens of Wake County should buy into the demagogic rhetoric and throw all civility and reason out the window.

The tactics being employed by those opposed to the proposal are classic Saul Alinsky, the notorious Chicago community organizer from the mid twentieth century. One of Mr. Alinsky’s principles is to “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” The target of the protestors so far has been school board member John Tedesco. Mr. Tedesco has been called every name overheard on the first grade playground, as well as the hollow, yet hurtful, grown up versions of those insults—including the oft repeated but rarely substantiated “racist” claim. One sign has shown up at several protests against the new school board majority—a creepy “historical marker” shaped suspiciously like a tombstone reading “John Tedesco; March 23, 2010; Wake County School Board Member; Voted to restore segregation. Had a vague plan in mind.” No doubt Alinsky would burst with pride to see his principle executed to perfection in Wake County today. While this strategy may score cheap political points in the short term, it only serves to distract citizens from the real issue—our failing schools, and the fact that the busing policy has failed to improve educational performance for the students it is designed to help.

The great irony of Mr. Tedesco is that he stated his support for neighborhood schools plainly and succinctly during the 2009 municipal election—his push for neighborhood schools should come as no surprise, and (unlike many politicians) he is helping to deliver on one of his campaign promises. His district realized the failure of the current busing system, and sent him to the school board to explore other alternatives to the current system.

The standard retort to the argument that the board’s current majority won an election fair and square is that turnout was low for the 2009 municipal election at 11.37 percent—ironically up from the 2007 election which boasted a 10.93 percent turnout. Paradoxically, most of the members who make up the current minority on the board were elected in 2007. If the results of the 2009 election are impeached based upon low turnout, then the results of the 2007 election should also be impeached based upon an even lower turnout. This argument fails to hold water and, if accepted, is poisonous to our representative democracy.

It has been announced that the school board will be considering a hybrid of neighborhood schools and the current forced busing system. While the NAACP and Dr. Barber have yet to issue a statement on the potential compromise, it is likely that any plan short of the current status quo will be rejected. The local NAACP has become so intertwined in the debate and so adamant in labeling the neighborhood schools proposal as “segregation” that it would look incredibly hypocritical for a hybrid proposal to be accepted. “Does the NAACP endorse ‘half segregation’?” One can already hear the retorts.

The neighborhood schools proposal is a meaningful one which will fundamentally alter the fabric of Wake County public education. It is a mature, grown up issue, and it deserves mature, grown up discussion rather than the shouting of inflammatory, empty platitudes from both sides. For the health of our democracy and the good of our community, both sides should step back, take a breath, and discuss the positives and negatives calmly—not for ourselves or our own political gain, but for the children of Wake County.

This article originally appeared in the Lincoln Tribune. It was written by Civitas intern, David Mofford.

So much for all the whining on the left that all Civitas does is produce polls favorable to Republicans (they never stop to think that things might actually be that way in reality right now) — let’s see what the knee-jerk reactionaries will say about this one:

Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling (PPP) conducted a poll for Republican candidate Glen Bradley in HD 49 and has Bradley leading 43%-35% over Democrat John May.

You may recall I had a Kreskin-like moment back in April when I predicted that HD 49 could very well be in play due to the district demographics and the retirement of popular incumbent Rep. Lucy Allen.

HD 49 is a D+3 district on the NCPI, and as we have seen across the state in our district polling, marginal swing Democratic districts are trending heavily Republican — especially where the incumbent Democrat isn’t well known.

© Chris Hayes for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

The theme of this afternoon’s rally: inform state legislators that NC has the right to vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Dozens of people gathered outside the state capital to take part in the National Organization for Marriage “Summer for Marriage Tour: Raleigh.”

Rev. March Creech of the Christian Action League spoke to the crowd saying, “State polling, residents and voters support a constitutional amendment protecting marriage, why not our legislature?”

Marriage supporters continued to point out that North Carolina is the only state in the southeast that has yet to vote on a state constitutional amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman.

Meanwhile, across the street gay rights activists held a counter-demonstration chanting “Equality North Carolina” to the sound of honking horns on busy Fayetteville Street.

While NOM has a few stops left on the tour, Raleigh proved to be an exciting rally for supporters of a marriage protection amendment.

© Jessica Anderson for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Students for Life of America has learned that health insurance offered to UNC System students, who are now required to have health insurance as a condition of enrollment, covers elective abortions.  The health insurance plan offered through the university for those students who do not have health insurance otherwise is through Pearce & Pearce.

The UNC System adopted the requirement that all students must have health insurance last March.  As though mandating that individuals purchase health insurance, which will apply to all Americans in the near future thanks to President Obama’s Health Care bill, was not an egregious enough offense to our liberty, students who purchase health insurance through Pearce & Pearce will now subsidize their fellow students’ elective abortions.

Many students, pro-life students especially, cannot morally justify purchasing insurance that will effectively subsidize elective abortions.  Given the mandate, health coverage requirements should be minimal and students should, at the very least, be able to opt out of elective abortion coverage if they purchase the student plan.  Abortion is an issue that elicits deep and emotional responses from pro-life and pro-choice groups alike.  Thus it should be treated cautiously; it is unfortunate that it has not been.

Remember that one of the contentious issues that nearly scuttled Obamacare was public funding for abortion.  Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Michigan) was at the center of the debate, refusing to vote in favor of the bill if it did not explicitly forbid public funding for abortion.  Later, Rep. Stupak caved but the issue was center-stage for a time.

© Jason Sutton for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | One comment

The release of last week’s state graduation rate report shows North Carolina has been making slow but steady progress on boosting the percentage of students graduating after four years of high schools. For example, in 2006-07 North Carolina’s 4-year graduation rate was 69.5 percent. In 2009-10, that same number had risen to 74.2 percent. 

It’s an injustice to reduce this problem to a mere percentage. We’re talking about real kids who are making decisions that adversely impact the rest of their lives. Just how big is the problem in North Carolina? Education Week’s annual publication Diploma Counts says this past year, 53,848 students of the freshman class of 2006-07  failed to graduate.  That’s approximately 299 students a day who will fail to graduate or drop out.  Yes, we’ve made progress, but losing 300 students a day is unconscionable. Let’s get back to work.

© Bob Luebke for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Raleigh, N.C. – The percentage of Democratic voters with a favorable opinion of Democratic Gov. Perdue dropped 15 percent from 55 to 40 percent since June, according to a new poll released today by the Civitas Institute.

According to the live caller poll of 600 likely voters, 40 percent of Democratic voters now have a favorable opinion of Perdue while 28 percent view her unfavorably.� Meanwhile, the majority of Republicans continue to hold an unfavorable view of Perdue (23 percent-51 percent).� Unaffiliated voters’ opinions are split at a 36-36 percent margin of favorability.

“As we saw last year, it seems that whenever Perdue signs the state budget, her numbers take a hit, especially with the members of her base Democratic voters,” said Civitas Institute Senior Legislative Analyst Chris Hayes.� “The scandals within the Highway Patrol seem to be taking their toll on her favorable ratings as well.”

The percentage of voters having a favorable opinion of Perdue decreased from 37 to 33 percent since June.� Those viewing her favorably also decreased from 41 to 37 percent, and 24 percent of voters said they had no opinion.� Perdue’s net favorability rating remained at -4 from last month.

Those viewing President Obama favorably remained at 46 percent of voters as those with an unfavorable opinion increased to 43 percent for a net favorability +3.� Eleven percent of voters said they have no opinion.

Furthermore, Democrats remain overall favorable to the President, although their support slightly waned by four percent over the last month to 71 percent favorable-21 percent favorable.� Republican voter disapproval remained the same (14 percent favorable-74 percent unfavorable), while 46 percent of unaffiliated voters hold a favorable opinion of Obama and 42 percent view him unfavorably.

“Obama’s numbers remain static as voters seem unimpressed with his handling of recent events such as the oil spill,” added Hayes.� “Voter opinion appears to be firmly locked in on President Obama and something major is going to have to happen to cause a dramatic shift.”

The Civitas Poll is the only monthly live-caller poll of critical issues facing North Carolina.� For more information on Civitas polling see www.nccivitas.org/media/poll-results/.

Full text of questions:
Bev Perdue
Favorable - 33%
Unfavorable - 37%
No opinion - 24%
Not aware - 5%

Barack Obama
Favorable - 46%
Unfavorable - 43%
No opinion - 11%

Click here for full results and crosstabs.

This poll of 600 likely general election voters in North Carolina was conducted July 19-21, 2010 by Tel Opinion Research of Alexandria, Virginia. All respondents were part of a fully representative sample of registered voters in North Carolina. For purposes of this study, voters we interviewed had to have voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.

The confidence interval associated with a sample of this size is such that: 95 percent of the time, results from 600 interviews (registered voters) will be within +-4% of the “True Values.” True Values refer to the results obtained if it were possible to interview every person in North Carolina who had voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.
###

Today the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) along with local group NC4Marriage will host a rally at the state capital. The “Summer for Marriage Tour 2010: One Man One Woman Rally” hopes to remind the NC General Assembly that North Carolinians support a state amendment declaring marriage as between one man and one woman. The rally is open to the public and will begin today at noon. Participants will hear from Brian Brown, president of NOM, Rev. Olden Thornton, pastor of the Raleigh International Church, Mary Frances Forrester, head of the NC chapter of Concerned Women for America and wife of N.C. Sen. James Forrester who has introduced a state marriage amendment bill for the past seven years, Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League of North Carolina, and Bill Brooks, president and executive director of the North Carolina Family Policy Council and NC4Marriage.

If you are in the Raleigh area, be sure to stop by and show your support for a state marriage protection amendment. To learn more information about North Carolina’s fight for a state marriage amendment click here.

© Civitas for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

The News and Observer and the Charlotte Observer have concentrated on the fact that Printelect prints the majority of ballots used in every election in NC (86 out of 100 counties) and that they charge considerably more than other printers.  They have also pointed out that Printelect is the sole agent for Election Systems and Software (ES&S).  ES&S is the only certified election equipment vendor in NC.   

Some more facts mentioned in their articles: Printelect is a subsidiary of Owen G. Dunn Company in New Bern.  The company’s president, Owen Andrews is a long-time friend of Governor Perdue and Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the State Board of Elections.

What has not been mentioned yet is that Printelect actually programs the voting machines for North Carolina counties.  

So, they not only sell the voting equipment to all 100 counties, print ballots for 86 counties and provide equipment maintenance services, but they also program the equipment to record the votes cast.

Who is looking to ensure North Carolinians are provided fair, accurate and honest elections when a sole company is involved in every step of the ballot process.  It appears that any oversight is corrupted when the State Board of Elections’ Director is a friend of the president of the company and the Governor is the recipient of substantial election contributions from him.

Read more about Printelect in the News and Observer and the Charlotte Observer.  

This is the Printelect website detailing their election services.

This is a page from the State Board of Election’s Election Resource Center Website that includes a link to a Printelect Login to schedule coding and ballot work.

© Susan Myrick for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | One comment

Per a News & Observer report, the chairman of the North Carolina Alcohol Beverage Control Commission (ABC) Jon Williams expects a debate on whether to privatize liquor sales in our state.  The Commission continues to assess what the system is worth.

Recently, ethics issues within the state’s archaic liquor distribution system have arisen in Greensboro, New Hanover County and in Mecklenburg County.  Furthermore, a Program Evaluation Division Report, which can be found here, outlines a list of problems facing the ABC System which could be solved through privatization.  Recently, I wrote about Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell’s (R) desire to privatize the liquor system in his state.

It is good to hear that a debate on privatization of the archaic system is forthcoming.  According to a February 2010 Civitas poll, the people favor privatization by a 47%-37% margin.

© Jason Sutton for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Yesterday’s N&O features an op-ed making the claim that the federal government’s response to the recession failed because it didn’t go far enough. The article seriously lacks any understanding for the cause of the recession in the fist place, and clings to some superstitious notion that government action can “fix” the economy (as if the economy is like a car engine).

The primary objections that the article’s author, unsurprisingly a university professor, raises about the government’s response is that it didn’t stimulate enough cheap credit and consumer spending.

The leading example is the bank bailout. Only one-third of the TARP funds even went to banks. Instead of using the money to clean the toxic waste out of bank vaults, the Treasury bought just enough bank stock to prop up their share prices. And the money came with almost no stipulations about how the banks could use it. As a result, the banks aren’t back to normal, judging by their anemic lending. First off, there was no shortage of capital injected into the banking system – note the trillion dollar spike in excess bank reserves in the last couple years. Left out of the article, however, is any speculation by the author as to why the banks may not be lending as much as she’d like to see. A few primary reasons are:

• the Federal Reserve began, in an unprecedented move, paying banks interest on their excess reserves, incentivizing them to park much of their assets on the sidelines
• banks have an increased demand for cash because of the diminished and otherwise uncertain value of their assets, until their balance sheets are cleaned up they will want to hold more liquid assets
• there is an intense sense of regime uncertainty – a public policy environment in which economic actors are not sure what policies politicians will implement next - along with an uncertainty about what impact the massive and mysterious health care and financial overhaul bills will have on their bottom line

The article’s author then laments the lack of government direct “stimulus” spending.

And then there’s the $800 billion stimulus package. Only about one-third of that was actually new spending, which is what it takes to get the economy moving. And this money is spread out over several years, further weakening the power of its economic punch. In the overly simplified and crude world of Keynesian (and university elite) economists, the driving force of the economy is consumption spending. Thus their repeated calls for more government stimulus spending to give the economy a “push.” But what these folks never address is just where that money comes from. Furthermore, the notion that consumption spending is what drives economic growth is a myth – which I addressed here. Our current recession was caused by, in large part, cheap credit pumped into the housing market courtesy of the Federal Reserve, along with a very shallow pool of savings the result of high ratios of consumer spending. So what does the good professor think will bring back economic prosperity? More cheap credit and higher levels of consumer spending! And to think the author of such nonsense gets paid to teach economics at one of the nation’s finest universities. 

 

 

© Brian Balfour for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Raleigh, N.C. – Only 13 percent of voters could identify “Cap and Trade” as legislation that will impact the environment or energy policy according to a new poll released today by the Civitas Institute.� Nearly two-thirds of voters polled had no idea, if enacted, what the legislation would do.

According to the live caller poll of 600 likely voters, 64 percent of voters said they are not sure what someone is talking about when discussing “cap and trade” proposals.� Fifteen percent of voters thought it was somehow foreign-trade related. �

As for the 13 percent of voters who actually were informed about the contents of the legislation, 7 percent had a negative opinion of the bill saying it would mean higher taxes on energy, while only 6 percent said it would help protect the environment.

“Despite heavy media coverage and special interest groups pushing for ‘green’ initiatives, most voters in North Carolina are clueless as to what cap and trade means or how it would affect them,” said Civitas Institute Senior Legislative Analyst Chris Hayes. �

Unaffiliated voters were actually more informed about the issue than members of either party.� Seventeen percent of unaffiliateds were able to identify it as an environment or energy issue, while only 14 percent of Republicans and 11 percent of Democrats correctly identified the legislation.

“This is another example of government policy and rhetoric that leaves constituents uninformed as to what is really inside a piece of legislation,” added Hayes.� “Voters need much more education on this important issue before it is debated in Congress.”

The cap-and-trade system aims to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases by setting a cap on how much pollution is acceptable in a given region.� Companies are issued credits, based on their size and industry, which allows them to produce a set amount of pollution.� If unused, the credits can be sold or traded to other companies.� Federal legislation to enact cap and trade was recently abandoned as the bill was unable to garner adequate support in the Senate.

The Civitas Poll is the only monthly live-caller poll of critical issues facing North Carolina.� For more information on Civitas polling see www.nccivitas.org/media/poll-results/.

Full text of questions:
When someone talks about “cap and trade” proposals, what do you think they are talking about?

Help protect environment - 6%
Will mean high taxes/energy - 7%
Involves import/export - 5%
Trade with other nations - 10%
Anti-business - 1%
Energy issue - 2%
Oppose cap/trade - 1%
Stock market - 1%
Oil well problem/BP - 1%
Sending jobs overseas�� �- 1%
Other - 1%
Not sure - 64%

Click here for full results and crosstabs.

This poll of 600 likely general election voters in North Carolina was conducted July 19-21, 2010 by Tel Opinion Research of Alexandria, Virginia. All respondents were part of a fully representative sample of registered voters in North Carolina. For purposes of this study, voters we interviewed had to have voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.

The confidence interval associated with a sample of this size is such that: 95 percent of the time, results from 600 interviews (registered voters) will be within +-4% of the “True Values.” True Values refer to the results obtained if it were possible to interview every person in North Carolina who had voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.
###

Our friends down at Wilmington Rants have broken a major story about politicians cutting fat…unfortunately we are not talking about government spending, we are talking about real fat.

The Wilmington Mayor and New Hanover County Commission Chair have a weight lost contest that is being publicized using tax dollars. So no cost cutting – actually more spending. Read about it at Government Finally Trimming the Fat!

Thanks to Ben McCoy for chewing the fat on this!

© Francis De Luca for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Yesterday was a big day for those who watch the progress of public education in North Carolina. The Department of Public Instruction released the results of the annual ABC tests and also data on graduation rates. Many education experts were ecstatic with the results. They include an increase in the 4-year graduation rate from 71.8 percent to 74.2 percent. The percentage of schools where student’s academic growth met or exceeded expectations rose to 87.9 percent (80.9 percent last year). In addition, the number of low-performing schools in North Carolina dropped from 75 to 16. For individual ABC test results click, here. For state graduation rates click, here.

Yes, the improvements are nice but my enthusiasm is tempered. First, I think the large jump in ABC scores should cause people to look more closely at results and ask why? No doubt the higher scores were influenced by DPI’s decision to allow high school students who failed end-of-course tests on their first try to have their retest scores included, not an insignificant change. Second, while ABC scores and graduation rates showed improvement, the minority performance gap remained largely unchanged. I’ll feel a whole lot better if the academic gains are replicated on National Assessment of Educational Progress tests (NAEP) or other standardized tests.

© Bob Luebke for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

This is the July 2010 Budget Edition of the Civitas Capitol Connection Newspaper. Click on the newspaper to bring up the full screen viewable version.

© Civitas for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment

Apparently some Democrats are unhappy with the district polling we’re putting out the past few months, and according to NC SPIN’s newsletter are questioning the results by saying we are “undersampling minority and young voters.”

Well, this is just sour grapes on their part as they search for any explanation for their poor standing in the polls.

If you look back at previous elections, in only one election out of the past 20 years (and maybe more) have African-Americans not underperformed as a share of turnout… and that was 2008. So not in 1990 or 1996 when Harvey Gantt was challenging the evil, racist Jesse Helms himself, or for Bill Clinton did African-Americans turnout and equal their proportional share of the vote.

And there is no reason to think they will this year. In 2006, African-Americans underperformed by about 2-3 percent. In 2004, as a group, they underperformed by about 1.5%. So any poll that has African-Americans equaling their registration percentage is operating on a 2008 turnout model. But anyone in the political world will tell you, that just isn’t happening in 2010 due to a number of reasons: 1) Obama isn’t on the ballot 2) Obama had dozens of field offices and hundreds of paid staff all engage in voter turnout that isn’t present this year. 3) Just about every poll taken this year has shown a sizable “intensity gap” for 2008 first time voters versus consistent voters.

So, to criticize our polling for “undersampling” African-Americans is living and operating in a political dreamworld that just doesn’t exist this year.

But back to our polling…

In the 17 district polls we’ve put out so far this year, we’ve never been off by more than a couple of percentage points in the composition of African-Americans in our polls versus their actual registration percentages. In fact, in 4 of the 17 we’ve oversampled African-Americans as a demographic. Nonetheless, slightly undersampling African-Americans by a couple of percentage points is completely consistent with building an accurate turnout model for the 2010 elections. Those who are complaining are just looking for something to snipe at because they can’t stomach the results.

© Chris Hayes for Civitas Review Online, 2010. | Permalink | No comment