Tar Heel Dems

archived: 3 - 9 Apr, 2005 Back Next

UPDATED: April 7, 2005

LOTTERY

Democrats in the North Carolina State House passed a State lottery today. The legislation is headed to the State Senate.

Democrats were able to pass the lottery even though nine Democrats voted against the lottery by picking up seven Republican votes.

The vote:

Ayes:

Representative(s): Adams (D), Alexander (D), Allen (D), B., Allen (D), L., Allred (R - Alamance), Bell (D), Bordsen (D), Carney (D), Church (D), Coates (D), Cole (D), Coleman (D), Crawford (D), Culpepper (D), Cunningham (D), Daughtridge (R – Nash), Dickson (D), Earle (D), England (D), Faison (D), Farmer-Butterfield (D), Fisher (D), Gibson (D), Glazier (D), Goforth (D), Goodwin (D), Grady (R – Onslow), Hackney (D), Haire (D), Harrell (D), Hill (D), Holliman (D), Hunter (D), Jeffus (D), Jones (D), Jones, Ed (D), Justice (R – New Hanover/Onslow), LaRoque (R – Greene/Lenoir/Wayne), Lucas (D), McAllister (D), McLawhorn (D), Michaux (D), Owens, Parmon (D), Ross (D), Saunders (D), Sherrill (R – Buncombe), SPEAKER (D), Stiller (R – Brunswick), Sutton (D), Tolson (D), Tucker (D), Underhill (D), Wainwright (D), Warren (D), Wilkins (D), Williams (D), Womble (D), Wray (D), Wright (D), Yongue (D).

Noes:

Representative(s): Almond (R), Barnhart (R), Blackwood (R), Blust (R), Brown (R), Brubaker (R), Capps (R), Clary (R), Cleveland (R), Culp (R), Current (R), Daughtry (R), Dockham (R), Dollar (R), Eddins (R), Folwell (R), Frye (R), Gillespie (R), Gulley (D –Durham), Harrison (D – Guilford), Hilton (R), Hollo (R), Holloway (R), Holmes (R), Howard (R), Insko (D – Orange), Johnson (R), Justus (R), Kiser (R), Langdon (R), Lewis (R), Luebke (D – Durham), Martin (D – Wake), McComas (R), McGee (R), McMahan (R), Miller (D – Durham), Moore (R), Morgan (R), Nye (D – Bladen/Cumberland), Pate (R), Pierce (D – Hoke/Robeson/Scotland), Preston (R), Rapp (D – Haywood/Madison/Yancey), Ray (R), Rayfield (R), Rhodes (R), Sauls (R), Setzer (R), Stam (R), Starnes (R), Steen (R), Vinson (R), Walend (R), Walker (R), Weiss (D – Wake), West (R), Wiley (R), Wilson (R).

It is readily apparent that progressive Democrats from Durham, Wake, Orange and Guilford comprised the block of votes opposing the lottery. Republicans from eastern North Carolina comprised the block of votes supporting the lottery.

Most critically, the passage of the lottery demonstrates the power of the Democratic Party leadership. The effect of Speaker Black’s support for the lottery was critical and decisive. Simply stated, principled progressives comprised too few votes to effect the outcome. TPJ’s sources indicate that Speaker Black had “reserve” votes if needed, but they were released to vote against the lottery if the measure could pass without their votes.

The bill will now go to the State Senate. Some commentators are predicting that the lottery will have an easier course to passage than in the State House. Part of that belief is based upon the fact that the State Senate has previously a lottery measure. However the composition of the State Senate has changed.

The Senate leadership will, however, exercise its considerable power and influence to pass the lottery. Progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans will again attempt to forge a coalition to stop the lottery.

With the House vote yesterday, the odds have improved for passage of the lottery; but the issue still hangs in the balance.

_____________________________________________

UPDATED: April 5, 2005
LOTTERY

The issue of a lottery in North Carolina will be decided next week. TPJ supports its enactment.

Lottery opponents make essentially three arguments against the lottery. They are:

“Lotteries prey most heavily upon the poor and disenfranchised. Lotteries send a message that is antithetical to the principles of hard work and thoughtful stewardship of one's resources. It strikes me as a terrible irony that the state would link such an unwholesome enterprise to the very institutions -- our schools -- that we ask to foster the ideals of hard work and principled living.” – Charlotte Observer (Mike Ward, former Superintendent of Public Instruction, writing).

The State should not become of huckster of gambling, which amounts to a regressive tax. – Common Sense

“I have a great faith that this session of the General Assembly will also stand by our children and, like its predecessor, find a way - a North Carolina way - of providing the basic funding to give these children the educational experience which they hold as a matter of right. After all they are the only real future our state possesses. Every thoughtful citizen knows that we can do no less” – Citizens United Against The Lottery (Bill Friday, former President of the UNC system, writing).

Proponents, including TPJ, usually make these arguments:

North Carolina is only one of ten states nationally that does not have a lottery.

Every state surrounding North Carolina has a lottery and North Carolina is losing substantial revenue to those states.

A lottery could provide critical funds for public education

In essence, Bill Friday’s faith that the General Assembly will provide the basic funds for public education is misplaced. TPJ featured an article several weeks ago clearly noting that public funding for public education has declined over the past several years. The UNC system has requested funds from the General Assembly this year that will not adequately met.

In fact, the General Assembly will pass additional tax cuts. TPJ’s legislative sources indicate the cuts will not be as large as some in the past, but cuts will be passed despite the fact that North Carolina tax revenues are not sufficient to meet critical funding needs in education and social services.

Without a lottery, education will still be a funding priority of Democrats in the General Assembly. Readers should understand that social service agencies are preparing budget cut agendas for the General Assembly that will eliminate or cut programs that Democrats fought for years to fund. Health care will be particularly vulnerable.

The argument that a lottery prays upon poor people is a class characterization that should offend those making it. Essentially, the argument implies that poor people do not have the sense to understand that winning a lottery is a long shot. Poor people are not stupid. If you ask them about the chances in a lottery, most know.

The lottery is not a tax. A tax is imposed by the State. No one is forced to play a lottery.

It is extremely hypocritical that North Carolinians with “means” get on jet planes or drive in cars to Las Vegas, Atlantic City or Mississippi and gamble or buy lottery tickets. Some of those very people oppose the lottery.

North Carolinians are playing the lottery anyway. If you have been to a gas station across the border in South Carolina or Virginia, it is obvious that North Carolinians are playing the lottery and North Carolina is losing the revenue.

Some opponents have argued the moral example of having a lottery. North Carolina law currently allows non-profit organizations to offer bingo and raffles to raise money for their charitable purposes. If gambling is immoral in any form, the amount is not at issue, it is the practice. North Carolina already condones the practice. If TPJ recalls North Carolina history correctly, the General Assembly authorized a lottery in the early years of UNC-CH for building construction.

If there is an immorality here, it is that North Carolina political leaders lack the will to raise the funds to support public education. Progressive Democrats are working to change the political climate. It may take years. Are we prepared to give North Carolina children less in education until that climate changes. If the answer is yes, we are condemning a generation of children to lesser educational opportunities.

TPJ, as one progressive organ, supports the lottery.

THE 10^TH

Democrats in the 10^th Congressional District may have an opportunity to make inroads in 2006. Rep. Patrick McHenry, who barely won his Party’s nomination, is not unifying his Party base.

CRNCTRUTHCAUCUS, College Republican National Committee Truth Caucus, recently published this insight into Rep. McHenry:

At this writing, sources indicate U.S. Congressman Patrick McHenry has several paid staffers attending the North Carolina state convention attempting to reverse its endorsement of Michael Davidson.

McHenry is a personal friend of CRNC Chairman Eric Hoplin and was a former CRNC national treasurer.

Eric Hoplin used the CRNC, a 527 organization, to provide numerous field representatives (nearly 60 of them) for McHenry’s uphill primary battle to become congressman last year. McHenry defeated Catawba County Sheriff David Huffman by only 85 votes. Insiders say he “owes” HoplinCO.

______

Today, many college republicans are asking why the CRNC donated so many resources (60 field representatives) to help elect Patrick McHenry in a contested republican primary. He won by only 85 votes.

The CRNC constitution's non-endorsement policy states: "neither the CRNC nor any individuals acting in their capacity as national officers or board members of the CRNC may endorse any candidate for public office if there is more than one Republican candidate for that office until after the Republican primary for that office."

The question is: Do these actions constitute an endorsement?

TPJ will continue to follow the story. But, it suggests that Rep. McHenry may be in trouble within his own Party.

_____________________________________________

RIGHT OR WRONG?

Rep. Senator Burr appeared at Duke University recently. In response to the Terri Schiavo case, Sen. Burr made these comments:

"Clearly we stepped on states' rights, but we felt that was necessary, whether right or wrong," he said.

Burr said that it is important for future generations to see an involved Congress, not one that chooses to do nothing.

"If we don't look, if we don't act, we have also set a precedent," he said. – Durham Herald

North Carolina has elected another Republican who, for political whim, would transgress the US Constitution.

THE LOTTERY
[Authored by Bo Dean]

Not every democratic progressive feels the same about the lottery. In fact many of us support it and are very encouraged that we will have it soon in North Carolina. At this juncture, however, at least allowing people the free exercise to decide on having this is democratic and essential.

While it is my belief it should be allowed, we must have legislation, as offered by Senator Julia Boseman of New Hanover County that restricts where the funds go and that ensures that it is not substitute funding.

As someone in [h]igher education, I know first hand how many students North Carolina loses each year to other states that have trust funds and scholarships to students who can attend state colleges for free. We must have that option here and the lottery is a way to help make that happen.

But, regardless of where a person stands on the lottery, North Carolinians should have the right to decide on this issue.

_____

Junkie: Bo Dean’s thoughts were taken from an email that Dean posted on a number of progressive list servers. Most importantly, Dean writes from a perspective that does not receive a lot of press attention.

Junkie joins Dean in supporting a lottery in North Carolina.

TPJ will be covering the subject and the deep divisions within the Democratic Party over this issue during the coming week. TPJ readers of all views are invited to email TPJ with their opinions on the pending lottery vote. TPJ will include as many opinions as possible.

A DESIRE FOR A NATURAL DEATH

Terri Schiavo’s ordeal demonstrates what can happen when individuals do not properly plan for the contingencies that may befall us during life.

North Carolina enacted law enabling individuals to select a natural death. If Schiavo had executed a declaration under Florida law, years of litigation and agony would have been avoided.

The North Carolina for to express A Desire For A Natural Death is quite simple as the General Assembly provided a form for the declaration. The statutory form is below. One can cut and paste the form into a word processing system.

The form is completed by filling in all blanks and initialing the choices for waiving extraordinary treatment.

TPJ readers may want to make all of their friends aware of planning now. A Word version of the statutory form can be found at this hyperlink – Declaration Of A Desire For A Natural Death.

_____

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

COUNTY OF _________________

Declaration Of A Desire For A Natural Death

I, _____________________, being of sound mind, desire that, as specified below, my life not be prolonged by extraordinary means or by artificial nutrition or hydration if my condition is determined to be terminal and incurable or if I am diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state. I am aware and understand that this writing authorizes a physician to withhold or discontinue extraordinary means or artificial nutrition or hydration, in accordance with my specifications set forth below:

(Initial any of the following, as desired):

______ If my condition is determined to be terminal and incurable, I authorize the following:

_____ My physician may withhold or discontinue extraordinary means only.

_____ In addition to withholding or discontinuing extraordinary means if such means are necessary, my physician may withhold or discontinue either artificial nutrition or hydration, or both.

_ _____ If my physician determines that I am in a persistent vegetative state, I authorize the following:

_____ My physician may withhold or discontinue extraordinary means only.

_____ In addition to withholding or discontinuing extraordinary means if such means are necessary, my physician may withhold or discontinue either artificial nutrition or hydration, or both.

This the _____ day of _______________, 200___.

Signature___________________________________

I hereby state that the declarant, _______________, being of sound mind signed the above declaration in my presence and that I am not related to the declarant by blood or marriage and that I do not know or have a reasonable expectation that I would be entitled to any portion of the estate of the declarant under any existing will or codicil of the declarant or as an heir under the Intestate Succession Act if the declarant died on this date without a will. I also state that I am not the declarant's attending physician or an employee of the declarant's attending physician, or an employee of a health facility in which the declarant is a patient or an employee of a nursing home or any group-care home where the declarant resides. I further state that I do not now have any claim against the declarant.

Witness ____________________________________

The clerk or the assistant clerk, or a notary public may, upon proper proof, certify the declaration as follows:

Certificate

I, ____________________, Clerk (Assistant Clerk) of Superior Court or Notary Public (circle one as appropriate) for _______________ County hereby certify that _______________, the declarant, appeared before me and swore to me and to the witnesses in my presence that this instrument is his Declaration Of A Desire For A Natural Death, and that he had willingly and voluntarily made and executed it as his free act and deed for the purposes expressed in it.

"I further certify that _______________ and _______________, witnesses, appeared before me and swore that they witnessed _______________, declarant, sign the attached declaration, believing him to be of sound mind; and also swore that at the time they witnessed the declaration (i) they were not related within the third degree to the declarant or to the declarant's spouse, and (ii) they did not know or have a reasonable expectation that they would be entitled to any portion of the estate of the declarant upon the declarant's death under any will of the declarant or codicil thereto then existing or under the Intestate Succession Act as it provides at that time, and (iii) they were not a physician attending the declarant or an employee of an attending physician or an employee of a health facility in which the declarant was a patient or an employee of a nursing home or any group-care home in which the declarant resided, and (iv) they did not have a claim against the declarant. I further certify that I am satisfied as to the genuineness and due execution of the declaration.

This the _____day of ___________________, 200__.

Clerk (Assistant Clerk) of Superior Court or Notary Public (circle one as appropriate) for the County of _____________________.

Last Update: 03/23/2006