|
archived:
25 Nov - 2 Dec, 2007
Back
Next UPDATED: NOV 29, 2007 ANGRY REPUBLICAN Daniel Barton, who appears to be a registered Republican in Cumberland County, addressed this letter to the Fayetteville Observer that was published on Monday, November 26, 2007: I am angry at North Carolina’s legislative Democrats who have blocked bills that would add an amendment to the N.C. Constitution that declares marriage in North Carolina is only between one man and one woman. The Democrats claim that a state law says the same, but any one judge could declare that state law as unconstitutional. Why won’t Democrats protect the sanctity of marriage? Barton’s letter raises several critical points. First, Barton is incorrect that “one judge could declare” North Carolina’s statutory prohibition against same sex marriages as unconstitutional. Factually, the issue would come before a trial judge. Assuming that a North Carolina trial judge ruled that the statutory prohibition is unconstitutional, the decision is subject to review, as a matter of right, by the North Carolina Court of Appeals. In the Court of Appeals, three judges would hear the issue; and it would require two of the three judges to hold the statute unconstitutional. The issue could then be presented to the North Carolina State Supreme Court if that Court either a) agreed to hear the issue (which would be highly likely) or b) if one judge dissented in the Court of appeals. The North Carolina Supreme Court has seven judges, all of whom typically sit to hear a case. Barton also fails to mention that NC’s Defense of Marriage Act was passed some eleven years ago and has not been successfully attacked in any North Carolina Court to date. Second, will Barton’s incorrect assertions go unchallenged by Democrats in Cumberland County? Many Democrats might assume that the vast majority of North Carolinians understand Barton’s misunderstanding of the judicial process. The assumption is incorrect. And, while Barton’s letter is just one, in one newspaper, it represents the Republican attack that will NC Democrats will have to address in 2008. TPJ’s response is simply to quote Vice President Dick Cheney on the subject: At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage. “Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to. Third, North Carolina Democrats have repeatedly stopped Republican efforts to put a constitutional amendment to a vote in our State. Who says progressive Democrats have not had an impact in North Carolina? MAKING THE POINT Progressive Democrats are still smarting over the defeat of the real estate transfer tax referendums in every local vote across the State. TPJ covered the defeat in CAREFUL WISHES. In our view, the public soundly defeated the real estate transfer tax because the tax revenue was not “tied” to any specific local community needs. Neither local government officials nor progressives supporting the legislation authorizing the tax wanted to be constrained as to how the real estate transfer tax revenues would be allocated within their communities. Their logic was simply that North Carolina’s growth has a plethora of economic consequences in every community and local government officials should know best how revenues should be spent. Their position is certainly understandable; but it was very shortsighted. Some State Senate Democrats were advising progressives and local government officials supporting the tax that the legislation needed to tie a passage of the tax to specific local community needs. In the end, Senate Democrats gave local government officials and progressives an unrestricted real estate transfer tax. The fundamental problem is that in the face of powerful special interests that spent considerable sums to defeat the tax in every locality, the real estate transfer tax had no major counterbalancing constituencies supporting the referendums. While local county officials certainly supported enactment, their effort was and will most probably never be sufficient in most instances. Stan Norwalk, Vice-Chairman of WakeUP Wake County, authored a highly instructive letter to the Raleigh News & Observer analyzing the defeat of the real estate transfer tax and projecting the tactics that will be needed to pass such measures in the future: BOLD LEADERSHIP IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ignored the threats of the special interests and supported the real estate transfer tax as a major new source of county funds for schools and other infrastructure. A ferocious fight with pro-development legislators resulted in a weak compromise -- but it was a foot in the door. And now an alliance of Realtor and homebuilder lobbies and anti-public school/anti-tax groups is attempting to slam the door shut. On Election Day, they succeeded in all 16 counties' referendums on the transfer tax. The powerful, well-funded associations for Realtors and developers (in a campaign whose total outlays were estimated at $800,000) said the property tax and the sales tax were fairer ways to raise money for schools (read: taxpayers, subsidize growth and our profits.) The executive director of Americans for Prosperity warned, "If they put a tax on the ballot, it'll get defeated. ... And so will some of the commissioners." End of Round 1. Success in Round 2 will depend on well-financed support for transfer taxes linked unequivocally to schools. The No. 1 need is to educate the public. A multi-media campaign every bit as efficient as those of the opponents is needed. Municipal and grass-roots support should be encouraged. Counties should pool their resources and form regional referendum committees. Without a regional effort, counties will be picked-off one-by-one. In TPJ’s estimation, Norwalk correctly frames the next steps for those who support the real estate transfer tax. _____________________________________________ UPDATED: NOV 18, 2007 OPINIONS Elon University released a poll this past week measuring public attitudes in North Carolina. The poll contains a number of fascinating findings. First, November 2007 approval rating in North Carolina; 34%, and his disapproval rate; 57%, closely track TPJ’s November estimation of Bush’s performance nationally; 33% and 63.14% respectively. Bush’s national approval rating has been stuck in the low 30% range since Spring 2007. Second, Elon University’s November poll is roughly equivalent to their findings in April 2007; November approval 34%, April approval 35.8% and November disapproval 57% and April disapproval 61.4%. (Carefully note that the April poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.6%, a relatively high margin of error by modern polling standards.)
The Elon poll is further confirmation that Bush’s standing with the public is largely limited to his Republican base. Third, the poll’s results on the Republican Iraq war continue to document majority opposition to the war, but with a substantial minority supporting the conglaguration. Elon University asked three questions related to the issue of staying in Iraq or withdrawing troops. The questions are: 1. At this point, should the United States be in Iraq? 2. Do you [support or oppose] plans for setting a timetable for withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq by the beginning of 2009? 3. Do you [support or oppose] plans for setting a timetable for withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq by the summer of 2008? We have combined the questions into one chart that appears below. In asking the question whether we should “now” be in Iraq, Elon simply asked the question in a “yes” or “no” format. For the questions on withdrawing “some” troops, degrees of support/oppose were asked. TPJ has added subtotals to the support/oppose questions to facilitate comparison among all three questions.
How does one interpret the opinions that North Carolinians are conveying in response to these three questions. A majority of North Carolinians clearly view Bush’s war and conduct of the occupation as a mistake; 52.2% to 41.1%. And, North Carolinians want “some” troops out of Iraq. but despite the mistake they are willing to give Bush more time in hopes of achieving some degree of success in Iraq. The answer cannot be entirely certain because Elon did not question North Carolinians whether or not all troops should be withdrawn now, six months from now, etc. Dr. Charles Franklin, a professor of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, provides invaluable insights into the question of why, with a majority of the American public believing that the war in Iraq is a mistake (North Carolina 52.2% to 41.1%), public opinion does not force an immediate end to the war. His conclusions (emphasis added): So why doesn't public opinion force an immediate end to the war? One reason is because the public is more equivocal as to motivation than to performance, and more equivocal still as to solutions. A referendum on Bush's performance would lead to overwhelming rejection. But a vote on whether the war was fundamentally wrong in the first place finds a substantial minority still supports the war. When we move to specific policy options, we see similar results. The CBS/New York Times polls taken 9/4-8/07 finds results similar to other recent polls:
Bush War Approval: 26% (All in the ballpark of the trends above.) Do you think the Republican or the Democratic party is more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq?
Republican: 32% A Democratic advantage, but not an overwhelming one. What should the US do now?...
Increase Troops: 11% Combining the first two, this is a 30%-35%-30% split. The "swing vote" here is what do the 35% mean when they say "decrease"? Do they have something like General Petraeus presented today, with a draw-down to pre-surge levels by July 2008? Or do they prefer a much more dramatic reduction, and by an earlier deadline? It is this 35% of the population that could produce overwhelming pressure for a large reduction if they turned out to be united with the "remove all troops" group. But if not, they provide a crucial buffer of opinion for the administration and Republican allies. Likewise, opinion on the effect of the surge is more balanced than opponents of the war might wish: Would you say the troop increase is making the situation in Iraq better, making it worse or is it having no impact?
Better: 35% While a lot see no impact (and may favor a troop reduction in any case) the 35% seeing improvement is quite striking as a basis for support of the surge. Take some share of the 45% that don't think it has mattered much but who aren't opposed to continuing the surge, and again we have a substantial reservoir of support for current policy, and more importantly we lack an overwhelming consensus in favor of a reversal of current policy. Absent that kind of irresistible opinion force, Republicans in Congress can continue to support the President. Bottom line: Frustrated anti-war forces are understandably angry that the 2006 election victory and subsequent Democratic Congress has failed to bring change to Iraq policy. The trend lines above show how support for the war has declined dramatically since 2003. Anti-war forces can correctly point to substantial majorities who are critical of various aspects of the war. But change in Congress also requires that Republican members perceive that opinion against the war is so overwhelming that it is time for them to also abandon ship. That mark in public opinion has not been reached. So long as a substantial minority (say 40%+) support the current policy (or at least oppose a rapid withdrawal) then Republicans can count on a public that is too divided on the issue to pose the certainty of electoral catastrophe. This isn't to say Republicans don't wish the issue would go away, or that they relish running in 2008 with nearly 6 years of inconclusive war on their watch. But opponents of the war will not prevail in Congress unless a more massive opposition emerges--- and one united on the specific details of how to end the war. The bottom line for North Carolinians opposing the war is that a) much has been accomplished in changing public opinions, but b) much remains to be done before public attitudes will force Congressional Republicans to abandon Bush’s failed war. As long as Republicans have substantial minorities in Congress, backed by a President willing to exercise the veto, the war will continue. KUDOS The Fayetteville Observer receives TPJ’s kudos for this editorial (emphasis added): Low-income children outnumber their peers in public schools in the South. That’s the grim news from the Southern Education Foundation. The phenomenon, which hasn’t occurred since the 1960s, means school systems — already struggling to reduce dropout rates, raise test scores and find good teachers — must find a way to educate growing numbers of students likely to struggle. Putting more money into school systems is the way to do it. However, Southern states fall short in that regard. The foundation found states in this part of the country spend less per student than in the rest of the nation and low-income children receive the least in educational resources. According to the report, the number of low-income students enrolled in public schools is growing due to an overall rise in poverty in the region that stretches from Virginia to Oklahoma and Texas. The report defines low-income students as those who qualify for free or reduced-rate lunches because their families earn up to 185 percent of the official poverty level, or less than $32,000 a year for a family of three. In 2006, 54 percent of children in the South came from low-income families, up from 46 percent in 2000. In North Carolina poor children make up about 50 percent of the public school population, up from 40 percent in 2000. A significantly higher percentage of students come from low-income families in Cumberland County. Almost 56 percent of Cumberland students qualify for free or reduced-rate lunches. Low-income students struggle for a number of reasons. Those who skip preschool and have limited life experiences begin kindergarten at a disadvantage. And children who come from single-parent households may not get homework help or other at-home educational experiences. Research shows that young people from poor families have greater difficulty reaching grade-level benchmarks, constitute a large percent of high-school dropouts, and are less likely to go on to college. Those young adults who lack high school or college diplomas become low-income parents of disadvantaged children. The cycle will continue until Southern states invest the kind of money in education that can slow the tide of underachieving. While the Fayetteville Observer’s opinions about the need for more resources for education are compelling, the editorial writer misses one key aspect of the answer to improving education for students. If marginally performing students and school dropouts come from lower wage earning families, logic dictates that we find solutions to raising the economic viability of more North Carolina families. Carefully note in the editorial that since Bush came to office, those families living in or at poverty levels having children in school in North Carolina have increased 10%. This is the vaulted Republican free market economy at work? One chart summarizes what is happening:
The only income group making progress are those in the top 1/5th of the economic ladder. For the rest, household income is falling. In North Carolina, Republican economic policy has produced the horrid results noted in the Fayetteville Observer. As more children come into the school system from low income families, more tax money will be needed. With family incomes dropping, who will have the political resolve to raise those taxes? The Republican answer is giving a cancer patient an aspirin – charter schools. If public schools are failing; then let free market forces provide the solution. This philosophy is consistent with the overarching view of Republicans that government is “bad” and private enterprise is the solution. First, it should be noted that those “free market” forces are producing less income for less people as noted in the chart. Second, John Florez, a former Republican deputy assistant secretary of Labor, exposes the Republican charter school option: If, tomorrow, voters decide school vouchers are good, the question is: good for what and for whom? Would vouchers solve the problems with education that advocates claim as the reasons they want to leave public schools? The voucher debate reveals the unintended consequences of how our attitudes and behavior pull us apart as a society. We are fast becoming a nation between the haves and have nots — those who have an education and those who don't. Those wanting vouchers argue that it gives low-income parents "choice"; however, what it highlights is our limited understanding of the plight of poor families. Many are two-parent families with both parents holding two and even three of the abundance of low-paying jobs; many are single parents who struggle to make it through the day. . . . To use low-income parents as a way to promote school vouchers is deceiving and puts them in a situation no parents want to be in — denying their children an education. Yet, choosing among putting food on the table, medical care, transportation to a job, or coming up with the $2,000 plus to pay the tuition difference, are exactly the choices they have to make. Choice? Without money, there is no choice! The voucher debate should make us realize the social and economic divide that exists in our communities and how the values that hold us together are being eroded by a sense of entitlement and concern for self. We only have to recall the media images of the Katrina disaster. It showed how some thought the poor people who did not join the stream of SUVs fleeing the flooded city "had a choice" and simply decided to stay. But without money, they had no choice. Another disquieting thing was the lack of understanding and empathy on the part of government bureaucrats for those in need. When the flood victims were struggling to survive, they were told to log on to the FEMA Web site to get an application for assistance. Now, we have voucher advocates saying low-income parents can find out how to select a private school they could afford — the "Blue Light Special"? — by logging on to a Web site. Without a computer? On the other side, there are those that claim private schools have no accountability. Well, accountability without oversight and sanctions is worse than no accountability. To protect the status quo is equally wrong. We must stop blaming each other — teachers, parents, zealots — and work together to solve the real problem: We need a new education system. Under our state Constitution, legislators "... shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a uniform system of public schools, which shall be open to all children of the state, and be free from sectarian control." The "buck stops" with them and ultimately with us. All they need is the political will to do so and the public to support them. We have a choice! Inscribed on the wall of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial is one of his quotes about education in a free society, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Establish a law for educating the common people. This is the business of the state and on a general plan." It's still a good idea. For those who perceive that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, think again.
Last Update: 12/02/2007 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
