Civitas ReviewThe Blog of the Civitas Institute

Jun

14

---

Tweet Share Email

The “Moral Monday” protesters have been protesting that they are true representatives of North Carolina. Now, no one voted for them, so how can we assume that they do indeed represent the people they claim to be helping?

We at Civitas have been poring through the arrest records and other public documents to find out more about those arrested at the protests. You can check here for our findings prior to June 10. Next week we’ll have updates, and will continue to follow what goes on at these protests.

My take on the crowd is that those arrested are typical of the crowd I saw gathered for the June 10 protest. Our study of the arrested people showed 62 percent were over 55 years old; the same percentage lived in Orange, Wake or Durham counties; 98 percent were Democratic or Libertarian; and 80 percent were white. Most worked in white-collar fields, with the most common being education, at 27 percent, followed by the clergy at 18 percent, and work for a non-profit at 14 percent.

In short, a typical protester would be a Baby Boomer teacher from Chapel Hill. As a Baby Boomer from Cary who works at a non-profit, I certainly don’t look down on that demographic. But it hardly can be taken to be a broad representation of North Carolina’s population.

Jun

14

---

Tweet Share Email

Per WRAL.com:

The state budget is headed back to the Senate for negotiations after winning its final House vote Thursday, 77-40.

House Republican budget-writers say their $20.6 billion plan fully funds Medicaid, adds 5,000 pre-kindergarten seats and includes compensation for survivors of the state’s eugenics program.

“This is a commonsense budget. It meets the needs of our citizens,” said Senior Appropriations Committee Chairman Nelson Dollar.

If the Senate does not concur with the budget sent back to them by the House (which they won’t) then there will be a conference committee formed from members of both the House and Senate – and that conference committee will negotiate to iron out the differences and come up with a final plan to be voted on by the full House and Senate. Once the House and Senate both approve the budget, it will be sent to Gov. McCrory’s desk for his signature.

Dollar added that he believes this process will be completed before the new fiscal year begins on July 1.

2

Jun

13

---

Tweet Share Email

It’s no great revelation that tax codes drive economic behaviors. Taxpayers respond to financial incentives and disincentives created by their surroundings. One way in which taxes drive behavior can be seen in the example of “tax migration.”

This is a map created by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation. It shows income migration patterns in each of the 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia. Basically, income migration refers to the movement of adjusted gross income from state to state. The states colored in dark green have a net gain in migration from 100 percent of their bordering states. The states colored in red, by contrast, have a net loss in income migration.

Look at North Carolina: it’s red. It is a net loser in income migration with all neighboring states.

Now look at Tennessee. It’s green – meaning that income is pouring in to the state from every one of the surrounding eight states. Tennessee presents an especially interesting example in that it is one of only two states to have eight neighboring states.  Why is Tennessee so successful? What is Tennessee doing to bring all that money in from its neighboring states? Well, for starters, the Volunteer State has no state income tax.

As Travis Brown, author of How Money Walks, notes: “Incentives matter. Taxes may not be the sole reason Americans moved $2 trillion of their AGI between the states, but there is a clear and unmistakable pattern here: Incomes moved to where taxes were lower.”

As state tax reform debates heat up in the Tar Heel state, it’s time for state legislators to take notice.

Jun

13

---

Tweet Share Email

House Bill 725, the Young Offenders Rehabilitation Act, cleared a hurdle in the North Carolina House of Representatives yesterday, passing the Judiciary Subcommittee A. It is now heading to the Appropriations Committee. Also known as the “Raise the Age” bill, this legislation seeks to modify the court’s classification of a minor to include 16- and 17-year-olds for misdemeanors. (A minor is now classified as someone under 16 years of age). Felony charges for 16- and 17-year-olds, however, would still remain in adult court.

Representative Marilyn Avila, R-Wake, a sponsor of the bill, kicked off the discussion by noting several reasons she believes the bill is needed in North Carolina. Avila cited the psychological development stages of an adolescent, juvenile crime reduction statistics from other states who have adopted raise the age legislation, and the small percentage of felony crimes committed by juveniles as compared with the large percentage of misdemeanors.

Durham District Court Judge Marcia Morey, also an outspoken advocate for HB 725, brought to the committee several case examples of teenage misdemeanor crimes that have appeared before her recently. These crimes included offenses such as open container violations, possession of marijuana, and trespassing. Through these examples, Morey tried to depict an image that misdemeanors are “non-violent” and that these teenagers don’t deserve to be classified as criminals at the ages of 16 and 17.
In response to this argument, Marcus Philemon of CharMeck Court Watch countered Morey’s examples with some of his own. These offenses by teenagers included assault with a deadly weapon, simple assault, and assault inflicting serious injury. More opposition came from other quarters, including the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association, which questioned the allocation of resources to support this policy change.
Representative Marcus Brandon, D-Guilford, an avid supporter of the bill, undercut his own stance on the legislation by pointing out that the current juvenile system is overcrowded, underfunded and under-resourced. Since there would be costs for revamping the system, opponents say, adding 16- and 17-year-olds into it will only create a more complicated and ineffective rehabilitation system. Critics of the bill say that the state’s first priority should be to focus on funding and improving the juvenile system as it is now.

As conservatives here at Civitas, we advocate for strict, tough policy on crime. Not only does this bill weaken that policy, but it also ignores certain issues that need to be addressed before the policy should go any further. Much of the reason for opposition is due to the nature of unanswered questions regarding the bill: How will the state treat juveniles who repeatedly commit multiple misdemeanor offenses? How will the state be equipped with enough resources to sustain the population increase in juvenile containment centers, especially with the House and Senate versions of the new budget proposing to close certain juvenile facilities? How will this affect costs in the court system and law enforcement, and how will it impact us as taxpayers?

Before North Carolina moves forward with this bill, its sponsors and supporters need to work out some of the kinks and loopholes. Our juvenile justice system needs whole-hearted reform that can be implemented successfully and completely; we can’t avoid answering the important questions that arise from this shift in policy. Whether you support or oppose this raise the age legislation, North Carolina deserves answers.

Jun

13

---

Tweet Share Email

In the wake of the gun control hysteria that swept the nation this year, finally there is some good news. Earlier this month, the state House passed HB 937, which would allow lawful concealed carriers to carry in places previously barred, including greenways, restaurants that serve alcohol, and locked vehicles on college campuses. Today, an amended version of HB 937 is expected to pass in the Senate. Not surprisingly, this amended bill has renewed the ire of North Carolina progressives.

The News and Observer’s headline screams: “NC bill would do away with handgun permits.” It’s a misleading title, since handguns in North Carolina are not registered, and there is no permit required to own a weapon. Instead, North Carolina requires citizens to purchase a permit, in order to then purchase a handgun. North Carolina is one of only 12 states with such a statute. We have the dubious distinction of being one of the most restrictive states in the country in this regard: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, and Illinois are some of the other states that require a permit to purchase a handgun.

Do pistol purchase permits make us safer? Gun control advocates seem to think so. But as Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, pointed out, pistol purchase permits are actually less effective than ordinary background checks for their intended purpose. A Charlotte Observer article noted: “…North Carolina lets a permit substitute for a background check at the gun shop. Presented with a permit, a dealer has no way of knowing whether the buyer committed a felony after receiving it.” Under the revised bill currently under consideration in the Senate, background checks would be performed before any handgun purchase. This would prevent felons from purchasing handguns, using permits they had obtained years earlier with clean records.

Here’s another interesting tidbit: the requirement to obtain a permit to buy a handgun may actually come from the Jim Crow era, when local sheriffs used gun laws to arbitrarily prevent black citizens from owning weapons. Today, the purchase permit system is a revenue machine for the state: at $5 each, the state is generating millions of dollars from an outdated and ineffective system.

Policy should be informed by facts, not hype and hysteria. With regard to gun rights, it appears that the General Assembly is moving in the right direction.