Paul Stam 2007-2008 NC House Republican Caucus

Voucher Confusion by Bev Perdue

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-09-16T07:37:47-04:00

Rep. Paul Stam - Republican Leader of the North Carolina House of Representatives

Yesterday I saw a Bev Perdue ad frightening me against Mayor Pat McCrory. The ad claimed his supposed voucher position would cost the State $900 million, requiring tax increases and slashed education spending.

Yet a voucher is the same as a check drawn from a bank, just a form authorizing disbursement of cash and used as credit against a purchase or expense. The Smart Start Initiative backs a wide variety of purchases for private services, and not just for children of low-income families but for early childhood health screening, for example. If profit-making services were not available for health screening, transportation, and many child care and pre-school education providers the much touted success of this program would not be possible.

National studies of pre-school programs in most states regularly cite the use of vouchers as standard policies, including an analysis done by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, listed on the Partnership’s website as the chief private donor to Smart Start. This statewide non-profit has received $2.280.2 Billion in funding from the taxpayers.

Every year Bev Perdue served in the state Senate, and later as Lieutenant Governor, she supported private education vouchers at the preschool level and at the college level in the form of Legislative Tuition Grants. She has never claimed this was bad policy or that this drew money away from public education.

For 35 years North Carolina has authorized what is today a $1,950 credit to every North Carolina resident attending our private and religious colleges. This saves the taxpayers money. According to the General Assembly’s Fiscal Research Division we subsidize North Carolina students in the UNC system $11,833 per year. In 2003, Bev Perdue presided over extension of this program to Roanoke Bible College, an accredited four-year institution. Good for her!

Tax credits do not cost the state any more money than Bev Perdue’s Legislative Tuition Grants.

In 2008, House Bill 388 and Senate Bill 2079 proposed tax credits for parents of children with special needs. Bev Perdue torpedoed that idea at the urging of her Union bosses. Fiscal Research staff estimated this proposal would have allowed $18 million in tax credits to 2,900 parents of special needs children and provided a net savings to the State of $7 million and $6 million for the counties each year.

After 8 years on the State Board of Education, her recent ads demonstrate Bev Perdue as unqualified to lead education policy.

Durham County Meals Tax

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-07-25T16:53:15-04:00

House Bill 2690

It has been a long time since a local meals tax has been approved by the General Assembly for a metropolitan area. This year there was a renewed attempt by the City of Durham for such a meals tax to fund “cultural amenities” such as minor league baseball.

This tax is highly regressive. The fig leaf of a local referendum does not hide the fact that lots of people who will be subject to the tax will not get to vote in the referendum. The Democrats never want referenda on important issues like marriage or property rights, but they think a local referendum can redeem bad tax policy which seeks to put the tax burden on one group of taxpayers. This bill was opposed by the N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association.

In the House the bill passed 60 to 59 with 49 Republicans and 10 Democrats voting “no”. In the Senate the bill passed 20 to 18.

Protecting Private Property Rights: Involuntary Annexation

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-07-25T16:44:43-04:00

Prepared by Rep. Nelson Dollar, District 36

North Carolina is one of only four states which allow property to be involuntary annexed by a city without meaningful consultation with property owners. Tremendous growth in recent decades has caused the issue to become more and more contentious. In many instances cities have involuntarily annexed high-value neighborhoods in order to boost municipal revenues. Research shows tax increases ranging from 60 percent to more than 100 percent for properties brought into municipalities through involuntary annexation. Current law provides citizens with very limited recourse when their land and homes are about to be involuntarily annexed. Homeowners are relegated to speaking before a city or town council made up of members not answerable to them.

Tens of thousands of homeowners have been speaking out demanding a real voice in the process and seeking reform of involuntary annexation.

The House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation proposed a temporary one-year moratorium on involuntary annexation to allow time for further study with a goal of enacting reforms in 2009. The Moratorium, HB 2367, passed with a large margin in the Finance Committee, but was weakened in the Judiciary II Committee. After a hard fought and successful effort to restore teeth to the bill, the Moratorium passed overwhelmingly in the House. When it arrived in the Senate, Senator Tony Rand, Democrat Majority Leader, assigned the bill to his Rules Committee and declared it dead.

Republicans are committed to reform of North Carolina’s involuntary annexation laws. Cities need to be able to plan for orderly growth, close doughnut holes and extend city services to serve urban areas of development on their borders; nevertheless, homeowners must have a real voice in the process when a city reaches out to take them in by force. North Carolina law totally ignores the rights of these citizens. We need to reform and modernize the law to allow for a proper balance between allowing cities to grow and protecting the rights of our citizens.

Republicans in the General Assembly are determined to fight to protect private property rights including reform of North Carolina’s annexation laws and enacting protections when local governments seek to take private property through the use of Eminent Domain. Annexation is a taxing issue and Eminent Domain is a takings issue. Both need reform to protect the property rights of our fellow citizens.

The following are votes on the Floor of the House: Second Reading, the Goforth Amendment to restore the Bill after it was gutted in the committee process, and Third Reading on the Bill. The Goforth Amendment was the key vote on this Bill.

Bullying Bill

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-07-25T16:38:35-04:00

The House and Senate passed very different versions of House Bill 1366 in 2007. The House version of the “School Violence Prevention Act” included language specifying students who identified themselves by “sexual orientation” and naming in state law, for the first time, groups of people based on “gender identity or expression.” The Senate version amended the bill by removing this language, focusing on bullying of any public school student.

The State Board of Education had already adopted an anti “bullying” policy,1 in 2004, requiring local school boards to adopt effective and enforceable policies to protect all public school students from all bullying, everywhere and any time.

State school board policy was working well. Most school districts already have a bullying policy and in line with the state mandate. But before the ink had dried on that policy, left-wing advocates immediately began lobbying for a change, to give special recognition to those who claimed they were being bullied based on “sexual orientation” (undefined) and “gender identity.”

The House originally passed H.B. 1366, making just those kinds of changes to the law, by a vote of 73 to 46. The Senate, by a vote of 40 to 8, passed its strong anti bullying version of the bill which reaffirmed the state school board’s policy. In 2008, the House voted 60 to 56 not to accept the Senate version. Voting “Yes” was to reject the Senate’s position. Voting “No” supported the Senate version to prohibit all bullying, anytime or for any reason in the public schools.

“Bullying is bullying,” State school board chairman Howard Lee said,2 when the bill stalled in the House in 2008. “I don’t think the problem calls for all these categories and specifications, but I don’t want to diminish the fact that bullying is a problem in the schools.”

A conference committee was appointed but no vote was taken on its report. In the end, the 59 Democrats who voted to reject the Senate version were apparently more interested in their categories than in stopping bullying.

State Health Plan

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-07-24T16:58:42-04:00

After the General Assembly passed its 2008 Budget, Democratic leaders announced they had discovered a quarter billion dollar deficiency in the State Health Plan for teachers, state employees and retirees.

This involved reserves and operating expenses, turning a projected $50 million surplus into a possible $200 million deficit during the fiscal year that began July 1, 2008.

At first these leaders planned to do little about it now. They then proposed to take any shortfall from the Rainy Day Fund. The goal for the Rainy Day Fund is 8 percent of last year’s operating budget, or $1.704 Billion. Instead, it is now only funded at $787 million.

In the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Mickey Michaux violated the Rules by refusing a Republican Alternative, offered by Rep. Leo Daughtry, to be discussed. On the floor Rep. Paul Stam made a motion to suspend the Rules so the Republican Alternative could be debated. Everyone understood that this vote was on the merits of the Republican alterative. Nevertheless, it failed 48 to 62, with 61 Democrats voting against the Stam Motion.

The Republican Alternative would have required the Governor to begin now to find a 1 percent savings in the State’s Budget so the coming State Health Plan crisis, which is surely coming this fall or winter, could be averted.

For Background: For these two years the Budget has increased by 13 percent, or approximately twice the rate of inflation plus population growth. In previous years Governor Easley has imposed unilateral cuts on his departments of almost 5 percent. Of course he can effect a 1 percent savings, and if he starts now it won’t be as painful as it will be if he waits until fall or winter. Senate Democrats refused to do anything about the problem.

To refuse to adjust the Budget after a known $200 - $250 million problem was identified was irresponsible. State Auditor Les Merritt announced July 24 he had opened an investigation into the State Health Plan’s oversight and financial forecasts.

Republicans Call on Congress to Lift Last Ban on Ocean Oil and Gas Exploration

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-07-17T17:08:18-04:00

NC House Republicans have introduced a Resolution urging Congress to lift the ban on ocean oil and gas exploration. House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake) said strong support for lifting the ban should have persuaded Democratic House leaders to allow the Resolution to be heard before adjournment.

On July 2, Republicans in the State Senate issued a similar call on Congress to lift its ban on Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration. On Monday the President lifted an executive ban, leaving only Congress to consider if its own outdated ban should stay in effect.

“Years of technological advances in environmental drilling safety,” Stam said, “will help protect North Carolina’s coastline from harm. The location of the rigs will make sure they don’t affect the view from the shoreline.”

Concerns over rigs spoiling ocean views from North Carolina beaches are no longer warranted, say Resolution sponsors. Stam distributed a Frequently Asked Questions study dispelling “Common Misconceptions” about Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas exploration.

“Even from atop Cape Hatteras light,” Stam said, “the tallest lighthouse in the United States, the distance to the horizon, based on the curvature of the earth, is less than 20 miles. Rigs tapping the known reserves would be impossible to see from the Hatteras lighthouse tower.”

“This is about finding solutions to the rising price of gasoline and the terrible effect it has on North Carolina’s families,” Stam added. Supporters said lifting dated restrictions on exploration of North Carolina’s potentially huge deep water oil and gas reserve would not immediately lower gasoline prices, but would exert a long-term, downward pressure on prices.”

Repeal the State Gift Tax

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-06-17T19:55:39-04:00

Senate Bill 1756

Remarks by Rep. Paul Stam - House Republican Leader

Raleigh: Tuesday, June 17 - The purpose of taxation should be to raise revenue to fund important government services. There are several taxes that are counterproductive to that purpose. One is the vestigial North Carolina gift tax. North Carolina is one of only three states (Connecticut and Tennessee) with a state gift tax (and Connecticut taxes only very large gifts).

While the checks that come in labeled “gift tax” total $18 million dollars/year, this tax actually raises no money. It is a trap for the unwary and serves no socially useful purpose. The Senate has voted to repeal the tax, effective January 1, 2008. I propose the House pass this bill effective for gifts made after July 1, 2009.

1. Without this tax we would receive more money in additional income tax, corporate tax, and other taxes.

I have spoken to CPA’s who had wealthy clients locate to other states in order not to pay our state gift tax. If they had established a residence here, they would have paid more in income tax per year than we collect from the entire state in gift taxes. There is an inordinate waste of time and effort spent in order to avoid the gift tax. Finally, if the transfer is made at death, then the donee has a stepped-up basis. If it is given before death, there is a carry-over income tax basis, and the state receives additional income tax on that appreciation on sale - a substantial offset against the 18 million dollar nominal cost of repeal.

2. This tax is a trap for the unwary. The memorandum from the Gift Tax Subcommittee of the Estate Tax Section of the NC Bar Association gives seven examples of people from North Carolina who pay this tax. There are many financial professionals, including lawyers and CPA’s, who are focused on federal gift and estate tax. They often don’t notice that their clients’ actions have triggered a state gift tax. Lots of taxpayers who give without advice have no clue that they owe this tax until it is too late.

3. There is no social purpose for the gift tax. The origin of the gift tax is a backstop to a death tax. But our death tax has been conformed to the federal law so there is no tax on the first 2 million dollars. Our gift tax allows only $100,000 in lifetime gifts and we are unique and have a different gift tax rate for Class B, and Class C beneficiaries so that the $100,000 lifetime exemption is not available for gifts to siblings and sons of law.

Why would we encourage people to hold onto property until their death to avoid a gift tax? Why? Siblings often want to make gifts to each other to equalize inheritances. Yet this triggers the gift tax without the lifetime exemption.

Existing federal law says that 2010 will be an unusual year. The federal estate and gift unified credit will be unlimited and then go back up to prehistoric rates in 2011. There will be a huge need for tax planning by North Carolina families in 2009-2010. By making the effective date of the bill July 1, 2009 it would be in place for gifts when it is most necessary. There will be no reduction in tax for the gifts that have already been made thus far in 2008, and families planning to make gifts in the latter part of 2009 and in 2010 can do so. Under these circumstances, a real life fiscal note would be zero instead of $18 million for 2009-2010.

On the Record: Land Transfer Taxes

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-06-10T20:00:27-04:00

Paul Stam Republican Leader
North Carolina House of Representatives

Raleigh – Last Thursday fifty-nine Democratic House members* voted to allow counties to impose a tripling of Land Transfer taxes from .2% to .6% if approved by the voters in a referendum, despite rejection of the tax in all twenty county elections since last year.

The local option to offer voters a Land Transfer Tax was part of last year's Budget.

Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake) has opposed Land Transfer Taxes as "irrational" because they treat different homeowners the same. He offered an amendment to this year’s budget to eliminate the tax, arguing the option failed to gain support after twenty local elections.

Speaker Joe Hackney (D-Orange) ruled Stam's amendment “out of order,” however. Curiously though, in 2007 he had ruled the same tax provision “in order” for inclusion in the budget.

Stam moved to "suspend the rules" so the amendment could be considered.

59 Democrats voted not to allow consideration of an end to this tax option, while 50 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted in favor of suspending the House Rules so Stam’s amendment ending the tax could be considered.

"We now have a clear record on this tax which the voters have rejected," Stam said.

*On the Motion to Suspend the Rules so Repeal of the Land Transfer Tax could be considered:

June 5, 2008 NC House Roll Call #1458 - House Bill 2436 (Ed.3)

Democrats voting "NO:"
Adams; Alexander, K.; Allen; Bell; Bordsen; Braxton; Brisson; Bryant; Carney; Church; Cole; Coleman; Cotham; Crawford; Dickson; Earle; England; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Gibson; Goforth; Goodwin; Haire; Hall; Harrell, T.; Harrison; Hill; Holliman; Hughes; Insko; Jeffus; Jones; Love; Lucas; Luebke; Martin; McAllister; Michaux; Mobley; Owens; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Spear; Sutton; Tarleton; Tolson; Tucker; Underhill; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Warren, R.; Weiss; Wilkins; Williams; Womble; Wray and Yongue

Republicans voting "YES:"
Allred; Avila; Barnhart; Blackwood; Blust; Boylan; Brown; Brubaker; Clary; Cleveland; Current; Daughtridge; Dockham; Dollar; Frye; Furr; Gillespie; Grady; Gulley; Hilton; Holloway; Holmes; Howard; Hurley; Johnson; Justice; Justus; Killian; Kiser; Langdon; Lewis; McComas; McElraft; McGee; Moore; Neumann; Pate; Ray; Samuelson; Setzer; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stiller; Thomas; Tillis; Walend; Walker; West and Wiley

Democrats voting "YES:"
Faison; Coates; Harrell, J., and McLawhorn

Involuntary Annexation Moratorium Needed

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-05-20T23:02:42-04:00

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake) today discussed proposed legislation for a temporary moratorium on involuntary annexation. The House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation voted yesterday to move forward with a bill that would impose a statewide temporary moratorium on involuntary annexation through June 30, 2009. The next step for the bill is consideration by the House of Representatives. If passed by the House, the moratorium bill would then move to the state Senate for consideration.

Representative Nelson Dollar (R-Wake), a member of the House Select Committee on Municipal Annexation, said, “The temporary moratorium on involuntary annexation will allow for a thorough and thoughtful review of our annexation laws with the goal of proposing reforms to the 2009 Session of the General Assembly. A key reform will be providing a meaningful voice for homeowners in neighborhoods affected by a proposed involuntary annexation. A citizen's rights must be protected when government seeks to impose undue burdens on a person's home and family."

North Carolina is one of only four states that allow involuntary annexation without any opportunity for meaningful consultation with property owners in the affected area. The other states are Tennessee, Idaho, and Kansas. Although North Carolina’s involuntary annexation laws date back to 1959, tremendous growth in recent decades in North Carolina has caused the issue to become more and more contentious in affected areas. In many instances, cities have been accused of taking in high-value property in order to address lagging municipal revenue issues. Research shows tax increases ranging from 60 percent to more than 100 percent for properties brought into municipalities through involuntary annexation. Current law provides citizens with limited recourse when their land is about to be annexed. Generally, they are relegated to speaking before a city governing board made up of members not answerable to affected property owners.

“In locations across North Carolina, citizens are seeing their tax obligations substantially increased through the mechanism of involuntary annexation,” said Senator Berger. “Current North Carolina law totally ignores the property and voting rights of these citizens. Forced annexation makes a mockery of the principle of government by the consent of the governed. We need a time out to take a fresh look at this issue so that a proper balance can be achieved between allowing cities to grow and protecting property and voting rights.”

"We need to look again at involuntary annexation as it is used in the 21st Century," said Representative Stam. "The traditional justifications for the practice, such as filling in donut holes or other gaps, and getting city services to neighborhoods with failing wells or septic tanks, seem to have changed into territorial strategies."

A related bipartisan bill with 96 sponsors, Eminent Domain (HB 878), was overwhelmingly passed in the House on May 24, 2007, by a vote of 114 to15. When the Senate received the bill, it was immediately referred to the Ways and Means Committee. The Senate Ways and Means Committee has not met since June 21, 2001, even though numerous bills have been referred to that committee.

“The issue of eminent domain is one that is of great concern to the people of North Carolina, especially in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London case,” said Berger. “The House took action to protect the property of North Carolina’s citizens; now is the time for the Senate to act.”

Republicans in the General Assembly are determined to push forward private property protections. Nevertheless, Stam pointed out annexations issues and Eminent Domain protections are separate issues. "Annexation is a taxing issue and Eminent Domain is a takings issue," concluded Stam.

Sex Ed Bill Guts Abstinence Education Standards

pauls@ncleg.net — 2008-02-14T22:48:16-05:00

More than a decade ago, the General Assembly passed landmark legislation setting abstinence until marriage as the expected standard taught to public school students in sex education curriculum throughout North Carolina. Federal lawmakers used North Carolina's legislation as a model for the federal Title V grant program, which provides $50 million annually for abstinence until marriage education in the states. Through the Title V program, North Carolina receives over $1.2 million annually for abstinence until marriage education.

This year Representatives Susan Fisher (D-Buncombe), Linda Coleman (D-Wake), Maggie Jeffus (D-Guilford) and Melanie Wade Goodwin (D-Richmond) have introduced House Bill 879, known as "Modify School Health Education Program." Identical state Senate Bill 1182 has been introduced by Sen. Linda Garrou (D-Forsyth).

The bill has the strong backing of EqualityNC, a statewide advocacy organization that works, according to their own mission statement "to secure equal rights and justice for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender North Carolinians." The bill is also supported by the NARAL Pro Choice North Carolina network, Planned Parenthood, and others. It is opposed by the North Carolina Family Policy Council.

Abstinence until marriage education has been highly effective in delaying teen sex, reducing teen pregnancy and curtailing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS.

Not stopping at eliminating outright the requirement that abstinence until marriage be taught as an accepted standard, House Bill 879 and Senate Bill 1182 would eliminate every mention of “abstinence until marriage” from North Carolina law. It would force all North Carolina schools to teach strict requirements, among them teachers and instructional materials would have to address "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" without bias. Students as young as 7th grade, and possibly earlier, would be forced to be taught about ALL FDA-approved methods of contraception including "emergency contraceptives" and at least 21 other forms of contraception.

House Bill 879 and Senate Bill 1182 would have the effect of encouraging irresponsible behavior without consequence, and it would eliminate a recognized and working standard that has worked as a matter of public policy.

"The bill does an end run around parents," said Rep. Ruth Samuelson (R-Mecklenburg). Under the present law local school boards are allowed to expand their sexual education programs after holding a public hearing and making the objectives and materials available for public review and parents are allowed to opt out their children. The proposed legislation makes so-called "comprehensive" sex education mandatory for all 115 school systems in North Carolina despite the fact that less than 10 schools systems in the state have gone through the hearing process in order to offer and expanded curriculum.

In addition, enactment of these proposed changes to a mandatory "comprehensive" sex education curriculum would require North Carolina to forfeit $1.2 million in federal funds.

Republican Leaders: Illegal Aliens Should Not Be Admitted to State-Supported Community Colleges Colleges

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-11-28T22:24:32-05:00

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake) today expressed their displeasure with a decision issued by the legal counsel of North Carolina's Community College System requiring admission of illegal aliens to all 58 state-supported campuses.

In a Memorandum dated November 7, 2007, and addressed to community college officials statewide, David J. Sullivan reversed earlier policy allowing "local choice" in admission of "undocumented individuals." The memo refers to state regulations that require schools admit students on the basic requirements of either graduating from high school or being 18 years of age. Each of the 58 community college campuses has been ordered by Sullivan to "immediately begin admitting undocumented individuals."

In response to the recent announcement by the state Community College System that illegal immigrants are eligible for admission to all of North Carolina's community colleges, Senator Berger made the following statement:

"I am disappointed that by bureaucratic decisions our Community College System will reward illegal activity and allow individuals who have broken the law to attend North Carolina's community colleges. Year after year community college administrators have assured Republican legislators that illegal aliens are not eligible for admission. We now learn that, all along, illegal aliens have been eligible and admitted. I can not decide whether I am more disturbed about the legal opinion or the past purposeful deception. The people of North Carolina have had enough of government officials saying one thing and doing another. They are especially tired of state officials claiming on the one hand that the illegal immigration problem is solely the result of failures at the Federal level while at the same time, by purposeful state action, North Carolina has encouraged illegal immigration with lax rules relating to driver's licenses and easy access to our already over burdened system of higher education. The current Republican administration in Washington has received justifiable criticism for its failures; it is past time that Democrats, in control of North Carolina's executive and legislative branches, are likewise held accountable."

Stam compared his displeasure over the state community college system's policy change with legislation ignored by state House Democratic leaders. "Obviously, if a citizen of another country is here legally, is on a visa to study or has been issued a Green Card, they should be granted admission to our community colleges," Stam said.

"I supported Representative George Cleveland's bill, disallowing anyone in the United States unlawfully from attending any of the state's community colleges," Stam said. "That bill was assigned to Committee in March, and the House Democratic leadership ordered that the bill not be heard."

"We are also very disappointed," Stam said, "with a decision usurping authority previously held by local boards of trustees."

To read the memo from the North Carolina Community College System, click the link below.
NC Community College System Memo

The Great $60 Million Giveaway

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-09-14T17:44:45-04:00

To hear audio of Paul Stam's speech against House Bill 1761, click the link below.
HB-1761-Paul-Stam

New Athletic Scholarships and the Budget Rules

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-09-06T09:05:12-04:00

The press has reported on the private athletic scholarships that were slipped into the conference report on the budget at the request of Senator Dannelly. The News and Observer has editorialized against it (August 17, 2007).

Now the News and Observer reports (Under The Dome, August 17, 2007) that the Speaker believes the scholarship provision should have received a full airing instead of being dropped in the final budget. “He doesn’t like the process” says his spokesman, Bill Holmes.

But the Speaker was not an observer of the process. He was in charge.

I advised the Speaker and the House Democratic Leadership that if they tried to slip things into the budget in violation of House Rule 44(b) that I would raise that as a point of order. Forewarned that I would do that, they slipped in dozens and dozens of items like this, some of much more importance, including an extra $400 million dollars of spending.

To hear audio of the Point of Order, click the link below.
Point of Order

The Speaker's ruling and a list of many of the special provisions involved appears below.

NEW SPECIAL PROVISIONS
PROPOSED CONFERENCE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
FOR HOUSE BILL 1473

PART VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS
MODIFY HOURS OF SALE FOR PERMITTEES AUTHORIZED TO ENGAGE IN IN STAND SALES PURSUANT TO G.S. 18B 1009
SECTION 6.25.

PART VII. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
USE OF FUNDS FOR CENTRAL CAROLINA COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SECTION 8.13

PART IX. UNIVERSITIES
ESTABLISH THE JOHN B. MCLENDON LEADERSHIP AWARDS
SECTION 9.18.

PART X. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
SKILLED NURSING FACILITY REIMBURSEMENT RATES
SECTION 10.39A.

PART XI. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES
STUDY STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATIONS AND RESEARCH FARMS
SECTION 11.4.

PART XII. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
FUNDS FOR PENDING CIVIL LITIGATION EXPENSES
SECTION 12.2A.

STUDY ADVISABILITY OF ADDING DEEP RIVER STATE TRAIL TO STATE PARKS SYSTEM
SECTION 12.9.

PART XIII. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
TEMPORARY EXPANSION OF JDIG CAP
SECTION 13.1A.

FUNDS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENT GRANTS
SECTION 13.13A.

E NC AUTHORITY/STAGGER COMMISSION MEMBERS TERMS
SECTION 13.16A.

PART XXI. DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
GRANT IN AID FOR THE JEWISH HERITAGE FOUNDATION
SECTION 21.3.

PART XXVII. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
INCREASE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROPRIATION FOR THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
SECTION 27.17.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO MAINTAIN DIVISION BUDGETS
SECTION 27.18.

VIPER BUILD OUT FUNDS
SECTION 27.19.

PART XXIX. CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS.
DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS FROM SALE OF FORMER BUNCOMBE COUNTY HEADQUARTERS PARCEL
SECTION 29.11A.

LAND FOR TOMORROW AND WATERFRONT ACCESS AND MARINE INDUSTRY FUND
SECTION 29.14.

PART XXXI. TAX LAW CHANGES

ENHANCE 529 PLAN INCOME TAX DEDUCTION
SECTION 31.19.

SALES TAX REFUND – RESEARCH SUPPLIES
SECTION 31.20.

WORK OPPORTUNITY TAX CREDIT
SECTION 31.21.

DATACENTER SALES TAX EXEMPTION
SECTION 31.22.

TAX INCENTIVE FOR RAILROAD INTERMODAL FACILITY
SECTION 31.23.

FIREFIGHTER/RESCUE SQUAD TAX DEDUCTION
SECTION 31.24.

OUTLAW CAPTIVE REITS
SECTION 31.18

PART OF STATE ASSUMPTION OF MEDICAID:
MEDICAID HOLD HARMLESS PAYMENTS
ADM EARMARKING ADJUSTMENTS FOR ONE YEAR STATE TAKEBACK OF LOCAL SALES TAX
LOCAL OPTION TAXES: SALES TAX AND LAND TRANSFER TAX

Source: Answer to Query by House Republican Leader Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake) from
Bill Drafting Staff: North Carolina General Assembly, July 27, 2007

Previously under the reign of Speaker Black the rules were generally ignored. In 2007 the Rules of the House were generally followed, except with respect to the final budget in which the most important rule was obliterated, at great cost to the taxpayers.

Tax Credits for Special Needs Children

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-09-04T13:18:04-04:00

Raleigh - State House Republican Leader Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake) addressed a meeting of the Wake County commission, Tuesday, urging its support for a house bill offering tax credits for parents of children with “special needs.”

“All families want their child to receive an appropriate and meaningful education,” Stam said, “but parents of special needs children are examining their educational options and are finding out that they have very few.”

“It is a sobering fact for our families that have children with exceptional learning needs to discover the unique needs for their children cannot be met,” Stam said. “The price is simply too high. It is even more disheartening for these families to know there are non-public educational opportunities and services structured specifically for their child’s particular disability, but they are unable to enroll because of financial limitations.”

Stam described the bill he will reintroduce in 2008, House Bill 388, as a “win-win” for these families and taxpayers. The bill would enable parents to enroll their children in private or home-based schooling by offering $3,000 state tax credits per semester for those eligible. “The parents win by not being unduly burdened by the cost of their child’s education. The state wins also because the average public school expenditure for each of these children per year is well over $8,100,” Stam said. “Tax credits for children with special needs would save Wake County around $600,000 annually.”

“It is difficult to imagine that anyone would lose with this bill,” Stam said. “Families of students with special needs will finally get the help that they need. Statewide, around 3,000 students with special needs will be provided with what they need to become the best citizens they can be, public school system will be able to save time, energy, and resources. And the taxpayers will be able to see their hard earned money more efficiently and productively spent.

Raleigh’s Civitas Institute reports 83 percent of 800 respondents to a recent statewide poll answered affirmatively when asked “Do you support tax credits for parents of children with special needs so they can be sent to private schools if it would not cost government any additional funding?” This strong support comes from across the political spectrum.

Support for House Bill 388 is thoroughly bipartisan. Its principle sponsors include two leading House Democrats on education, Reps. Rick Glazier and Marvin Lucas, as well as Rep. Stam, the House Republican Leader from Wake County and Rep. Laura Wiley (R-Guilford), a special education teacher from High Point.

From July 2007 Poll, John William Pope Civitas Institute, Raleigh, NC

      Affiliation     Democrat     Republican     Other   
      Total #     400     304     94   
      % Yes     82     85     83   
      % No     12     8     11   
      % Not Sure     6     7     6   

      Political Philosophy     Very Liberal     Somewhat Liberal     Somewhat Coservative     Very Conservative     Moderate   
      Total #     53     68     186     176     286   
      % Yes     86     84     87     83     81   
      % No     5     11     5     11     14   
      % Not Sure     9     4     8     6     5   
                                        
      Question 21.                                 
        
        Do you   support tax credits for parents of children with special needs so they can be   
      sent to private schools if it would not cost goverment any additional funding?   
                                        
      Yes     83%                           
      No     10%                           
      Not Sure     6%

Transportation - A Failure of Priorities

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-08-29T08:09:13-04:00

A Joint Statement from Representative Paul Stam and Senator Phil Berger
Tuesday, August 28, 2007

This year, General Assembly appropriations for transportation were virtually the same as last year. The total: not enough to meet needs; in fact, the Department of Transportation estimates that unmet state transportation needs will continue to grow. It is obvious to anyone, from daily commuters to school bus drivers, traveling on North Carolina's roads that we are no longer the "Good Roads State" and are falling further behind in road construction and maintenance. The problems in transportation are serious and getting worse every day. In November 2006 the American Society of Civil Engineers gave North Carolina a “D” on the condition of its roads and a “C-” on bridges. Similar studies give North Carolina poor marks on a wide range of infrastructure measures.

Lack of money dedicated to roads is exacerbated by the “equity formula” which fails to allocate any funds based on congestion, a growing problem in our urban areas. The long history of the Easley administration and legislative Democrats of taking road money from transportation to fund other priorities is well known. In addition to an annual $172 million statutory shift of money from roads to the general fund, the Governor and other Democrats have approved an additional $400 million (net) in raids of transportation dollars over the last seven years. Let’s pick up the story in 2007.

2007

In his State of the State Address on February 19, 2007 Gov. Easley spoke at length to a Joint Session of the state House and Senate; he failed to mention transportation. On February 22, he submitted his proposed budget and spending priorities which included not one extra dollar for transportation. The state’s most serious infrastructure and capital construction challenge merited no mention and no funding from the state's Democrat governor.

On March 14, 2007, House Democrats held a press conference to present their agenda for the session entitled “A Plan for One North Carolina”. In six pages of single space rhetoric there is no mention of transportation, not even a whisper. There is a great deal about additional social spending, but nothing for critical road needs.

House Democrats passed their proposed budget on May 11, 2007. In that budget, Democrats stated their “intent” to phase out the annual transfer of $172 million from the Highway Fund to the General Fund beginning in 2009 – a "promise" left to the legislature elected next year. The Senate passed its budget proposal on May 31, 2007. Neither proposed legislative budget allocated any additional dollars for transportation. The Senate plan spent $300 million less than the House, leaving room for transportation needs to be addressed.

On June 6 the Budget went to “conference,” to settle differences between the House and Senate. Budget conferees were primarily Democrats and all significant decisions were made in secret by Democrat leaders.

On June 14 Republicans released a proposed alternative budget plan which spent less money than either the House or Senate plans and called for across the board tax reductions.

On June 26 Republican leaders Senator Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and Representative Paul Stam (R-Wake), followed their June 14 alternate budget with proposals for addressing infrastructure needs, especially roads. Majority Democrats responded with silence.

Republicans demonstrated at that time that $1.25 billion in bonds, if approved by the people, could be issued and serviced without a tax or fee increase through phase-out of the $172 million Highway Trust Fund transfer.

On July 27, 2007, the Democrats' 298 page Budget Conference Report was released with votes set for the next day. The budget Conference Report spent $400 million more than either previous House or Senate plans (actually $700 million more than the Senate proposal). While this violated House Rules, it did not deter legislative Democrats from approving the additional spending. Significantly, even with $400 million added by a handful of powerful Democrat conferees, not one extra penny was allocated for transportation. Indeed, the final budget actually cut $41 million from the overall transportation budget.

Now after public outcry about the Democrats' failure to address the state's transportation problems we see a belated attempt at damage control with press releases and announced meetings among the very same Democrats who ignored the issue over the eight month legislative session. Curiously, Democrat leaders of the House Transportation Committees, Rep. Nelson Cole (D-Rockingham) and Rep. Becky Carney (D-Mecklenburg) are complaining about the lack of transportation funding. And the Governor now meets with the House Speaker and the Senate President Pro Tem to talk about transportation.

Proposal

Here’s a proposal for the Governor. Call a Special Session of the General Assembly for September to adopt the following plan:

1. Reopen the recently adopted Budget;

2. Allocate $60 million of the more than $200 million being carried forward for the first year of a four year phase out of the Highway Trust Fund Transfer and to provide approximately $20 million to address gap funding needs in urban areas;

3. The Governor has demonstrated his ability in the past to implement management and negative reserves of 1%, 2%, 3% and even more. Set a 1.5% target for savings in the recently passed budget, and give the Governor the authority to implement those savings. Is there anyone that thinks state government is operating at anywhere near 100 percent efficiency? Does anyone think that a 1.5 percent savings cannot be attained? This would actually only reduce the rate of the increase in spending from 9.5% to 8.0% - which is still double the rate of population and inflation growth combined (4%) and will free up $300+ million to be appropriated to real transportation problems with congestion and safety immediately. The savings could actually be recurring and provide ongoing funds for bonds or other transportation needs;

4. Place a referendum on the ballot for this November for the issuance of at least $1.5 Billion in Road Bonds, with the bonds to be paid for with the money retained in the Highway Trust Fund by discontinuing the transfer or from the savings realized by the Governor's efforts; and

5. Address the equity formula problem by taking congestion and road miles traveled into account; doing so will target additional dollars to critically needed roads and bridges.

All of the above can be accomplished without any tax or fee increases. This will not instantly solve the mess we have in transportation (it took years of neglect to get us here), but it will start us on the process and will provide a needed immediate shot in the arm for our crumbling transportation infrastructure. With this start we can begin to rebuild our road system and help protect and grow our state's economy.

Why the Land Transfer Tax is a Bad Idea

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-08-15T13:50:18-04:00

By: Rep. Paul Stam
Wednesday, August 15, 2007

The new state budget for 2007-2008 (HB 1473) allows counties to impose a tripling of the land transfer tax from .2% to .6% if approved by the voters in an advisory referendum. But there has been little discussion about the merits of this tax and why it is a particularly odd choice. I hope you enjoy my reasons for opposing this tax.

William Pitt, the Younger, asked the British parliament to double the stamp tax in 1797. Since then politicians have been intrigued by transfer taxes because the tax is imposed when money is on hand. This puzzles most economists who prefer to tax production, income or value added - rather than transfers.

A .4% land transfer tax on a $200,000 house would be an added tax of $800.00 every time the house is sold.

A land transfer tax is not new. This proposal just increases the existing excise tax on land sales by 200%. The seller of a $200,000 house already pays a tax of $400, even if the seller has no profit in it and even if the entire nominal profit is only inflation.

If the house is new a second tax that is paid is the sales tax on materials. A $200,000 house includes $80,000 worth of materials. At 7% that is $5,600 in sales tax. Approximately $2,000 of this will go to the County and that is used mostly for schools.

There is a third "new house tax." The builders and laborers must report the sale of a house and their labor as ordinary income which is taxed at varying rates - an average of 20% Federal and 6% State for a combined 26%. A $200,000 house would have labor and profit of about $50,000. That's $13,000 in income tax. Add all these together and you have a "new house tax" of $19,000.00 on a home selling for $200,000.

In addition there are sewer and water acreage and capacity fees as well as inspection fees, averaging $12,000 which, added to taxes of $19,000, means $31,000 goes to the government from the sale of this $200,000 home.

And I could add the property taxes on the land between the time it left agricultural use and the time that the development process started - all of which goes to the county and cities. And all the laborers pay FICA/Medicare. And the material suppliers pay income tax on the value they add to their products.

To all these taxes and fees totaling $31,000, some want to add an $800 tax each time the house sells!!

But it gets worse: A land transfer tax imposes this new tax on sellers of older houses as well as new houses - even if the new owner has fewer kids or fewer drivers than the selling family. As a way to make "growth pay for itself" this new tax is wildly misaimed. The Smith family (with 3 cars and 3 kids in public school) - sells to the Jones family (with 2 cars and 2 kids who are already in college). That's another $800 tax even though our "infrastructure" is less burdened. If two identically situated families trade houses so that each can live closer to work, that's another $1,600 in taxes - even though the burden on the roads is lessened.

Or take two identical houses - one on Elm Street and another on Maple Street. The Elm Street house is owned by the Smiths who have two cars and two kids who mature from birth to age 25 until they are out of the nest. The Smiths die and will the house to their children. No tax. The Maple Street house is owned by the Allens who sell to a succession of 5 owners who each have two cars and two kids at the same ages as the Smith children. This house pays an extra $4,000 in tax - a bizarre difference.

"Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax the fellow behind the tree" is the battle cry of demagogues who want to extract more money out of other people. But we have met the taxpayer and we are it.

Congressional District Apportionment of Presidential Electors

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-07-25T15:50:34-04:00

and the probably effect on certain legislative races in 2008.

To hear audio of Paul Stam's speech against Senate Bill 353, click the link below.
SB-353-Paul-Stam

The House Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform Committee is scheduled to consider Senate Bill 353 “Presidential Electors by District.” If enacted, the General Assembly will be apportioning 13 Electors to the winner of the 2008 presidential tally in their respective Congressional Districts, with the remaining 2 Electors allocated to the statewide winner of that same national contest.

While no official tally of the results of presidential contests by congressional district exists, unofficial results have been tallied and a comparative formula applied to estimate presidential vote within congressional districts, including results from split precincts. Should the Legislature apportion 13 of North Carolina’s 15 Electors to reflect the winner of presidential contests within the respective congressional districts a new dynamic in the allocation of resources from the national presidential committees will come into play.

Incumbent members of the General Assembly may well be faced with locally applied national resources. The present winner-take-all arrangement forces national campaigns to apply a large but still limited amount of resources to those areas of the state where 85 percent of the voting population resides and votes. Congressional district apportionment of Presidential Electors, however, would redirect resources and GOTV efforts to congressional districts where the partisan results of national vote and legislative voting regularly differ.

Under the congressional district Elector apportionment proposal, based on past presidential tally performance, national Republicans can count on garnering 2 at-large Electors and 8 Electors from winning presidential tallies outright in most congressional districts. Similarly, Democrats can count on winning 3 Electors from congressional district tallies, leaving 2 Electors as toss-ups. Of the two toss-ups, the Elector from the 7th Congressional District will probably go to the Republicans, leaving the 13th Congressional District as a true “toss-up.”

To view the full article, click here.

Republicans Offer Budget Solution

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-06-28T09:42:17-04:00

Increases Education Funding - Cuts Taxes

A two-year fiscal plan, introduced Tuesday by Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake), proposed increases in education spending for dropout prevention, vocational education and community colleges. With a projected state surplus of over $1.5 billion, the bulk of which consists of excess tax collections, the Republican plan also provides broad tax relief and spends less money than the previously passed House or Senate Democrat budgets. Democrats are stalemated in their effort to adopt a budget before the June 30 end of North Carolina's fiscal year. The Republican proposal establishes a framework for a bipartisan partnership to fashion a workable budget to adequately fund state programs and cut tax rates.

Highlights from the Republican plan:

Keeps promise to sunset the "temporary" increases of sales and personal income taxes (total tax reduction of $300 million per year)
Spends less overall than Senate or House Democrat budgets and less than Governor Mike Easley's proposed budget
Funds all major line items in the state budget at levels that meet or exceed amounts approved by Democrats
Cuts personal income taxes in all brackets by .25 percent this year ($358 million dollars in annual savings for North Carolina's families)
Reduces North Carolina's highest in the southeast corporate income tax rate by .40 percent in 2009 ($72 million dollars in annual savings to allow North Carolina businesses to grow)
Provides reserve appropriation of $20 million for mental health
Repays the $90 million Governor Easley took from the State Retirement Fund
Funds $25 million in second year for an innovative pilot vocational program in public schools
Funds Communities in Schools (a proven dropout prevention program) at higher level than either House or Senate Democrats
Phases out transfer of road taxes from Highway Trust Fund
Medicaid swap along lines of recently announced Republican plan (similar to original plan advanced by Senator Dan Clodfelter); takes pressure off local property tax rates
Funds payment of recently announced Republican roads and infrastructure bond package ($2 billion subject to vote of the people)
Fully funds rainy day fund and repair and renovation fund
Public school teacher pay raise of 5 percent
State employee raise of 4 percent
Incorporates Senate Budget provisions to combat Medicaid fraud, provide non-profit accountability, cap North Carolina's highest in the southeast gasoline tax, and provide needed additional funds for courts (assistant D.A. positions, support positions)
"Surplus" in both years and projected into future years
Increases funding for community colleges and allied health training programs
Significantly limits non-voted debt (COPs financing) from both Senate and House budgets

Senator Berger made the following statement:
"As this plan demonstrates, we can meet North Carolina's needs, spend less, and allow our citizens to keep more of their hard-earned money. This plan will put North Carolina on sound fiscal and economic footing for years to come. Reductions in sales and income taxes alone will make our state more competitive with neighboring states and keep more than $1 billion in the pockets of North Carolina's families.

"With North Carolina's high school dropout rate over 35 percent, it is imperative that we find new ways to keep our students in school so they can graduate prepared to compete in the global economy; we can do that by prioritizing new education spending. To achieve that goal, Republicans propose targeting additional money to public schools and community colleges to fund alternatives to the current one-size-fits-all approach to education. We must employ new solutions, including additional vocational opportunities in high school and expanded career offerings in community colleges.

"To create a favorable environment for new jobs and a strong economy, Republicans have proposed $2 billion in infrastructure bonds primarily for roads; we also support added capital spending for our universities and for upgrades to water and sewer systems. In addition to building needed infrastructure, Republicans advocate lower taxes for small businesses so North Carolina companies can compete and create new opportunities, thereby making our state more attractive to new and expanding businesses. This plan does that by reducing individual and corporate income tax rates.

"Given the current budget surplus, estimated at about $1.5 billion, the people of North Carolina deserve to have some of their hard-earned money returned. Sadly, Senate and House Democrats are locked in a battle with each other to find new ways to spend money and raise taxes instead of passing a reasonable budget. If Democrats adopt our approach, they can fund government at or above levels they have already supported and will, additionally, put over $1 billion back into the pockets of North Carolina's families. We welcome the opportunity to partner with the Democrat majority to adopt a bipartisan plan for North Carolina's future."

Representative Stam added, "Later today House Democrats will pass a continuing resolution to increase sales tax rates by $300 million per year. This is completely unnecessary, as today's proposal demonstrates."

Joel Raupe
Administrative Assistant
joelr@ncleg.net

Rep. Paul Stam
Republican Leader
North Carolina House of Representatives
pauls@ncleg.net

National Popular Subversion

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-06-26T09:22:32-04:00

Senate Bill 954
By Paul Stam
June 21, 2007

Eighteen months after the November 2000 presidential election even the New York Times, after an exhaustive audit, conceded President Bush had defeated Vice President Gore in Florida’s presidential popular vote. Despite winning a plurality of the national popular vote Vice President Gore was ultimately defeated because George W. Bush won a simple majority of the Electoral Vote. Though rare, it was not the first time in history the Electoral count had been won by a presidential candidate who failed to win the most popular votes.

Because of the challenges to Florida’s vote counting process, America waited for almost two months to find out who was president. The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court saying Florida could not change its rules after the fact led many confused people to believe the U.S. Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election.

In the 20th century a variety of amendments were proposed to the U.S. Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote. Nevertheless, no such constitutional amendment has received much serious attention or support, even after the election of a Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress in 2006. But this hasn’t stopped those who still sting after the Florida Recount six years ago from attempting to undermine the Electoral College.

Quietly, without much press attention, North Carolina’s Democratic-controlled General Assembly has been moving forward to join a proposed Compact of States to pledge our 15 Electoral College votes to the winner of the national popular vote for president without regard to the choice of North Carolina‘s voters.

The U.S. Constitution does direct “the legislatures” of the States to decide how their Electoral Votes will be cast following their presidential elections. But the same Constitution forbids the States from joining together into agreements or treaties without the approval of Congress.

While this “National Popular Vote” is being touted as a movement to elect the president by popular vote, it is really an “end run” around a proven process for amending the Constitution, and unless approved by Congress, it is an unconstitutional compact.

An awareness of the pitfalls of interstate “compacts” predates the U.S. Constitution, that smaller States in the new Union might be overwhelmed by more populated, richer States led the Founders to protect their interests not just in creating an Electoral College but in the creation of a U.S. Senate, which would become “the body of the States” as part of a bicameral Congress with the House of Representatives to balance out State power with a “body of the People.”

The potential for fraud in this National Popular Vote proposal is massive. This is especially true in a close election whose results might arise from flawed election laws in any of the other states, not just those who have joined this proposed Compact. If presidential results were expected to be close the temptation to engage in voter fraud would be nationwide instead of just being confined to the states with the closest results. The Democrats would run up the total in California and New York and Republicans would be tempted to do the same thing in Texas or Wyoming.

Many fail to understand there has never been a nationwide popular vote in the United States. There is no national mechanism for certifying the results of a national popular vote. The States certify the results of elections within their borders, and the national will is reflected in their certification of their individual Electors to the presiding officer of the U.S. Senate for election of the President and Vice President. Without any such mechanism, the potential for lawsuits would be enormous, far beyond what was seen in a single state in the weeks following the 2000 presidential election.

Joel Raupe
Administrative Assistant
joelr@ncleg.net

Rep. Paul Stam
Republican Leader
North Carolina House of Representatives
pauls@ncleg.net

Eminent Domain

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-05-24T12:18:26-04:00

Raleigh – Just in time to meet “crossover” requirements, the North Carolina House has given final approval to a state constitutional amendment protecting private property. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=h878" target="_blank">House Bill 878 would place the amendment before the voters statewide November and would protect owners from having private property condemned by state and local governments for anything other than a “public use.”

Pressure to add limitations on the state’s power of “Eminent Domain” reached a critical point in 2005 with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. New London, Connecticut. In Kelo, the Court ruled the city of New London had the right to condemn private homes to resell to another private owner who offered economic development and a larger tax base. Kelo has inspired stronger protections nationwide for private property and also for a clear reading by the courts of the Fifth Amendment to United States Constitution, among the Bill of Rights, which reads in part: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The bill has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, sponsored by Democratic former Speaker Dan Blue (D-Wake), House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake), Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett) and Rep. Jim Harrell, III, (D-Allegheny), and was co-sponsored by 96 members of the North Carolina House. After surviving repeated attempts to gut the bill, the proposed constitutional referendum was approved by the House on a final vote of 104 to 15, Thursday. The text of the proposed addition to North Carolina’s Constitution reads:

“Private property shall not be taken except for a public use, including preservation for that use. Public use does not include the taking of property for the purpose of thereafter conveying an interest in the property to a third party for economic development. This paragraph does not apply to the taking of blighted properties as defined by general law, nor to takings for access by the owner to property. As used in this paragraph, blight includes only the physical condition of the property taken.

Just compensation shall be paid and, if demanded by the owner, shall be determined by a jury.”

Recall of State Marriage Amendment from Rules Committee to House Floor

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-05-17T11:33:12-04:00

Raleigh - Rep. Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) and Linda Johnson (R-Cabarrus) gave notice today they will move to recall the state Marriage Protection Amendment, House Bill 493, from the House Rules Committee, which has not acted upon it since its introduction, to the House Floor for a vote on May 23. The following day is "Crossover Deadline" at the General Assembly, when many bills must pass the House or Senate to be eligible for consideration in the other Chamber. House Bill 493 was assigned to the Rules Committee on March 6.

"There are several reasons this bill is necessary," according to House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake). "Under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution, whether or not North Carolina is required to give credit to the acts of other states, like Massachusetts, depends to some degree in the form in which our public policy is expressed. A constitutional amendment adopted by the people is a stronger argument to make to a federal judge. And under the rules of comity it would strengthen our hand with regard to foreign same sex marriages."

"Liberal groups have relied on state constitutions to demand, and in some cases receive, rulings favoring same sex marriage," Stam said. “The framers of our state’s 1868 constitution obviously did not intend to legalize same sex marriage or polygamy. But words can be twisted if this amendment is not adopted. It is not enough to say that our Supreme Court would never interpret our constitution that way. Who knows what it would do in future years? More importantly, who knows what a single Superior Court judge or a single District Court judge (resident in a liberal district) might do to disrupt our marriage statutes until those rulings could be corrected by our Supreme Court.

"Statutes can always be repealed or superseded by other conflicting statutes enacted without noting the impact on marriage," Stam said. "Courts and legislators, applying common sense, have known for thousands of years that the basic building block for any society is the family. This is, by far, the best setting in which to raise children. While I know that single parents also have to raise children and I applaud those who have to do that, public policy should never intend that result as a preferred alternative."

"I stand by this amendment and hope to see it put before the people of North Carolina this fall for a decision."

House Republicans Reject Democrats' Budget

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-05-14T20:18:25-04:00

To hear audio of Paul Stam's speech against House Bill 1473, click the link below.
HB-1473-Paul-Stam

Raleigh - Late Thursday evening the House passed its Appropriations Bill for the next fiscal year (H.B.1473) on a vote of 68 - 51. All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans voted "no." Republican Leader Paul Stam of Apex summarized many of the reasons for the opposition of the GOP caucus.

"It spends over 7.6 percent more than the current year," Stam said, "after last year's 9.7 percent increase and the previous year's 8 percent increase. This rate of growth in spending is simply not sustainable when population growth plus inflation are only about 3.8 percent combined.

"Tax rate hikes in the budget amount to $300 million next year," Stam said. "The Democrats could have had a 6 percent spending increase without violating their longstanding promises to voters to end the temporary; tax rate hikes on sales and income. There was no broad based tax relief in the bill, only targeted relief to a few

"The bill spends too much and taxes too much, he said."

"I don't know we can even call these taxes temporary any more," said Rep. John Blust (R-Guilford). "If my neighbor borrows my car temporarily, and then he just keeps it, how long can I call that borrowing temporary?"

Republican Whip Bill McGee (R-Forsyth) cautioned Members concerning $450 million in new Certificates of Participation, debt not approved by the voters. "I would have the voters approve this and get lower interest rates," McGee said. "This is placing an unfair obligation on future legislatures by tying their hands."

"It's funny money, in a lot of ways," and McGee said "State Treasurer Richard Moore agrees with me."

Rep. Leo Daughtry (R-Johnston) noted the process used by the Democrats did not allow the House to vote on the repeated extension of the "temporary taxes." Nor would they allow a vote on whether Charter Schools should be expanded, even though these save the government money.

Rep. Dale Folwell (R-Forsyth) noted the lack of any funding for the State Retirees' future health insurance, as required by accounting standards, and that school boards would not be receiving a sales tax refund on their purchases.

The appropriations process consumed about ten hours of amendment and debate in the Appropriations Committee on Wednesday and another six hours of debate on the House Floor.

Republicans enjoyed some success in the amendment process. By telling Democrats they were going to suspend the rules to ensure that $100 million would be available for Medicaid relief to the counties, they dragged the Democrats "kicking and screaming" into putting all that into the budget after refusing to do so earlier in the week.

Although the amendment passed unanimously, this would never have occurred if Republicans had not demanded it be so.

A similar victory occurred on the Democratic proposal to exchange needles with drug addicts. In the Appropriations Committee an amendment by freshman Representative Wil Neumann (R-Gaston) failed by one vote to eliminate this needle exchange. The Appropriations Committee is stacked with the Democrats.

Neumann had the amendment ready for the floor, and it would have prevailed. Democrats, however, did not want to put their members on record voting for drug paraphernalia so they amended the bill to take the provision out.

In committee another freshman, Rep. Ruth Samuelson (R-Mecklenburg), amended the bill to change the formula for fixing school buses. By changing the provision from one category to another, she qualified North Carolina to receive an additional $8 million of Federal assistance to fix North Carolina's public school buses.

And another freshman, Rep. Charles Thomas (R-Buncombe), was able to have an amendment adopted to provide a million dollars of focused programs for mental health by eliminating other positions that were not filled.

In a victory for the sophomore class, Rep. George Cleveland (R-Onslow) surprised the Democrats by obtaining approval 70 to 45 for an amendment requiring U.S. Citizenship eligibility under some new programs. Rep. Bryan Holloway (R-Rockingham) helped with drafting and rallying support so Democrats in swing districts had to vote for Cleveland's proposal.

All in all, the Democrats emphasized the good things they could do with $20.3 Billion. Representative Stam pointed out "it's hard to spend $20.3 Billion and not do something good. But the problem is Democrats never examined their base spending to eliminate low priority items so overall spending can be sustainable. They seem unable to cut a program, although on March 14, during a public press conference they promised to do so.

"We will closely examine the needs of our state to ensure every tax dollar is spent as wisely and efficiently as possible. Our budget writers will first look for ways to eliminate or consolidate existing state programs before we create and fund new programs."

A Plan for One North Carolina
By Democratic Members of the N.C. House of Representatives
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

General Assembly/2007 Budget Rejection

Imminent Key Decisions on Tax Policy

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-04-24T13:29:38-04:00
By: Rep. Paul Stam
Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Expiration of Temporary Taxes:

In 2001 Gov. Easley and the General Assembly imposed two “temporary taxes” – a higher sales tax rate and a higher income tax rate. Despite their “temporary” nature Governor Easley and subsequent Assemblies have repeatedly extended them - even last year when there was $2.4 billion above projected revenues available to allocate.

This year the Governor proposes to continue these temporary taxes and to continue to use them to pay for more spending programs. The current year’s budget is a 9.7 percent spending increase from the previous year which itself was an 8 percent spending increase over the prior year. This rate of increase is not sustainable. This year the Governor proposes a 6.4 percent increase in spending over the prior year, although with his bond program it is actually over 7 percent.

These two temporary taxes should not be continued at these higher rates. The sales tax as of December 1st (the combined state and local rate) is now 6.75 percent (or 7.25 percent if you live in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.) North Carolina retailers are at a competitive disadvantage since Virginia and South Carolina rates are running at 5 percent. Sales taxes are highly inefficient from the point-of-view of the taxpayer since they are not deductible against federal income taxes costing them 15 percent. We should stop relying on this extra ¼ cent and allow our statewide sale tax burden to drop to 6.5 percent this July as the Democrats promised last year.

The extra quarter percentage point on the state income tax rate puts us at 8 percent, the highest income tax rate in the southeast. This compares to 5.75 percent in Virginia, 7 percent in South Carolina, zero percent (except for those who are taxed on income derived from dividends and interest) in Tennessee and 6 percent in Georgia.

I am going to ask the House Republican Caucus that we vote against any more extensions of these taxes, even if those extensions are part of the budget.

Even without reinstating these “temporary” tax rates in the budget spending could still increase 4.80 percent (Source: NCGA Fiscal Research, April 20, 2007). This is well in excess of the increase in population of 1.5 percent during the year plus inflation of 2.3 percent.

This would reduce by $296.5 million (or $375.3 on an annualized basis) next year’s availability consisting of $259 million ($288 million annualized) in sales tax and $37.5 million ($86.9 million annualized) in personal income tax.

We note that on March 14, 2007 the Democratic members of the North Carolina House of Representatives appeared before you and stated:

“1. Strengthen people’s confidence in a government that works for them.

•Eliminate government waste through results-based budgeting.

“We will closely examine the needs for our state to ensure every tax dollar is spent wisely an efficiently as possible. Our budget writers will first look for ways to eliminate or consolidate existing state programs before we create and fund new programs.”

"A Plan for One North Carolina"
By: Democratic Members of the N.C. House of Representatives
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

So far the only program eliminated was the North Carolina State Surplus Property Commission at about $150,000 a year. Certainly the Democrats recognize that in a $20 billion budget not every existing program is a priority. We wait with anticipation the results of their eliminations and consolidations.

High Risk Insurance Pool:

We recognize that there are some whose chronic health conditions have made them uninsurable in the insurance market. Therefore I support the High Risk Insurance Bill (House Bill 265).

In the Finance Committee we failed (by 13-15) to put the plan on a much sounder footing - to have the subsidy provided by the general fund rather than through assessments on certain health care insureds at $2.00 per person per month. If the Democrats don’t agree to that change we will propose a similar motion again on the floor for several reasons:

Transparency – so that we know what the program is costing.

Equity – An assessment on some insureds is possibly the most regressive way to fund this public service. Because of the uncertainty as to whether Erisa will even allow assessments on their policies this amendment puts the pool on a much sounder footing. On an annualized basis the appropriation would be about $20 million a year which is 1/10 of 1 percent of the budget this year. If this is a priority, surely the Democrats can find room for it in a $20 billion budget.

The De Facto Moratorium on the Death Penalty

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-03-13T11:28:08-07:00

Joint Republican Press Conference

Because of actions by the State Medical Board and recent court decisions we are faced with a de facto moratorium on the death penalty for first-degree murder. This contravenes the intent of the law and the will of North Carolinians.

The State Medical Board is a creature of the state legislature. So is the procedure for executing first-degree murderers. The courts will act when they will. We must act now. The voices of the victims silenced by murder must be restored.

We must enact HB 442, introduced by Rep. Tim Moore or SB 114, introduced by Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger. They are with us today to discuss these bills.

A Moratorium on the Death Penalty is Unwarranted

One of the most important duties of any government is the suppression of murder. I believe the death penalty is the appropriate way to deter murder while vindicating and reaffirming the ultimate high value that we place on the life of the innocent victim.

Individual Moratorium: Death sentences are already reviewed extensively by both state and federal courts, and by the Governor. On average, 8 to 15 years pass before executions are carried out. Capital cases are reviewed by 47 judges, state and federal, all looking at claims of error in the trial or claims of innocence. Each murderer already has an individual moratorium.

Procedural protections are extensive:

Open-file discovery: In 1996 the General Assembly provided capital defendants the right to complete post-conviction discovery of all files, and may use such discovery to claim the prosecution failed to disclose evidence the defendant believed to be important.

Innocence Protection Act: In 2001, pre-trial and post-trial DNA testing was augmented to prevent the conviction of the innocent.

No Death Penalty for the Mentally Retarded: In 2001, the General Assembly prohibited the execution of mentally retarded defendants.

Prosecutorial discretion: In 2001, prosecutors were granted authority to use discretion in deciding not to seek the death penalty. Ironically, proponents of a moratorium now point to the use of that discretion as an argument for a moratorium.

Additional representation: Indigent defendants facing the death penalty are appointed two trial attorneys, and, since 1996, capital defendants are provided two attorneys post-conviction.

Proportionality considered: The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviews all death penalty cases on direct appeal for proportionality to other similar cases. On the other hand the Court does not have authority to reject a life sentence and make it capital.

The Innocence Inquiry Commission: In 2006, the General Assembly created the Innocence Inquiry Commission to insure we provide every avenue of relief for those who claim to be factually innocent. I was pleased to be the Republican House floor leader for the 2006 Innocence Inquiry Act - Session Law 2006-184.

Innocence claims are rare: Of 43 convicts executed after North Carolina reinstated capital punishment in 1977, none had a credible claim of "actual innocence." 65% of those executed have been white, which puts a new light on the claim most were minorities.

Deterrence: Whether or not the death penalty deters murder is debatable. I believe the evidence is it deters some, murders. A moratorium almost guarantees criminals will not be deterred. District attorneys are unlikely to try capital cases during a moratorium since the considerable expense may well be for naught.

Professors Marchesini and Cloninger of the University of Houston found a 21-month court-imposed moratorium in Texas probably caused 90 additional homicides. Whether North Carolina would experience a similar “surge” in homicide during the two-year period of a moratorium is unknowable but likely. If so this would mean the “cost” of a moratorium in North Carolina would include around 25 additional innocent victims of homicide per year. This is unacceptable to me. I have attached extracts of many studies on deterrence.

These studies differ on the numbers of additional homicide victims resulting from a suspension of executions, but they are of the same order of magnitude as the Marchesini study.

Conclusion: In view of the safeguards and the exhaustive state and federal court review of all death penalty cases, as well as the absence of any actual demonstration of real systemic problems in North Carolina resulting in the execution of the actually innocent, a moratorium on executions of murderers is unwarranted. A de facto moratorium on the death penalty will cause real harm, pain and suffering to the families of the innocent victims whose voice must be heard.

New Photos

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-03-08T08:54:17-05:00

Republican Legislative Leaders Senator Phil Berger (L) and Representative Paul Stam (R) discuss Republican initiatives to revive public education in North Carolina.
Tuesday, March 6th, 2007

Pro Marriage Rally at the Legislature on Tuesday, March 6th, 2007. 4,000 citizens let their voices be heard.

Joint Republican Press Conference

pauls@ncleg.net — 2007-03-02T08:47:11-05:00
Almost 800 years ago King John agreed to certain demands made by his countrymen. He did this in order to maintain his crown and probably his life. He promised that henceforth justice and right would not be sold. We call these promises (the) Magna Carta (1215 A.D.) and they were reiterated in the King’s Coronation Oath thereafter.

Since last week’s news conference former Speaker of the House, Jim Black, pled guilty in state court to obstructing justice and purchasing his office in 2003 for cash. Previously he pled guilty in Federal Court for selling legislation out of his office for cash.

There are certain things that should be said about this and certain things that should be done immediately. Three things should be said:

1. Everybody does not do it. To allow this slur to be repeated is an accusation of the worst kind against the vast majority of the members of both Houses.

2. Federal and State law enforcement offices have acted with diligence and professionalism. This was made immeasurably more difficult by the years of denial by the former Speaker. I would hope that the Chief Executive of this State and all the leaders would expect every member of the General Assembly and every member of the Executive Branch to extend to these duly constituted law enforcement authorities candid, complete and prompt cooperation, including telling the truth the first time they are asked.

3. There is no “greater good” that excuses this kind of behavior. To paraphrase Sir Thomas Moore, “When Representatives forsake their private conscience for the sake of the public good they lead their country on a short road to chaos.”

What to do immediately? First, along with Senator Berger I have or will file a series of bills to take the profit out of this type of corruption. First, we have each filed a bill to deny the state funded portion of pensions to those convicted of certain felonies while in office. Second, three Senators have filed a bill to repeal the law that was purchased last Session. I will shortly co-sponsor a bill to that effect on the House side – probably later this week.

Third, we are at the time of year when the House rules for the Session are to be adopted. This is probably the most important reform that is necessary because it goes to the heart of why the former Speaker, Mr. Black, was willing to give money for his office and why he was able to sell legislation for cash.

Over the last 20 years there has been a gradual, yet pronounced, concentration of power in the House into fewer and fewer hands. I recall that in 1988 one of the themes of the election was the undue influence of what was then called the “Gang of 8” as to budgetary matters. That has only gotten worse. I have requested, and I hope that the democratic majority of the House will agree to, numerous changes in the rules that will diffuse power and make the House a more democratic institution. Although it is helpful, it is not enough that debate be full and fair if the very matters that are debated are predetermined. Without going through the technical jargon of dozens of rules that need to change, I will give you a couple of examples.

1. HB2213 – Kelo Bill – 88 co-sponsored last year by a majority from each party is a good illustration of how the will of the majority in the House and in the State has been subverted by the will of a single person. We could not get it to the floor because then Speaker Black, who would never give a reason for his opposition but let it be shuttled between subcommittees and committees to avoid a motion for recall. There is no effective recall motion if that power remains in power of anyone.

2. The Budget. In the House there are 8 co-chairs of Appropriations, all Democrats. Although the subcommittees of Appropriation are proportional in membership it is a little known fact that all 8 full chairs can vote on each subcommittee and, in effect, make all the major decisions for each subcommittee. When the full Appropriations Committee meets, because these 8 are added, that committee is grossly disproportional. The worst feature of the present rules is that the rules under which that committee operates allows these 8 to dictate the allocation for departments and then allows them to rule out of order any attempt to move money between departments at all. While dozens of amendments will be considered in the Appropriations Committee not a one can change the decree of the appropriation chairs as to the basic structure of the budget.

General Assembly/2-27-07

Election of Caucus Officers

pauls@ncleg.net — 2006-12-20T08:38:51-05:00
Greensboro, NC - December 18, 2006

On Sunday a unified House Republican Caucus met in Greensboro and elected a new leadership team for the upcoming session of the General Assembly.

Representative Paul Stam of Wake County, an attorney and four term member of the House was elected Republican Leader. Representative Wm. C. “Bill” McGee of Forsyth County, a retired businessman and three term member of the House was elected as the Republican Whip. Representative Dale Folwell of Forsyth County, an investor and two term member of the House was chosen as Joint Caucus Leader, a position that rotates between the Senate and House Caucuses. Representative Ric Killian of Mecklenburg County, a first term member and real estate developer was elected as Leader of the Freshman Republican Caucus.

“I am honored to be leading the Republican House Caucus into the upcoming Session. Republicans will be offering real world solutions to the challenges facing our State. Republicans are committed to improving education, affordable health care, addressing our State’s infrastructure needs, reforming government and protecting taxpayers,” commented Rep. Paul Stam.

In a show of unity, Rep. Fred Steen of Rowan County, who also ran for Minority Leader was among the first to congratulate Stam, “I would like to extend my congratulations to Rep. Paul Stam for being elected House Republican Leader. I will give the caucus my full support and I wish Rep. Stam much success in his leadership role.”

Rep. Bill McGee ran unopposed for the position of House Republican Whip, the number two leadership position in the caucus and the member in charge of rounding up votes on key issues. “I look forward to a productive Session in the House of Representatives; we will work hard to promote our Republican principles and agenda,” stated Rep. McGee.

Rep. Dale Folwell won elect for Joint Caucus Leader. The Joint Caucus Leader serves as a liaison between the Chambers with the responsibility for coordinating legislative initiatives between the House and Senate Caucuses. “I am pleased to have the opportunity to work with the Republican leadership teams in both the House and Senate. As Joint Caucus Leader, I will be coordinating our legislative agenda and assisting members of both Chambers as legislation moves from one body of the General Assembly to the other,” commented Rep. Folwell.

Rep. Ric Killian added, “I am honored to serve with such a distinguished group of legislators. I am confident this leadership team will do great things for the citizens of North Carolina.”

For more comments, please contact Representative Paul Stam.

P.O. Box 1600
Apex, NC 27502
Tel: 919-362-8873
Email: pauls@ncleg.net

Affiliation	Democrat	Republican	Other
Total #	400	304	94
% Yes	82	85	83
% No	12	8	11
% Not Sure	6	7	6

Political Philosophy	Very Liberal	Somewhat Liberal	Somewhat Coservative	Very Conservative	Moderate
Total #	53	68	186	176	286
% Yes	86	84	87	83	81
% No	5	11	5	11	14
% Not Sure	9	4	8	6	5

Question 21.

Do you support tax credits for parents of children with special needs so they can be
sent to private schools if it would not cost goverment any additional funding?

Yes	83%
No	10%
Not Sure	6%