Civitas ReviewThe Blog of the Civitas Institute

1

May

17

---

Tweet Share Email

What is your story when it comes to riding motorcycles? Do you ride one? Do you have a family member/friend that was hurt while riding a motorcycle? Do you work with motorcycle accident patients? When Judiciary Subcommittee B and the House met this week, there were many stories that were told about personal experiences and how they have shaped the thought of whether House Bill 109 “Require Safety Helmets/Under 21”should be passed the bill has been converted to a study for further investigations into the details.

This is a hot topic that raises points on both sides of the argument. The arguments about safety, rights, liberty, and medical bills are not one that will end any time soon. There were interesting points made for both sides of the argument.

For HB 109:
• People need to make their own decisions and be responsible for the consequences.
• If we have the government bureaucrats regulate wearing a helmet, what else are they going to regulate?
• Motorcyclists understand the risk associated with riding.
Against HB 109:
• Cost of medical insurance will go up because there is a greater risk involved. Health care is not free; where is the money going to come from?
• Wearing a helmet saves a life and personal liberties should be for the safety of all.

So, what is your story?

“It should be the personal responsibility of the rider to decide whether they want to wear a helmet. It is a personal choice and should not be decided by any governmental agency. Helmet laws take away one’s individual liberty to decide what is best for themselves and their lives.”
–Mark, Fastest Speed 223.8MPH

Rep. John Torbett (R-Gaston), the bill’s sponsor, and motorcycle enthusiasts argued fatality rates in states with strict helmet requirements are not statistically different from those that have exceptions or none at all. But converting a bill into a study was a way to keep the debate going; otherwise the issue would have died until 2015.

May

17

---

Tweet Share Email

A press release from Gov. McCrory’s office today announced the state’s intention to ask the federal government for a Medicaid waiver to provide North Carolina the necessary flexibility to pursue its Medicaid reform plans. According to the release:

“The federal government must allow North Carolina to come up with its own solutions,” said Governor McCrory. “We have a unique opportunity in North Carolina to ensure patients and taxpayers achieve the common goal of providing the best possible patient care in a system that is financially sustainable.”

…..

The Senate’s budget will call for the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare a detailed waiver application for review by the General Assembly outlining the Medicaid reform plan. This plan will be in line with the Governor’s vision to provide care for the whole person by uniting physical and behavioral health, increase administrative ease and efficiency for providers, create a predictable and sustainable Medicaid program for taxpayers.

The release also states that House Speaker Tillis and Senate Leader Berger are on board with  this decision.

For more info on Medicaid waivers, click here.

1

May

16

---

Tweet Share Email

Why do liberals hate bald eagles and other wild birds? For according to mainstream news accounts, wind turbines kill more than 573,000 birds annually in the U.S. That includes bald and golden eagles.

The AP says this includes a utility North Carolinians are familiar with:

Duke Energy’s Top of the World wind farm, a 17,000-acre site with 110 turbines located about 35 miles east of Casper [Wyoming], 10 eagles have been killed in the first two years of operation. It is the deadliest of Duke’s 15 wind power plants for eagles.

But that doesn’t stop greenies from hyperventilating about efforts to eventually phase out the state’s mandate that utilities use alternative energy, including wind power.

Two bills to end that mandate have come up for consideration in the General Assembly: HB 298, Affordable and Reliable Energy Act and a Senate counterpart, SB 365. Both have faced heavy opposition, and their fate is unclear. But phasing out the state mandate — which under the more recent proposals wouldn’t happen for years anyway — is both a common-sense measure, and a humane one.

Utilities pass along the costs of using wind turbines to your electric bill. So when you pay a bill from an NC utility, you may be paying for wind turbines that kill eagles and hundreds of thousands of birds.

Meanwhile, the United States is sitting vast reserves of oil and natural gas. There’s no need for these bird-killing towers. There’s no good reason NC should force utilities to use sources of power that chop wild birds into pieces.

1

May

16

---

Tweet Share Email

The AP is reporting that the North Carolina House has made available to them details of tax reform legislation they are working on. Following are the main highlights of the plan:

• The personal income tax would change from the current multi-bracket structure ranging from 6% to 7.75% to a flat 5.9% next year. Standard deductions would increase to exempt the first $12k of family income, and the child credit would increase from $100 to $250 for most filers
• The corporate income tax would drop from 6.9% to 6.75% next year, with the apportionment formula used by multi-state companies narrowed to cover only sales after four years
• Lower the combined state/local sales tax from 6.75% (for most counties) to 6.65%, while expanding the sales tax base to some services; specifically to businesses that already collect sales taxes on a portion of their sales (i.e. car repair shops that already collect sales taxes on parts would also charge sales tax on labor, or hair salons that already collect sales taxes on the sale of hair-care products would also charge tax on haircuts, etc.). Also, current exemptions to the sales tax such as the exempting of groceries from the state portion of the sales tax (most groceries are only subject to the local 2% rate) and prescription drugs would remain.
• The franchise tax on corporations would be reduced

According to the details provided in the article, the House plan is much more tentative than the Senate plan. There are a number of similarities, but key differences include:

• The House plan leaves the personal income tax significantly higher than the Senate plan (5.9% vs. 4.5% – a 31 percent higher rate)
• The House plan doesnt’ lower the corporate income tax rate as much as the Senate (6.75% vs. 6.5%)
• The House plan doesn’t lower the sales tax as much as the Senate plan does (6.65% vs. 6.5%), and the House plan still leaves the majority of sales tax exemptions on the books – thus leaving in uneven treatment of household purchases and therefore distortions in their decision-making, while leaving the rate higher than it otherwise could be
• The House plan doesn’t eliminate business privilege taxes or the state death tax like the Senate plan does

I’d still like to see more details of the House plan to provide a more informed evaluation, but at first blush it seems like the House plan as far less bold and therefore would have less of a positive economic impact.

Moreover, according to the AP article, the House plan would slow the growth of revenue by a similar amount as the Senate plan. With the details available thus far, it would appear this is achieved because the House plan – while not cutting rates as much – also would apply the sales tax to a far narrower base than the Senate plan.

If any meaningful tax reform is to be accomplished this session, the Senate and the House will need to iron out these details in short order.

2

May

15

---

Tweet Share Email

The N&O today penned an article praising the “Moral Monday” protesters at the General Assembly, and the “urgent message” they are delivering to legislators.

But what exactly is in this so-called urgent message? According to the N&O, the protesters are upset about “cuts” to education spending, the state’s refusal to accept Medicaid expansion, reductions to unemployment benefits and the Senate’s tax plan.

Unsurprisingly, the N&O and apparently the protesters may be long on dramatic, self-serving grasps at attention, but short on facts.

On education spending, per pupil state allocations for K-12 skyrocketed by 24% in just five years between 2003-4 and 2008-9, a rate that was revealed to be unsustainable when recession hit. But the N&O and the protesters can’t be bothered to look into such facts (not that dumping more money into the public education blob will help anything anyway).

In regard to Medicaid expansion, the N&O makes the claim that “the federal government will pay the cost” for the expansion. Not true. First off, the “federal government” has no money, so it would actually be taxpayers paying the cost for the expansion. More specifically, the state will be responsible for 10% of the additional costs of expansion after a few short years. Estimates project that would cost state taxpayers an additional $1.1 billion from 2014 to 2020 alone. Expansion would also add as many as 600,000 or more new enrollees to the already bloated Medicaid program. That would mark a doubling of Medicaid enrollees in about fifteen years, a time when doctors accepting Medicaid patients has declined. The increase would total about 1.2 million people added to Medicaid. That’s the equivalent of adding the entire population of Wake and Durham counties to a program with declining doctors. Just who does the N&O think these new enrollees will be able to see for medical care? And where does the N&O think the state will come up with an additional $1.1 billion to pay for all of these people to be jammed into waiting rooms across the state?

And then there is the claim that “cuts in unemployment” benefits will be harmful to the economy. How so? Where do they think the money comes from to pay these benefits? It comes out of the pockets of employers, of course. Less money for job creators means fewer jobs created. And then there is the obvious observation that paying people not to work results in more people not working. Does the N&O think paying people not to work benefits the economy? I guess the N&O writers were too busy dusting off the old Peter, Paul and Mary 8-track tape to consider such “extreme” questions.

Lastly, the N&O once again sites the Senate tax plan calculator to claim the plan unfairly benefits high income people while harming the middle class. This ignores of course an analysis examining the usefulness of the data used in the calculator and in turn the way it can skew results. Such calculations also ignore the most important aspect of tax reform: the dynamic effects on the economy as the state attracts more investment and job creation – benefits more concentrated to lower-income households and the unemployed.

The protesters and their cheerleaders at the N&O are welcome to discuss policy differences – just don’t insult us by claiming some moral high ground when you have little understanding of the issues.