The Democrats’ Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week
This week, the Democratic Party suffered a string of losses that has left them in disarray. When Governor Perdue decided not to seek re-election last week, there was a scramble to find her replacement. The Democratic Machine Bosses found their candidate: his name was Erskine Bowles.
The News & Observer reported about a “major lobbying effort to get Bowles to run”, the Charlotte Observer editorial board wrote a puff piece trying to convince Bowles to jump in, and Democratic operatives began to boast to the press about their candidate-of-choice. After all of this, Bowles opted not to run.
But this was just the beginning. Soon after Bowles’s decision, former Speaker Hackney decided against seeking re-election. Then US Rep. Heath Shuler decided not to seek re-election. And as if that wasn’t enough for a moderately warm Thursday in February, former US Rep. Bob Etheridge threw his name in the ring for Governor.
Result: The Democrats have a shunned Lt. Governor, a trial-lawyer who supports the occupy movement, and a former US Rep who assaulted a college student outside of a Washington, D.C. fundraiser running for the top spot on their statewide ticket.
How Do We Continue Our Momentum?
By helping spread our message! If you like what we say, please share it with your personal and social networks. When the Democrats behave badly, tell your friends! The truth is an ugly thing for Democrats in this state. Here are a few quick tips about this week to help us spread.
1.) The Democrats are going to have to convince themselves that they believe in their gubernatorial candidates.
2.) Erskine Bowles, their would-be-savior, was losing in the head-to-head polling against Pat McCrory.
3.) It seems that all of the Democratic nominees support increasing the sales tax by 15%. If they want to get into an auction style bidding war to see who can raise taxes the most, then let them. Their only solution to anything is, as always, “more taxes.”
4.) It should be noted that the Democrats support “Taxing the 99%.” The sales tax hits lower and middle class families first, and taxes them the worst.
5.) All of the Democrats who retired and decided not to run were cognizant of Obama’s failures and unpopularity- and not wanting their political fortunes attached to his, opted to pursue other opportunities.
General Assembly’s Actual Public Education K-12 Budget Compared
with Governor Bev Perdue’s Proposal for 2011-2012
Raleigh — Governor Perdue has criticized the state budget for “extreme cuts” to public education. She insists that a ¾ percent regressive sales tax increase (a 16% increase in the state’s share) was and is necessary to avoid dire consequences to the public schools. The ink was not even dry on the state budget before she denounced it as destroying and devastating public education.
However, Governor Perdue proposed fewer dollars for K-12 public education in her
requested 2011-12 budget than the legislature actually adopted. Let’s examine the facts:
1. Fact: There is less than 1 percent difference in the direct appropriations for K-12 public education budget than the Governor proposed. The actual difference is .57 of one percent directly appropriated in the ratified budget. This takes into account that the More at Four Program was shifted to the Department of Health and Human Services meaning that $65,011,651 was taken from the Department of Public Instruction and used by the .Health and Human Services for prekindergarten programs.
The numbers look like this: The Governor proposed a total appropriation of $7,572,712,912. The ratified budget has a total of $7,529,503,708 once the $65,011,651for More at Four is credited. The difference is $43.2 million (0.57 percent).
2. Fact: Governor Perdue’s proposed budget shifted $74.5 million in school bus replacement, tort claims and worker’s compensation that had been the state’s responsibility onto the local school boards. But the General Assembly’s ratified budget continued these items as state expenses: $35,223,642 for school buses; $4,599,225 for tort claims and $34,648,327 for worker’s compensation totaling $74.5 million.
3. Fact: Taking Fact 1 and Fact 2 together the General Assembly provided $31.3 million more in funding for K-12 public education than Governor Bev Perdue even requested in her budget proposal for 2011-2012.
The Republican leadership in the General Assembly also enacted a number of other notable legislative accomplishments for education in 2011.
1. Removed the cap on charter schools and provided for enhanced enrollment growth.
2. Reduced End of Grade testing, leaving only tests required by federal law while using true assessments of our schools to measure student achievement with ACT tests in 8th, 10th and 11th grades. These are based on national norms.
3. Created a budget that produced a net gain of state supported teachers despite the budget shortfall. The number of state funded education employees actually increased by 3.7 percent (4720). It is true that federally and locally funded employees decreased by a total of 9,407. But this decrease would have been far worse if Governor Perdue’s $74.5 million money grab from local school boards had occurred.
4. Teachers were provided liability insurance by state government at no expense to them. This can save them between $120-$400 a year.
MORE FALSE ATTACKS AGAINST THE NCGOP FROM GOV. PERDUE
This week the North Carolina Democratic Party apparently put an ad on television called “The War on Women.” The ad, starring Governor Bev Perdue, claims that women have been attacked by the NCGOP. I wanted to quickly walk through some counter points about why they made that ad, what it tells us about their plans in 2012, and how to debunk their propaganda.
The Truth: Governor Perdue should be ashamed of herself. She can’t run on record unemployment under her watch (10.4%), which is nearly 2 points higher than Obama’s failed national economy. She can’t run on trust, as 3 of her top aides were all indicted on criminal charges. So Perdue will attempt to divide the people of NC by gender, race, and class. In the ad Perdue claims that the GOP is “attacking women’s rights,” but let’s think about that for a second…
Do you really think that 10 female members of the NCGOP House (including Majority WHIP Ruth Samuelson), 3 GOP Female State Senators, and our 3 congresswomen (Ellmers, Foxx, and Myrick) would actively work against the interests of women!? As I look around the office I see 8 female employees who I guarantee you are not acting against the interest of women. Perdue’s claim is complete bunk.
What Perdue meant to say is that the NCGOP protected right-to-life. By women’s rights, Perdue meant “right to have an abortion.” It’s a disgusting tactic, but much more of this will be expected next year.
Also, since abortion was a focal point of this ad, it is safe to assume that Perdue is now pro-abortion.
Subliminal Language/Imagery: Perdue/NC Dem Party’s ad uses verbs like “attack, beat, and war” to subliminally stir up images of domestic abuse. It is important, especially for our female Republicans, to stand up boldly when pressed on this issue and denounce it as the worst form of politics. The images Perdue uses of oppressed minorities from generations ago is meant to make us look racist. Perdue chose to not just go negative, she chose to go nuclear. It proves that she is desperate. So much for that “New Tone” that President Obama called for.
Why they did it: It can’t be easy to fundraise if you are Governor Perdue or the NC Democratic Party. Perdue’s chief fundraiser was indicted for breaking the law, so the Democrats decided it would be best to scare the living heck out of people by creating a vicious video aimed at politicizing gender. Furthermore, it looks like this fundraiser got off easy… who said crime doesn’t pay? http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/perdues_former_chief_fundraiser_gets_25000_fine_twoyear_ban_from_politics
So they decided to “place an ad on television” to fundraise. The problem is that they couldn’t prove to any reporter, not even when “off-the-record”, about where this ad was running. The News & Observer reported: “The minute-long spot (above) is apparently airing in the Raleigh and Charlotte markets, according to the state party. But [NCDP] spokesman Walton Robinson refused to give specifics about the cost of the ad buy or the channels where it is running.”
The bottom line is that this ad backfired. Very few people saw it, and those who did recognized the petty politics involved. The Democrats tried to take away Christmas Cheer and replace it with Fear, something that WRAL noted.
Perdue’s Plan: Divert attention away from her failures, scare people, and hope to god that people forget how miserable her tenure as governor has been. Unless… her master plan makes sense… “SUSPEND ELECTIONS?”
What we’ve learned about Perdue recently:
1.) She is pro-national labor unions, re: DNC shipping in out of state unions for convention contracts (She’s the Co-Chair)
2.) She is pro-abortion?
3.) She is against the marriage amendment
So when you hear people say that Bev is “Conservative”- please correct them and tell them that the Governor is one of the biggest liberals in America.
Perdue’s Veto Stamp Bought by Trial Lawyers
For Immediate Release
Contact: Rob Lockwood: (919) 424-5555
August 9 2011
RALEIGH, NC – As reported in recent financial disclosures and the News & Observer, Governor Beverly Perdue’s actions suggest that her veto power is for sale. Governor Perdue vetoed Senate Bill 33, a medical malpractice reform bill. She did so after receiving more than $150,000 in donations during late May and June from trial lawyers, who vehemently opposed the reform. Perdue’s veto was overridden in the General Assembly with strong bipartisan support in both chambers.
The timing of the massive cash haul and her veto of the bill is no coincidence, and begs the question: How much is a veto worth to Governor Perdue??
NCGOP Chairman Robin Hayes had this to say on the matter, “Governor Perdue once bragged about using a gallon of red ink to veto bills that she didn’t like. She failed to mention that her veto stamp was bought and paid for by special interest groups.”
URL: http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/webapps/cf_rpt_search_org/cf_report_detail.aspx?RID=111889&TP=REC
|
Perdue’s next veto related to the intrusive “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (Obamacare). On March 5, Perdue vetoed HB2, the “Healthcare Freedom Act.” The measure would have allowed North Carolina to join the Florida multi-state lawsuit against Obamacare in challenging its constitutionality. While progressive groups cheered, many stated Perdue’s veto constituted a de facto endorsement of the highly unpopular federal healthcare overhaul. This fact will doubtlessly be used against her during her re-election campaign.
Perdue’s next three vetoes came in the middle of the long session on April 13 and 16. The first veto struck down a reform of the state employee’s health plan, which was quickly reformed and resubmitted to the governor. The second attacked a bill allowing community colleges to opt out of a federal loan program. Community college presidents asked for the legislation in order to curb their fears that their institutions would lose federal money if the default rates on these loans increased.
The third of the trio would foreshadow the budget battle that shook Raleigh two months later. By April, North Carolina had lost its eligibility to receive extended unemployment benefits for many of its unemployed. Republicans quickly passed legislation changing the formula to calculate the unemployment rate, keeping checks flowing to North Carolina’s considerable numbers of jobless citizens. However, a provision in the bill would have enacted a continuing resolution if the budget was not passed by June 30. The continuing resolution would have set spending at 87 percent of the amount contained in Perdue’s budget proposal, until a final budget bill was finalized. Perdue vetoed this legislation over her objection to the continuing resolution.
The unemployment benefits extension fight continued into the budget debate. Perdue later issued an executive order of dubious legality restoring the funds, just as Republicans were about to pass a budget doing the same thing.
North Carolina’s budget was in shambles at the start of the biennium. The economic downturn had cratered tax revenue, federal stimulus dollars had dried up, and the previous General Assembly had used many of the one-time fund transfer and other gimmicks to temporarily paper over budget holes. A temporary sales tax increase was due to expire, and Republicans refused to consider extending the tax they had explicitly campaigned against.
Nevertheless, Perdue presented a budget that retained most of the tax increase. Republicans countered with House and Senate versions of a budget that reduced taxes on small businesses, allowed the sales tax increase to expire, and spent less than the governor’s proposal.
Negotiations with five moderate Democrats produced a compromise budget that preserved Teacher Assistant funding and cut the difference between the governor’s budget and the GOP’s to only $200 million. The compromise legislation passed by veto proof margins in both the Senate and House.
When liberal groups slammed the proposed budget bill, the governor’s office hinted at her disapproval of the legislation, so it came as little surprise when she issued the state’s first-ever veto of the state budget.
The so-called “Party of Five” moderate Democrats held firm despite enormous pressure from their own party, and soon joined with House and Senate Republicans to counter Perdue’s historic veto with their own history-making event: the first budget veto override.
In the rushed final weeks of the session, Republicans passed reams of legislation, much of it Republican priorities stymied by previous Democratic majorities. By the June 14 session adjournment, Republicans had placed over 200 bills on her desk. Perdue, while still attacking the budget, declared that she had her veto stamp ready. She had ten days to either sign, ignore, or veto the bills.
Perdue quickly used her stamp on Senate Bill 727, the “No Dues Check Off for School Employees Act”. The act ended the NCAE’s ability to use the state to collect automatic dues from members’ paychecks.
Next, on June 23, came House Bill 351, the “Restore Confidence in Government Act,” which sought to prevent voter fraud by requiring photo ID at the polling place. Despite consistent polling that revealed well over 70 percent of North Carolinians favored the measure, Perdue listened to her liberal allies and vetoed the legislation.
Senate Bill 33, Medical Liability Reforms, which capped non-economic awards in medical liability lawsuits to $500,000, was vetoed on June 24. Perdue claimed to be in favor of malpractice reform, but wanted language expanding exceptions to the cap.
Perdue utilized her stamp twice on June 27. In a move that surprised few, Perdue blocked House Bill 854, the “Woman’s Right to Know Act”, which required women considering abortion to listen to a standard set of information about abortion, view an ultrasound, and then wait 24 hours before making a decision. Perdue claimed the legislation interfered with the doctor-patient relationship (although she apparently had no problem with Obamacare’s many onerous intrusions). Perdue also vetoed House Bill 482, “Water Violations Wavers,” claiming constitutional issues.
Perdue waited until June 30 to issue her verdicts on the remaining 11 bills left on her desk. Four of them did not meet her approval. Senate Bill 496, which altered some provider requirements for the state’s Medicaid program, and Senate Bill 532, which altered unemployment benefit requirements and moved the Employment Security Commission to the Department of Commerce, were vetoed for supposedly violating state and federal laws on eligibility requirements for these programs.
Senate Bill 709, the “Energy Jobs Act,” (the “fracking” bill) was vetoed because the Governor felt it intruded on her executive authority, but she issued executive orders accomplishing many of the legislation’s goals.
The most surprising veto of the day was Senate Bill 781, the “Regulatory Reform Act.” This legislation was a major priority for the North Carolina business community, as it cut back on the regulatory authority of state agencies and made the rulemaking process more transparent. SB 781 had looked destined for the governor’s signature, as she had championed the need for regulatory reform. However, the governor vetoed the bill for moving some authority from state agencies into the Department of Administration.
In her veto messages, Perdue claimed to have supported the goals behind all four pieces of legislation and urged lawmakers to alter the bills. Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), however, did not buy Perdue’s explanations stating:
“Not so long ago, Gov. Perdue claimed to champion several of the issues she rejected. An indecisive, politically-desperate politician trying to cater to her base, she now stands squarely with fringe environmental groups and liberal special interests in opposing the job-creating sector of North Carolina’s economy.”
Without the cover of a Democratic majority in the General Assembly, Perdue has had to choose between pleasing her base and adhering to the views of a state that leans towards social and economic conservatism.
Perdue has chosen to veto major pieces of legislation when they threaten her base, such as the budget, abortion legislation, and changes to election laws. Her vetoes of regulatory reforms, unemployment changes, and other bipartisan legislation, even when prefaced with statements of support for the legislations’ intentions, have aggravated an already rough relationship with Republicans, especially when they view the vetoes as concessions to liberal interest groups.
Gov. Perdue has consistently been ranked as one of the weakest incumbent governors in the nation, with low approval ratings. However, her approval ratings have ticked up recently as more Democrats begin to appreciate her veto power. It remains to be seen if Perdue’s use of the veto stamp will continue to bolster her image on the left without harming the moderate image she needs to win re-election.
The above message was borrowed from the fine folks @ The Civitas Institute
|
Republican Leadership Supports Suit to Allow Health Care Freedom
| Raleigh – The fight for health care freedom continues in North Carolina. Yesterday, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger (R-Rockingham), Senate Majority Leader Harry Brown (R-Onslow), House Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Mecklenburg) and House Majority Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the 26 states suing the Federal government to stop the implementation of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” The brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit Court in Atlanta.In March, Governor Perdue vetoed House Bill 2, a measure sponsored by House Majority Leader Paul Stam, Rep. Jeff Barnhart (R-Cabarrus), Rep. Mark Hollo (R-Alexander) and Rep. Tom Murry (R-Wake), which seeks to protect North Carolinians from the unconstitutional “individual mandate” requiring citizens to provide for health care services or to enroll in a public or private insurance plan or health care system. The Senate was able to override the Governor’s veto but an attempt by the House fell short.Republican Leaders joined the suit after Attorney General Roy Cooper issued an opinion to side with the Federal government despite passage of the bill by the North Carolina General Assembly. A memorandum from the nonpartisan Legislative Research Division has concluded that it is appropriate for the Attorney General of North Carolina to pursue a defense of the General Assembly’s position if House Bill 2 becomes law.”North Carolinians are citizens. They are not subjects of Washington, D.C. who can be ordered under threat of fines and penalties to buy things they do not want and cannot afford” said House Majority Leader Paul Stam. |
North Carolina House Legislative Update
Republican Report Card
| Friends,Today is the 60th legislative day of the 2011 session. How are we doing on our 100 day plan to change North Carolina? Below is the document that I personally shared in over 30 cities during the fall campaign entitled, “100 Days That Will Change North Carolina.” Under that is an update and accounting of where we are on those legislative initiatives that we took to the people. Please send me your grade (A – F) on our progress so far.We hear from the media. They do not like it. We hear from left-wing groups and the Democratic Party. They are squalling and howling. But they are not the ones who elected us to do our job. The voters will give us a final grade in November 2012. But I would like your grade at the end of the first semester so we know if we are on track to reduce the size and scope of state government and to establish justice.In addition to the 10 items on this list we have accomplished a lot and have plans to do much more:Redistricting is well underway and will be voted on in June. The Governor cannot veto redistricting. A tax credit for children with special needs (HB 344) has passed the House Education Committee and is on its way. The Woman’s Right to Know Bill (HB 854) has been heard in Judiciary B Committee and will be acted on soon. A significant annexation reform bill has passed the Rules Committee and will be in Finance Committee this week and on to the House floor (HB 845). A balanced medical malpractice reform package has passed the House and is now in conference with the Senate (SB 33). Another tort reform package (HB 542) will soon be on the House Floor.Sincerely,Rep. Paul Stam |
House Majority Leader
| 100 Days That Will Change North CarolinaNorth Carolina’s state government must reduce costs and regulation on business, large and small, so that they can create jobs and prosperity.If the people of North Carolina entrust Republicans with a majority in the General Assembly on November 2, 2010, we commit to govern the State by focusing on these priorities:1. Years of overspending by Democrats have given North Carolina the highest tax rates in the Southeast and a budget deficit of at least $3 billion; we will balance the State budget without raising tax rates.2. High taxes are killing jobs. We will make our tax rates competitive with other states.Within the first 100 days you will see us:3. Passing The Healthcare Freedom Protection Act, exempting North Carolinians from the job-killing, liberty-restricting mandates of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care). |
4. Fighting to protect jobs by keeping our Right to Work laws.
5. Reducing the regulatory burden on small business.
6. Funding education in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.
7. Eliminating the cap on charter schools.
8. Passing the Honest Election Act, requiring a valid photo ID to vote.
9. Passing the Eminent Domain constitutional amendment to protect private property rights.
10. Ending pay-to-play politics and restore honesty and integrity to state government
| North Carolina House of Representatives100 Day Plan Update – Legislative Day 601. Budget Responsibilities |
-
- The House passed a fact-based and balanced budget with no tax rate increases or borrowing on Wednesday, May 4th. Despite claims to the contrary, real cuts in state spending proposed in the House budget (in education spending) are between 5% – 6%.
-
- This fulfills their first two promises to the people of North Carolina: A balanced budget and a budget that does not raise tax rates. The budget discontinues temporary sales, personal income and corporate tax rate increases, which makes North Carolina more competitive with surrounding states and puts $1.4 Billion dollars back into family budgets.
2. Protect Health Care Freedom Act
-
- HB 2, protects North Carolinians from the “individual mandate” in the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), passed the House and Senate and was sent to the Governor. She Vetoed the bill. Republican leaders will submit an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
3. North Carolina is a Right-to-Work state. Republicans will continue to support laws that secure the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join a union. We will stop SB 386.
4. Reducing regulatory burden on small business.
-
- Both House and Senate members have proposed legislation to limit the financial burden of regulation on businesses.
- i. Senate Bill 22 – An act to limit new agency regulatory requirements that result in substantial additional costs. SB 22 passed both the Senate and House and was signed into law by the Governor on March 25, 2011.
- ii. House Bill 162 – An act to exempt certain activities related to small-scale processing of agricultural products from wastewater permit requirements. The bill passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor on April 19, 2011.
- iii. House Bill 237 – An act to require economic impact statements on all bills that propose regulatory changes. The bill is before the Committee on Commerce and Job Development.
- iv. House Bill 323 – An act to reduce the corporate income tax rate in North Carolina from 6.9% to 4.75%. HB 323will be considered this week.
-
- The Joint Select Committee on Regulatory Reform held six meetings across the state beginning in Wilmington on March 11th. They heard suggestions from the public concerning burdensome regulations on individuals and business. The Joint Committee will meet on May 18thto consider potential legislation.
5. The balanced budget passed by the House fully funds the teachers in the classroom, not the bureaucracy.
6. Senate Bill 8 entitled, “No Cap on Number of Charter Schools” passed the House on Monday evening, by a vote of 68 – 51. SB 8 received unanimous support from House Republicans and one courageous Democrat. Charter school legislation is now in conference with the Senate. Representatives Stam, Samuelson and Brandon are House conferees to work with Senators Stevens, Graham and Soucek.
7. House Election Law Committee has held several committee meetings on HB 351, titled “Restore Confidence in Government.” The bill requires voters to provide photo ID before voting and allows more flexibility when applying for absentee ballots. HB 351 passed the Election Law committee and is now before the House Appropriations Committee.
8. The House and Senate have each introduced bills proposing a Constitutional Amendment that will protect private property rights. House Bill 8 titled, “Eminent Domain” passed the full House on a vote of 98 to 18 and now moves to the Senate.
9. House Republicans introduced HB 139 entitled, “Limit Contributions by State Vendors” as a measure to discourage pay-to-play politics in North Carolina. The bill seeks to limit the campaign contributions of state vendors to Council of State offices with which they hold contracts. HB 139passed through Elections Committee and will soon be considered by the full Judiciary Committee.
Our Fact-Based Budget (from the NC House Caucus)
| North Carolina faces a $2.4 billion budget shortfall. Regrettably, in 2009, Governor Bev Perdue and the Democrat-majority recklessly chose to exploit a billion dollar tax increase and utilize billions in one-time stimulus dollars recklessly to increase our state spending during the heart of the Great Recession.”The bottom line is that for decades, politicians in Raleigh have raised taxes and increased spending, and that formula hasn’t worked,” House Speaker Thom Tillis (R- Mecklenburg) said. “It’s time we give the private sector a chance and tighten the belt of state government. We need a fundamental change in the way state government approaches the economy and job creation, and this budget does just that.”After decades of tax-and-spend policies, North Carolina is at a pivotal crossroad in our lustrous history. We cannot and we must not continue to live beyond our means, spending more than we have and pushing the tough decisions to our future generation.Hard-working families across North Carolina have tightened their belts and lived within their means during these tough economic times. We believe that our state government should operate with the same common-sense principles. We believe our government should work for the people, not make the people work to sustain the government.”This budget confronts North Carolina’s fiscal problems in a responsible, sustainable way,” Tillis said. “It brings government expenses into line with state revenues, ends the practice of taxing our citizens to pay for state government’s appetite for spending, and restores over a billion dollars into the private sector to help create jobs.”Alternatively, we can write a new chapter and create a new day in North Carolina by passing a fact-based budget founded in fiscal responsibility, government efficiency and prioritizing government’s role.In 2010, the voters of North Carolina listened to our campaign promises of “right-sizing” government, ending the tax-and-spend policies of our predecessors and, most importantly, creating an economic environment to promote sustainable job growth. |
“This budget is one of the largest tax cuts in state history,” said Rep. Harold Brubaker, the House Appropriations Chair. “By allowing certain taxes to expire, we will provide more than a billion dollars to the private sector. We believe private businesses and individuals use their own money more effectively than state government.”
Liberal special interest groups and critics have resorted to a misinformation campaign in order to strike fear into the citizens of North Carolina. Unfortunately, their math simply does not add up.
“Some voices in state government have floated hypothetical, inflated job loss numbers,” he said. “These numbers are just that: hypothetical. Based on countless conversations with outside experts and internal non-partisan fiscal research staff, we are convinced that this budget is a job creator, period.”
Creating an economic environment to promote sustainable job growth is not as easy as flipping a switch. Undoing the decades of policies that hamper our small and medium-sized businesses’ ability to innovate, grow, invest and create new jobs will take time and require patience. If done responsibly, decades from now, North Carolinians will reflect on 2011 as the year a new path was charted for North Carolina. A time when North Carolina preserved our history by preparing for the future. We have listened to North Carolina and our fact-based budget will usher in this new day in North Carolina.
Here’s the truth about the Charter Schools Bill introduced by the GOP Senators:
Senate Bill 8 – Charter Schools
On Monday evening, Senate Bill 8, “An Act to Remove the Cap on the Number of Charter Schools,” passed the House by a vote of 68 – 51. Despite its unanimous support from Republicans and one courageous Democrat, changes to the charter school legislation have raised questions by some as it now heads to conference. Let’s clarify some of the concerns surrounding Senate Bill 8:
The Cap
For 15 years the number of charter schools has been capped at 100. That cap will be removed.
Both House and Senate versions of the SB 8 remove the cap on charter schools, but the House version places a per year limit on charter creation at 50. While the original Senate version was unlimited, it was vigorously objected too. So the House and Senate bill sponsors, in consultation with charter advocates, suggested a limit of 50 charters per year, not including renewals.
Will the 50 per year limit take away the educational opportunity of students? And will “restart charters” or “charter lite” schools count against the per year limit?
We believe that 50 charters are more than would ever be approved in a year due to the application process. And “restart charters” or “charter lite” schools do not count against the yearly limit. They are not charter schools anyway.
Governance
Does SB 8 weaken charter school autonomy?
The Public Charter School’s Commission, eight of whose thirteen members will be appointed by Speaker Tillis and President Pro Tem Berger, make recommendations that must be considered by the State Board of Education. The consent of the State Board must not be unreasonably withheld. And if the State Board ultimately rejects a recommendation of the Commission; it must not do so in an arbitrary or capricious manner. That is legalese for the applicant can go straight to court if the State Board tries to play games. If the State Board of Education does not act on a commission recommendation within three months, then it is deemed approved.
If the bill only raised the cap on charter schools it would do nothing to improve the governance of charter schools.
Those who favor less interference with charters by the State Board of Education should welcome this new proposal.
Accountability
Will SB 8 unfairly raise the bar for termination and renewal of charters for non-performance?
No. The standards set forth in the current version of the bill are more lenient and practical than current State Board of Education policy which mandates the closing of a school if the charter school, for two or three consecutive school years, does not meet or exceed expected growth and has a Performance Composite below 60%.
Under SB 8, if a charter school is not meeting or exceeding expected growth, then a school improvement plan must be put into place rather than immediate termination. This is important because many charters specifically target “at-risk” students.
Funding
Do charter schools divert resources from traditional public schools?
Let me illustrate mathematically why this is not true. The exact figures may be uncertain but the point is the same regardless.
When a child leaves a traditional public school for a public charter school, approximately 70% – 80% of the funding that child receives goes with him to the charter school he attends. That means 20% – 30% of the money it costs to educate that child stays with the school that he left – in this case a traditional public school. So, the traditional public school no longer has to pay the cost of educating him and still gets to keep 20% – 30% of his allotted funding.
This is why having more public charter schools actually saves traditional public schools money.
However, some say “yes” but the total amount is still less. Not really. Because the growth in enrollment in charter schools is less than the total growth in enrollment of the entire traditional public school system, total resources (as well as per capita resources) have actually grown as well.
Long story short: charters do not divert resources from the public schools despite slogans to the contrary because (1) by law charter schools are public schools and (2) the funding mechanism established for them ensures that traditional public schools get more resources per student as and when more charters are established.
Other Advantages to SB 8 on Funds
Those who oppose the House version of Senate Bill 8 fail to consider the advantages of the current bill that go beyond lifting the cap. The advantages are numerous but chief among them is that for the first time counties would be allowed, at their option, to provide capital money for charters. Failure to include capital funding is what has put charters at a disadvantage financially.
This bill makes it possible for charters to equalize funding.
Today, there is a cap on charter schools in North Carolina. Senate Bill 8 will remove it. Today, only 46 counties have charter schools. Senate Bill 8 will change that. This year thousands of North Carolina parents have no options in educating their children. Senate Bill 8 will give parents a choice.
Sincerely,
Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam
North Carolina House Republican Leader
Governor Perdue Chose More Spending, More Government Over 37,000 Unemployed and Less Spending
“Take Back NC” Call to Action
Good afternoon,
I hope everyone is staying dry on this rainy Saturday afternoon.
I wanted to give you an update as Governor Perdue just signaled she is going veto House Bill 383 later this afternoon.
House Bill 383 would extend benefits to 37,000 unemployed North Carolinians and reduce government spending by 13 percent, yet Governor Perdue chose to veto!
I hope you all just saw Chairman Hayes’ statement on the veto, if not you can see it at http://www.ncgop.org/newsroom/statement-chairman-robin-hayes-governor-perdue-veto-house-bill-383.
This veto signals that Governor Perdue chose to shut down the government and not give benefits to 37,000 unemployed North Carolinians and their families rather than work with Republicans in the General Assembly and cut spending from her spending, big government budget proposal. She is willing to increase spending and increase taxes to fund the big government of her dreams while greatly reducing you and your family’s own budget!
Enough is enough. As we all look forward to vetoing Governor Perdue in 2012, we need to take action today:
1. Forward this to your members and let them know “Governor Perdue chose more spending and more government over less spending and 37,000 unemployed North Carolinians and their families.”
2. Go to http://www.ncgop.org/letter and use our interactive Letter to the Editor tool at NCGOP.org to write a letter to your editor
3. Link this “Call to Action” to your website, Facebook and Twitter by using this link: http://www.ncgop.org/newsroom/perdue-chose-more-spending-more-government-over-37000-unemployed-and-less-spending
4. Post Chairman Hayes’ statement to your Facebook and Twitter by using this shortened URL: http://tinyurl.com/3wun6vl
Keep getting organized out there as we will be ready to take back our state from Governor Perdue and her big spending, big government policies.
Lenovo Came to North Carolina for “Educated Workforce”? That’s News to Us!
From the NCGOP Political Office
In case you missed it from today’s News and Observer, an executive of Lenovo, the Chinese computer company, stated Lenovo “could locate its operations anywhere, but depended on the ‘educated work force’ to keep its operations in Morrisville…”
What the article failed to mention is that Lenovo, a company partially owned by the Chinese government, did not decide to stay in North Carolina because of the “quality of education. “
The real reason, according to a 2006 “Business NC” article, Lenovo was on its way out of town but stayed in North Carolina because Lenovo was lured to stay with $14 million of your tax dollars. Lenovo executives, government officials or anyone else quoted in the article did not mention the quality of education in North Carolina as a reason for staying.
In fact, according to article, “There was little the state could offer to save jobs, but Lenovo could get millions of dollars for creating some. And local governments were willing to pay to play.” Read “The China Trade” by clicking here.
That’s right, the state of North Carolina offered Lenovo little to stay other than millions of dollars of YOUR tax dollars.
So why are executives of Lenovo changing their tune now?
Is this part of a payback for the $14 million to help Governor Perdue and her Democrat allies in a middle of tough budget fight?
Sorry Governor Perdue, the people of North Carolina are too smart to fall for this deception.
The people of North Carolina can longer trust Governor Perdue and her gallons of ‘red veto ink’ to work with Republicans after she has proved time and time again she is only committed to increasing government spending and increasing taxes that will only further hinder private sector job creation
Make sure you send this to your members and have them contact Governor Perdue’s office and tell her to get stop playing political games, and work with Republicans to solve this budget crisis.
Phone: (919)733-4240
Email: governor.office@nc.gov
From a “Business NC” 2006 article entitled “The China Trade:”
“It all began in Beijing 22 years ago with 11 computer scientists working in a two-room house no bigger than a studio apartment. Now, Lenovo Group Ltd.’s new headquarters will be a suburban campus in Morrisville… Buying IBM Corp.’s personal-computing business was the first acquisition of a major U.S. operation by a Chinese company, and with it came about 1,800 jobs at IBM’s Research Triangle Park campus…”
These were jobs the state’s political establishment was determined to keep, …Never mind that Lenovo is partially owned by the Chinese government. Or that its takeover of IBM’s PC business raises some of the national-security issues that recently scuttled a United Arab Emirates-owned company’s bid to operate U.S. ports. Or even that Lenovo began cutting jobs after winning state and local incentives worth $14 million.”
Lenovo gets cold feet and looks for a new location
Amongst the scrutiny of the deal, Lenovo decided to “move its new employees to another location. The company decided it needed its own campus. That meant the state could lose more than 1,800 jobs if Lenovo picked a site outside North Carolina.”
North Carolina Democrats go on “high alert”
Commerce officials went on high alert. In March 2005, Assistant Secretary Tony Copeland and industrial developer Steve Brantley went to Beijing to assure Lenovo officials that North Carolina would do everything it could to keep the company. Lenovo already was shopping for possible sites. On the way out, the Commerce duo ran into a delegation from Westchester County, N.Y. — Purchase — wooing the company.
“…Lenovo’s quest for a new site was in full song. The Commerce Department gave the project a code name — Grace — but, unlike many site searches, there was little doubt who was looking.
At the top of Lenovo’s list? $14 Million in tax dollars, not education
At the top of the list: Lenovo wanted $14 million in incentives to stay in North Carolina. About the same time, Commerce was making yet another trip to Asia. Copeland and Peter Cunningham, director of international trade, traveled to Hong Kong to brief Lenovo executives on incentives available in North Carolina.
“There was little the state could offer to save jobs, but Lenovo could get millions of dollars for creating some. And local governments were willing to pay to play.
Read “The China Trade” by clicking here.
Celebrate the Anniversary of the Republican Party by Donating to the NCGOP!!
On March 27, 1867, the North Carolina Republican Party was founded by one hundred and forty-seven citizens in the Capitol House Chamber in Raleigh because they did not like the direction their state was headed. The original founders of our Party, consisting of one hundred and one whites and forty-six blacks, founded the North Carolina Republican Party on the principles of free enterprise and racial equality.
The founders of the North Carolina Republican Party were able to win the majority in the General Assembly that next year, but lost the majority in 1870. Republicans did not hold the majority in the General Assembly until 2010, when the North Carolina Republican Party helped propel our candidates to victory.
Our Republican-led General Assembly is leading the fight for less government, lower taxes, less spending, and creating a more business-friendly environment in our state that will allow the private-sector to create jobs.
The North Carolina Republican Party is on the frontlines to ensure that Republicans are in the majority in Raleigh for more than two years this time around.
But we can’t do it without your help. Please help today’s North Carolina Republican Party and send a contribution to celebrate the anniversary of our founding.
Winning a majority in the General Assembly was only the first step to taking back our state. We must have the resources to combat the millions that President Obama, Governor Perdue and their big government allies will pour in to this state with “paid volunteers” and attack ads on television.
By donating $150 or even $50 today, your contribution will go towards building a massive, statewide grassroots organization and social media programs and that will help Republican candidates be successful in 2011 and 2012.
Sincerely,
Robin Hayes
Chairman, North Carolina Republican Party
Paid for by the North Carolina Republican Party
www.NCGOP.org
| Restore Confidence in Government | ||
| Yesterday, we sent an email about our common-sense legislation to require voters to show a Photo ID before casting their ballot.We cited a recent poll that shows that an overwhelming 84% of North Carolinians favor this common-sense legislation. Also, yesterday over 1,300 North Carolinians signed our online petitionshowing their support!“Restore Confidence in Government”will restore the integrity and confidence in our election and our government that we deserve.Today, we want to make sure you have the FACTS, because we know liberal special-interest groups will distort the facts and resort to half-truths to attack this legislation. |
Fact or Fiction:
Fiction: Critics will claim that there were only “a handful of cases of voter fraud” in the past decade.
Fact: In 2008 alone, there were “235 voting felonies, 30 cases of double voting, 23 cases of noncitizens voting, 5 cases of absentee voting fraud and 16 cases of fraudulent registration forms.”
Fiction: Liberal special-interest groups will paint this legislation as “voter suppression” or a “poll tax” to require citizens to show a valid Photo ID before voting.
Fact: Below are countless activities that North Carolinians must show a Photo ID:
- Attending a rated-R movie
- Cashing a check
- Purchasing items using a personal credit card
- Purchasing alcohol or tobacco products
- Operating a motor vehicle
- Even the ability to panhandle in Winston-Salem
If these routine activities require a photo ID, then why are the liberal special-interest groups against instilling integrity and confidence in our elections and our government?
In addition, this legislation will restore confidence in government by enacting the following:
Granting more flexibility in applying for Absentee Ballots to provide greater access to voting than current law.
Requiring candidates and campaign treasurers to take immediate action to correct campaign finance violations and requiring liability of candidates for civil penalties for campaign finance violations of a candidate campaign committee.
Limiting the Chair of the State Board of Elections to 2 two-year terms in that office.
Prohibiting the employment or contracting of persons to register voters or assist or encourage voters to fill out voter registration forms.
Preventing conflict of interest and its appearance involving political contributions by state contractors.
- Elections Board Probes More Campaign Cash Tied to Black (click to read)
- Perdue: Do as I say, not as I do (click to read)
Help us restore confidence in our government today by signing our online petition!
Who is Ray Rapp looking out for?
The veto override vote passed in the NC Senate. However, it failed in the House by a vote of 68-51. In order to override Gov. Purdue’s veto, it would have taken 72 votes. Ray Rapp (D, Madison) was one of the 51 voting against the veto override. House Bill 2 (HB2) had it passed, would exempt NC residents from the Obamacare “individual mandate” which requires everyone to buy health insurance by 2014 or face financial fines. Mr. Rapp seemed rather irritated that Madison County citizens would have the nerve to ask him to vote to override the Governor’s veto.
Who is Mr. Rapp looking out for?…..you decide!!
UPDATE……Guess What???
After a personal visit to the White House last week, Gov. Purdue came home and decided to veto the Health Care Freedom Act passed by the NC House and NC Senate. Senator Ralph Hise was a strong supporter of this bill.
I encourage all Madison County residents to contact Representative Ray Rapp (D) and encourage him to vote with the House Republicans to override Gov. Purdue’s veto.
Matthew Wechtel
Chairman, Madison County GOP
The Constitutional Case for Health Care Freedom
Raleigh - Governor Beverly Perdue has until Sunday to sign or veto House Bill 2, protecting our health care freedom.
Since the press has widely repeated Attorney General Roy Cooper’s opinion attacking the bill, I thought you might want to have the non-partisan research staff’s legal memorandum.
Have a good weekend.
Sincerely,
Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam
North Carolina House Republican Leader
| NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY Legislative Services OfficeGeorge R. Hall, Legislative Services OfficerTo: The Honorable Paul Stam, Majority Leader, N.C. House of Representatives |
From: Tim Hovis, Shawn Parker, Amy Jo Johnson, Staff Attorneys, Research Division, N.C. General Assembly
Date: February 28, 2011
Re: Analysis of House Bill 2 in response to Letter/Memo from the Office of the Attorney General
On February 23, 2011, House Bill 2- An Act to Protect the Freedom to Choose Health Care and Health Insurance was ratified by the General Assembly. On that same date Attorney General Roy Cooper sent a letter to Governor Beverly Perdue, copying the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the House Majority Leader, indicating the law is unenforceable as to the provisions that directly contradict federal law and including a memorandum drafted by the Solicitor General identifying specific issues of concern. The Research Division has received a request to analyze the issues raised in the Attorney General’s letter. This memorandum examines (1) the General Assembly’s position, as provided in House Bill 2, that no law or rule shall compel a person to provide for their health care services or contract with a health care system or insurance plan, (2) the General Assembly’s direction to the Attorney General in House Bill 2 to bring or defend a suit in State or federal court to enforce its position, and (3) alternate interpretations of certain public policy concerns raised by the Solicitor General.
I. Application of Supremacy Clause to House Bill 2
House Bill 2 prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to provide for health care services or medical treatments for that person. The Act also prohibits any law or rule from requiring a person to participate, contract with, or enroll in a public or private insurance plan or health care system. Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (March 23, 2010), as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, Pub. L. No. 111-1152, 124 Stat. 1029 (March 30, 2010) (collectively “the ACA”) creates an affirmative obligation on individuals to purchase health insurance beginning in 2014 or face the payment of a penalty. As noted by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress has “never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” Cong. Budget Office, The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance, at 1 (Aug. 1994). The non-partisan Congressional Research Service reached the same conclusion indicating that “it is a novel issue whether Congress may use the Commerce Clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.” Congressional Research Service, Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, July 24, 2009, at 3.
As legitimate arguments exist on both sides of the issue, this Division cannot speak to whether the individual mandate is or is not constitutional. Nevertheless, strong arguments support the position of the General Assembly, as stated in House Bill 2, that Congress acted outside its Commerce Clause powers when creating the individual mandate. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the US Constitution (the Commerce Clause) gives Congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce and this includes the channels of interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce (US v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S. Ct. 1624). The Supreme Court has recognized limits to Congress’s Commerce Clause authority by noting “[e]ven [our] modern-era of precedents which have expanded congressional power under the Commerce Clause confirm that this power is subject to outer limits.” (U.S. v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 at 608, 120 S. Ct. at 1740 at 1748-9) (quoting Lopez, 514 U.S. at 556-57, 115 S. Ct at 1628). In both Morrison and Lopez the bounds of the Commerce Clause were constrained. In Lopez, the Court found that the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeded Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. This Act made it a federal offense for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm in a school zone. The Court found that the statute itself had nothing to do with commerce and that it did not fall “under our cases upholding regulation of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 561, 115 S. Ct. at 1631. Additionally, the Court rejected the notion that the Violence Against Women Act was a proper exercise of Commerce Clause powers despite finding by Congress that there is a serious impact of domestic violence on victims and their families. Congress was not found to possess the power to regulate noneconomic activities solely on the basis of its aggregated effect on interstate commerce. Morrison, 529 U.S. at 617, 120 S. Ct. at 1754.
The right of a state to challenge the constitutionality of a Congressional action is not denied simply because Congress chose to act. If this were true, no state could ever challenge an act of Congress. In fact, with regards to the ACA 3 specifically, several court cases are currently underway to challenge the Act’s constitutionality. Two federal district courts, one in Virginia and one in Florida, have found the individual mandate in the ACA to be an improper exercise of the Commerce Clause. See Virginia ex. rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius, 728 F.Supp.2d 768, 771 (E.D. Va., 2010) and Florida ex. rel Bondi v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 2011 WL 285683, 40 (N.D. Fla., 2011). In the Florida case, 26 state plaintiffs are involved in challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision, as well as of the ACA itself. As the position of 27 states is clear regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate, House Bill 2 clarifies North Carolina’s position as well.
Moreover, House Bill 2 does not stand in contradiction to the ACA. House Bill 2 will be effective when it becomes law. The individual mandate within the ACA will not take effect until 2014. A Supremacy Clause argument against House Bill 2 is premature. At this time, House Bill 2 stands as good, constitutional law without current conflict for federal law. “Every presumption favors validity of statute, and it will not be declared invalid unless its unconstitutionality is determined beyond a reasonable doubt.” Baker v. Martin, 410 S.E.2d 887, NC 1991. Additionally, should House Bill 2 be examined by a state court, “[a] reviewing court confronting this question begins its analysis with a presumption against federal preemption”. State ex rel. Utilities Com’n v. Carolina Power & Light Co. 359 N.C. 516, 525, 614 S.E.2d 281, 287 (N.C.,2005) citing also to Hillsborough Cty. v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 85 L.Ed.2d 714, 722-23 (1985) (“Where … the field that Congress is said to have pre-empted has been traditionally occupied by the States we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). Therefore, the Supremacy Clause as an argument for federal preemption does not apply with regards to House Bill 2 at this time.
II. Attorney General Duties Under House Bill 2.
House Bill 2′s directive that the Attorney General of North Carolina “shall have to duty and standing to bring or defend a State or federal action” with regards to the matter of the individual mandate is a proper assertion of North Carolina’s legislative policy power and a proper defense of the State’s law that its citizens will not be compelled to purchase insurance nor be penalized for failure to do so. The North Carolina Constitution provides the policy power may be exercised in the form of state legislation and all legislative power in this State rests in the General Assembly. The Courts have noted “‘The legislative branch of government is without question the policy-making agency of our government….McCracken and Amick, Inc. v. Perdue, 687 S.E.2d 690, 694 (N.C.App.,2009) (quoting Rhyne v. K-Mart Corp., 358 N.C. 160, 169, 594 S.E.2d 1, 
(2004) (quoting McMichael v. Proctor, 243 N.C. 479, 483, 91 S.E.2d 231, 234 (1956)). The North Carolina General Assembly by enacting House Bill 2 on February 23, 2011, has established that it is the position of the General Assembly that no person shall be compelled to (i) provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contract with, or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan; no law or rule shall interfere with a person’s right to pay directly for lawful health care services or medical treatment to preserve or enhance that person’s life or health; nor shall any law or rule impose a penalty, tax, fee or fine on a person for (i) providing for, or failing to provide for, health care services or medical treatment for that person or (ii) contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enroll in, a public or private health care system or health insurance plan.
Additionally the bill explicitly directs the Attorney General “to bring or defend a State or federal action or proceeding on behalf of the residents of this State to enforce the provisions” of the Act. The North Carolina Constitution provides that the duties of the Attorney General shall be prescribed by law. Article III §7(2). If House Bill 2 becomes law, the duties of the Attorney to enforce its provisions will be prescribed by law in subsection (c) of G.S. 58-49A-1. In addition, the general duties assigned to the Attorney General are set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. §114-2. It is the duty of the Attorney General “to appear for the State in any other court or tribunal in any cause or matter, civil or criminal, in which the State may be a party or interested. G.S. 114-2. The Attorney General also has a common law duty to prosecute all actions necessary for the protection and defense of property and revenue of the sovereign people of North Carolina. Martin v. Thornburg, 320 N.C. 533, 545, 359 S.E.2d 472, 479 (N.C., 1987). See also N.C. Gen. Stat. §114-1.1.
III. Solicitor General’s Concerns Regarding State Law Under House Bill 2
The Attorney General’s office has highlighted areas of concern with regards to the effects of House Bill 2 on existing State law. The contention that certain provisions of the act may have unintended financial or public policy consequences has little bearing on the legislative direction provided to the Attorney General; however there are alternative interpretations of the act and these will be addressed briefly:
Anti-fraud Provisions in Medicaid: House Bill 2 provides that no fee may be imposed on a person for “contracting with…a public or private health care system.” As referenced in the Solicitor General’s memo, the ACA directs states who participate in the federal Medicaid program to collect a fee to offset the cost of increased enrollment and verification requirements. The fee is imposed to fight fraud and abuse in the Medicaid system. It is collected from providers such as hospitals, nursing homes, etc. House Bill 2 is aimed at preventing fees charged to a person for “contracting with, or enrolling in, or failing to contract with or enroll in” some sort of private or public health care system/insurance plan. It can be argued that a fee for the purposes of combatting fraud and that is not placed upon a person with regards to the choice to obtain or not obtain health insurance/participate in a health care system is not within the scope of House Bill 2.
Over-the-counter Drugs: House Bill 2 states that “a law or rule shall not…[i]mpose a…tax…on a person for providing for…health care services or medical treatment for that person…” The Solicitor General expresses concern for sales taxes on over-the-counter drugs under House Bill 2. Such a tax is levied as a sales tax for purchasing a good (over-the-counter medication) that is not exempted through statute in the State of North Carolina. Again, in contrast to the Attorney General’s position, it can be argued that the tax is on the purchase of a good and is not found within the scope of providing health care services or medical treatment under House Bill 2. In his memo, the Solicitor General specifically cites the case of Robison v. Walser, as an interpretation of the term “medical treatment”. However an argument can be made that the interpretation is not analogous to the purchase of over the counter medications. In Robinson, the medical treatment involved medication that could be obtained over-the-counter but was administered to a prison inmate by a health care professional. 2009 WL 6669324, 2 (E.D.N.C.). First, House Bill 2 excludes this population in contemplation of circumstances that would require medical treatment without consent of the individual. Additionally, the administering of over-the-counter medication by a healthcare professional is an act that must be distinguished from purchasing over-the-counter medication for oneself. The terms “health care services” and “medical treatment” given their ordinary meaning would imply these services and treatments are either furnished by a health care provider or in a health care setting. “Where a literal reading of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed, the reason and purpose of the law shall control…Taylor v. Crisp, 286 N.C. 488, 496, 212 S.E.2d 381, 386 (N.C. 1975). (quoting Freeland v. Orange County, 273 N.C. 452, 456, 160 S.E.2d 282, 286 (1968)). The purchasing of an over-the-counter medication for oneself would not be construed as providing for health care services or medical treatments as regulated in House Bill 2.
Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP): Deductibles, copayment and various cost-sharing devices are not “fees…on a person for providing for…health care services or medical treatment for that person…” as outlined in House Bill 2. A deductible or copayment is a payment for services made to the provider based on a contractual agreement between the health care provider, insurer, and consumer. It can be argued that a deductible or a copayment is not a “penalty, tax, fee, or fine” paid to the government within the scope of House Bill 2.
Uninsured Motorist Coverage: House Bill 2 provides that “a law or rule shall not [c]ompel a person to…provide for health care services or medical treatment for that person.” Although State law requires drivers to carry uninsured motorist coverage, this requirement does not fall under the prohibitions of House Bill 2. The State does not compel someone to drive a motor vehicle. Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and if one choses to engage in the activity, the insurance must be purchased. Given the lack of a law or rule creating a compulsion upon an individual, uninsured motor coverage is outside of the scope of House Bill 2.
IV. Conclusion
House Bill 2 creates an affirmative duty for the Attorney General to defend the General Assembly’s position regarding individual insurance mandates. The General Assembly’s position as provided House Bill 2 is that the a law or rule shall not compel a person to provide for their health care services or contract with a health care system or insurance plan and that there shall be no penalty for failing to contract with a health care system or insurance plan. By enacting House Bill 2, the General Assembly believes that the federal law is unconstitutional and provides legislative direction to the Attorney General to challenge the ACA. Given the individual mandate found within the ACA does not take effect until 2014, any arguments that House Bill 2 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause are pre-mature. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Attorney General pursue a defense of the General Assembly’s position if House Bill 2 becomes law.
