Civitas ReviewThe Blog of the Civitas Institute

Mar

11

---

Tweet Share Email

This week’s Bad Bill of the Week is another repeat offender. SB 99 would create a state law recognizing “Benefit Corporations.” What are Benefit Corporations?

According to the bill, “a benefit corporation shall have as one of its corporate purposes the creation of a general public benefit.” The legislation defines “general public benefit” as: “A material positive impact on society and the environment, taken as a whole, as measured by a third-party standard.” (Emphasis added.)

This passage provides a major clue suggesting that SB 99 seeks to enforce the activities of companies according to certain standards of environmental impact and sustainability measures. And who provides this “third-party standard?”

To get the answer to that question and to learn more about this highly suspect piece of legislation, read the whole article here.

1

Mar

08

---

Tweet Share Email

The old Met Life insurance commercials used to feature the tag line, “Get Met, It Pays.” Yesterday came the announcement that North Carolina landed Met Life expansion projects to be located in Cary and Charlotte – but who pays?

Taxpayers, of course.

According to reports, Met Life was bribed to the tune of $94 million in state handouts along with millions more from local governments. Last night, NBC 17 ran a story on this announcement, and the segment included a few words from me. Unfortunately, TV sound bites can not capture much, so if you need a refresher on how Civitas feels about the political class doling out taxpayer dollars and privileges to select companies, check out the archived posts under the “corporate welfare” tag.

Bottom line, tax all businesses the same or -better yet – don’t tax them at all. That would be the ultimate economic incentive.

Mar

07

---

Tweet Share Email

Going back several years, Civitas has urged more transparency when it comes to local and state debt referendums. Specifically, we have advocated applying “truth in lending” type standards to bond referendums. When private citizens take out a mortgage, for instance, the government requires the lender to disclose information about the full amount of debt obligations to the borrower – namely including the amount of interest that will be tacked on to the principle owed.

Yesterday, House Bill 248, sponsored by Reps. Debra Conrad (R-Forsyth), Jim Fulghum (R-Wake), George Cleveland (R-Onslow), John Blust (R-Guilford), was introduced. The bill, entitled the Taxpayer Debt Information Act, would require language on local or state debt referendums disclosing and estimated total amount of payments required to pay off the debt being voted upon (principle plus interest). Before now, voters were merely presented with the amount of the principle itself, leading many to be deceived as to the actual burden the debt will place on taxpayers.

Shouldn’t government at least live up to the same disclosure standards they require of lenders in the private market?

Of course, this bill only has meaning if government actually submits new issues of debt to a vote of citizens, something the state hasn’t done since 2000.

1

Mar

05

---

Tweet Share Email

29 percent.

That is the percentage of lottery revenue actually transferred to fund education programs in 2012, about $435 million.  How is the lottery revenue distriibuted?

• 7 percent of lottery money was paid in commissions to retailers for lottery tickets
• 4 percent went to advertising marketing and other administrative expenses.
• The remaining 60 percent of lottery revenue was paid out in prizes.

Most schools and educators wonder where all the money goes.  Getting 29 cents of every lottery dollar, is not a very good return for schools.  Should we be surprised, who ever said the lottery was a good bet.

5

Mar

05

---

Tweet Share Email

Speaker of the House, Thom Tillis and State House Elections Committee Chair, Representative David Lewis, laid out the plan for a voter photo ID bill this morning.

According to Representative Lewis, we should see a bill by March 25, 2013 and the vote would come sometime in April. He made it clear they do not plan to rush the legislation and will take this time to hear from the people of North Carolina who oppose and support the legislation.