Column for June 28, 2012

Even if we have a flawed system of government, it’s possibly still the best one in practice.  That is, of course, only if moral men and women are in charge of the government.  In 1776, John Adams, our second President of the United States and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was quoted as saying, "Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."  Within the last two weeks, we have seen great lapses in morality in our governments at different levels, but it is all linked together in purpose and in poor judgment.

Locally, the Wake County School Board voted to return to a “diversity based” student assignment plan beginning in 2013.  After so much controversy about going to a “neighborhood schools” based assignment plan that is only one year into that plan, the school board is reversing its previous stance on the issue.  In a retreat from morality and common sense, students will be shuffled around yet again rather than being allowed to stay in a school closest to their homes.

The immorality that comes with this decision is astounding to me.  So-called “reverends” (ordained clergy) spouted specious claims of racism and segregation in the courageous decision to return to a neighborhood school policy.  The idea of being able to send your child to the school that is nearest to their home was a moral one, being responsible to the taxpayers who are paying the bills for public education, to the students who will spend less time being shuttled around the county, and to families that will have more time together.  All of those ideas are being tossed out the window in the name of diversity.

Diversity is nothing more than a liberal utopian concept meant to falsely display concern for others whom you secretly disdain and treat with condescension.  The idea that poor or minority children cannot perform well in public schools unless they are seated next to allegedly richer Caucasian children is nothing short of sheer racism and sells minorities short of their potential.  It is a modern form of enslavement of the mind and body.

Linked to this concept is the recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that struck down three provisions of Arizona’s SB1070, an anti-illegal immigration law.  SB1070 was a state law that mirrored the federal statutes on illegal immigration.  Arizona acted because the federal government would not enforce its own immigration laws and, being a border state, Arizona was paying a heavy price because of it.

Just within the past two weeks and prior to the SCOTUS decision, President Obama unilaterally decreed that the federal government would not enforce some provisions of federal immigration law, bypassing Congress and the legislative process.  This is nothing new to either Obama or even Presidents.  We are a nation of laws, and yet potentates decide by fiat that some laws are not to be enforced display yet another abrogation of moral obligation.  Abraham Lincoln once said, “The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.”  If indeed the Arizona law or even national immigration laws are bad laws, then the best way to get rid of them is to enforce them, not ignore them.

So, what does the Supreme Court’s aberration of a decision on Arizona’s immigration law, President Obama’s decision to refuse to enforce federal law, and the Wake County School Board’s utopian stupidity have in common?  First, they all demonstrate that elections have consequences.  Second, if states cannot protect themselves and their sovereignty against illegal immigration or any other threat because of allegedly contradicting federal law (even if none are technically being contradicted, as was the case in Arizona), then states must sit back and take whatever garbage is handed them by the federal government’s actions or inaction, as the case may be.   Because the federal government refuses to enforce its own laws (in self-contradiction), then the states are helpless to fend off any problems caused by illegal immigration.  States are the ones paying the bills for the costs of illegal immigration, including for education of illegal immigrant children. 

Wake County would not have to be so worried about achieving diversity, about budget constraints, or about political correctness regarding race issues if illegal immigration could be seriously curbed by enforcement of current federal law and enactment of appropriate state laws.  The moral failure of refusing to follow the law, refusing to allow states the right of self-determination, and of failing the students of local public schools is but a sign of the times in which we live.

Column for June 21, 2012

Interestingly, every five years or so, the calendar repeats itself day for day.  June 21, 2012 falls on a Thursday just as it did in 2007.  Every so often, I like to look back over some old columns I wrote and see what the topic of the week was.  The more things change, the more they stay the same sometimes.

Five years ago, Selma was dealing with an upheaval and restructuring in its fire department.  There were some ungrateful, selfish, and childish individuals that did not want to relinquish their good old boy system, being opposed by some people who wanted to reform the old system for the benefit of and accountability to the town.  I would say that five years later, Chief Phillip McDaniel seems to have done a stellar job with what he has to work with in Selma.  There seems to have been an improvement in response and in our ISO rating.  I have heard no major rumblings about the department other than seeking to raise the fire tax in the unincorporated areas served by the department.

The crux of that column was about maintaining rational thought rather than being blindly ruled by emotions.  Ironically enough, I dealt with that concept a bit just within the last few weeks.

Five years ago, gun control legislation, backed by the occasionally spineless National Rifle Association, was being rammed through Congress under the guise of providing better background checks for gun purchasers.  Holy flaming dog poo!  I just dealt with that same sort of topic two weeks ago.  Gun control is a constant battle.  Freedom lovers have to be vigilant in order to keep resisting this incessant nuisance.  We have to say, “No, No, No, No” every single time it comes up.  If we say, “Yes” just once, we have lost that freedom, most likely forever.

Five years ago, school funding was a battle of irrational fear versus level headed common sense.  Wouldn’t you know it?  I dealt with that some just last week.  The subject of taxing internet gaming establishments for the purposes of school funding came up, “for the children” and the emotional hype that comes with educational claims of need.  Freedom hating liberals are going to try to fund school systems in which we attempt to prepare students to enter the world with ethics and fairness with unfair taxation upon what some consider to be a vice.  The problem is that once the government claims to despise an activity such as gambling and attempts to eradicate it but instead taxes it as a vice, it becomes dependent upon its very existence for a revenue stream.  It is the same paradox that exists with taxing tobacco to fund public health care systems.  Legislators want to curb a behavior by taxing it.  That taxation works somewhat to discourage the behavior, which drops tax revenue, so they raise the tax rate to raise revenue.  It is a vicious circle.

Five years ago, the Congress of the United States was attempting to mandate insurance companies include prescription drug benefits for RU-486, often called the abortion pill.  Just recently, we have seen the Obama Administration unilaterally require insurance companies to provide birth control pills at no cost to subscribers, even if it violates the conscience or religious values of plan administrators, employers, and benefit providers.  Again, the constant “NO” vigilance is required in order to preserve our freedom from government incursion and usurpation.

Five years ago, the county was being asked to fund a private therapeutic horse riding center.  This is a classic case of “just because it is a good idea does not mean it is something we should be doing with public funding”.  Just within the past few months, the Selma Town Council had to take some tough decisions on whether or not to continue using public funds for charities.  I realize that these charitable line items in the budget have traditionally not been huge, and there is actually some benefit to the people being served by the agencies.  However, the Council had to consider whether or not it was appropriate to spend taxpayer funds on nice endeavors.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Column for June 14, 2012

It isn’t often that I agree with Governor Beverly Perdue.  I think that the last time she and I agreed was when she thought she should not run for re-election.  When we do agree, I usually comment upon it.  This time, Bev Perdue and I agree on internet sweepstakes operations and casino gambling.

I have long been baffled by the outcry in North Carolina against video poker machines, casinos, lotteries, and gambling in general.  I am not a gambler, myself.  I rarely play the lottery, I have only played a few slot machines and spent only chump change on them, and I have visited one of those internet sweepstakes places just once while visiting relatives in Florida.  I have been to casinos in The Bahamas and on cruise ships, but have never done any gambling in them.  I would someday like to visit Las Vegas for the sights, the hotels, the live shows, and just the experience of going to Vegas.  As long as I don’t end up like the movie “The Hangover”, I might enjoy the place.  I grew up in the state with the first modern state lottery, so it was common place for me.  There were lotteries in the days of George Washington, so they are nothing new to this country.  I was not opposed to the lottery coming to North Carolina, but I was very opposed to the underhanded way that it was passed by the state legislature and the false promises that were made to encourage its passage.

Many people have ethical and/or religious convictions on the subject of gambling.  I have done research over the years and again even before writing this column.  I have yet to find any answers from any theologian that satisfactorily show me that gambling is inherently immoral or Biblically prohibited, but I am willing to learn.  I am not going to just take someone’s opinion for it.  I want to see it in the Bible for myself.  Every explanation I have seen thus far is an extrapolation on some conceptual.   I take it as a matter of stewardship in that I am not to waste my (ultimately God’s) money, so I don’t spend a lot on the activity.  Just as the admonition in the Bible is against drunkenness, not the consumption of alcohol, I see gambling much the same way. 

Perdue was quoted as saying, “I’m opposed to sweepstakes.  I want to run them out of the state, but we have been unable to do that so far.  As long as they are here, we should regulate them, tax the heck out of them and use the money to fund our schools.”  This is where she and I differ yet agree.  I have no problem with taxing winnings earned at a gaming business.  I do have a problem with heavy regulation and the specious promise of more money for schools.  I don’t think that we underfund schools.  I think we seriously mismanage the tax dollars that we already use to pay for education.  I am also weary of the old, tired mantra of doing everything “for the children” or “for education”.  It is merely a ploy to play upon your emotions rather than sensibilities.

I see internet gaming as an expensive video game proposition.  Look, we already have purchased video game software for our personal computers, a small gaming console for portable use, and a PlayStation gaming system for the home.  I have spent far less on internet sweepstakes and the lottery than I have ever spent on gaming systems in my lifetime.  The difference is that at least with the sweepstakes parlors, I may walk out with some cash if I win.

Based upon my position on this, you can probably surmise my take on Governor Perdue’s decision to sign a bill that modifies gambling laws in North Carolina to allow live dealers at the casino owned by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.  I thought that they were supposed to be a sovereign nation and could set their own laws.  If so, we should respect that and they should not need North Carolina’s approval, but I am sure there are other considerations of which I am not aware.  The addition of live dealers will add a lot of jobs to that economically depressed area, so I am all for it.  

When it comes to gambling, I am firmly in favor of personal freedom and responsibility.  I don’t believe that we need the government getting involved in telling us how we can spend our money in a free society.  I also believe, on the other hand, that the government should not be bailing you out because you spent all of your grocery, mortgage, or gas money on a gambling addiction of your own choosing.

Column for June 7, 2012

Why is someone from New York City that is worth an estimated $22 billion trying to affect gun rights in North Carolina?  Because some people just can’t stand not being able to control your life.  They think that they know more about how to properly run your life than you do.  Then again, Michael Bloomberg, mayor of New York City, already thinks that he knows more about health, public safety,  and what is right for New Yorkers’ diets than they do.  Now he is working to force his whack job, leftist, totalitarian views on us here in North Carolina.

Once I heard about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman incident in Florida, I predicted that gun Nazis would attempt to use that incident to repeal gun rights legislation everywhere.  Sure enough, here comes the deluge.  Michael Bloomberg, along with the NAACP and other leftist (remember, the Nazis were leftist socialists, not right wingers) groups are working with a group called “Second Chance on Shoot First”.  According to that group’s own web site, they are “committed to raising awareness about Shoot First and other unsafe, reckless gun laws”.  Of course there are no such things as “shoot first laws” in North Carolina and 25 other states that have enacted The Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws.  Liberals are attempting to mischaracterize laws that allow you to reasonably defend yourself against intruders.

Keep in mind that the Trayvon Martin killing is still fresh in the news, now that George Zimmerman has been arrested with his bond revoked.  I am not a supporter of either Zimmerman or the Martin followers.  I am a supporter of the truth, regardless of what it is.  Florida does not have a problem with its laws.  It had an incident with either a teenage punk that attacked a zealous community watch volunteer, or a community watch zealot that inappropriately shot a teenager.  There was nothing inherent to the Florida law that caused the shooting.  If Zimmerman is at fault, then let him have his day in court and let the legal system takes its course.  If he was a victim then let the legal system take its course and stop crucifying him in the court of public opinion.  Above all, let us not have a knee jerk reaction to and incorrectly represent the law.

Aside from the idea of protecting the public against non-existent vigilante acts, Michael Bloomberg et al are simply trying to curb your personal freedom.  The more freedom you have, the less control government has over you.  This is the same Mayor Michael Bloomberg that has already made sure that New York City maintains strict gun control laws, has banned the use of trans-fats at restaurants, and is attempting to ban all fountain soda cups larger than 16 ounces.  This is all in the name of protecting the public against their own stupidity and promoting health.  The ideas of personal liberty and responsibility have been forsaken.  Limiting the size soft drink one can buy?  Really??  If that is not the epitome of intrusive government control, I don’t know what is.  If control freaks like that want to limit how much sugar you are allowed to consume by law, where does it end?  It certainly will extend to your right to keep and bear arms, since that right was under assault long before limits on soda consumption.

I have ceased to be amazed by people telling outright lies in order to curtail our rights in this country.  I watched the Trayvon Martin case get politicized by race, poverty, and gun control pimps since the incident happened, mostly with the use of slander, hyperbole, and false information.   We are now seeing this same case being used against responsible gun owners in North Carolina by a billionaire mayor 500 miles away.  Sorry, but my right to defend my life is worth far more than any right that some criminal thinks he has to take my life.  

Unfortunately, at least fourteen representatives to the NC House have signed on to HB1192, which is designed to repeal the Castle Doctrine in North Carolina.  The Castle Doctrine is a common sense law that allows people to reasonably use deadly force when defending themselves inside their own homes.  Not surprisingly, the Democrat leadership seems to be on board with this bill.

Why do politicians think that they know so much more than you do, are better at deciding how you should lead your life than you are, and have to protect you from yourself according to their own whimsical dictates?  When did we lose the idea of personal responsibility and personal freedom?  I don’t know about you, but I certainly don’t want some wealthy politician that can afford armed security guards telling me how to defend myself, much less how much soda I can order when visiting The Big Apple.

Column for May 31, 2012

Last week, I wrote that I am “hoping to share them [my library] and knowledge with my progeny”.  Interestingly enough, I ended up having one of those conversations with my third grade son just a couple of days after I wrote the column.

My son, being in the third grade, just had his first end of grade (EOG) tests.  I certainly have no objection to having EOG tests.  The concept is nothing new.  I had plenty of tests when I was in school.  The EOG is just one more comprehensive test that is administered.  If a child paid attention in school all year long, taking an EOG test is nothing to be feared.  The way I see it, testing measures achievement, both by the student and by the pedagogical staff.

That, however, is not the point of my rant today.  What came out of the EOG testing that I found curious and led to a discussion about reality, economics, government, and life was the topic of breakfast.  Our nine-year-old informed us that he wanted to eat breakfast at school on the days the tests were being administered.  Not only was it encouraged by the teachers at the school that the students should have a good night’s rest, but also a decent breakfast in the morning.  I am in agreement with both ideas.  The interesting thing was that the school would be offering breakfast to all students, not just those who were “economically disadvantaged” on test days.  I was informed that breakfast was “free”.

Personally, I understand the need to serve a cafeteria style lunch at large schools.  At Selma Elementary School, 90% of students get either free or reduced price lunch.  We don’t qualify for free or reduced pricing on lunch, nor would we accept it if we did.  A full priced lunch is only $2.  If you can’t afford $2 a day for lunch, you either need to rethink the priorities of your budget or you probably should not be having children.  When I was in elementary school, I remember taking a metal lunch box with a simple peanut butter and jelly sandwich, some cheese puffs, and a bit of milk in a thermos.  I was happy with that, and it was what my family could afford sometimes.  We send our son with a home packed lunch every day, not out of necessity, but out of choice.

School lunch is heavily subsidized by the federal government.  The average school lunch costs $2.66 to prepare, according to the research I just did (and those are outdated figures).  Add to that the costs of running a cafeteria, staff, electricity, and water (and I am sure there are many other costs) and it is a significant amount of money.  The federal government subsidized $2.47 for every free lunch (again, probably an outdated number).  Ironically, full priced lunches are only subsidized $1.90, so schools get more federal funds for free or reduced lunches.  Besides tying the amounts of free and reduced lunches to Title 1 federal funds, you can now see why schools push so hard for as many students to get on the free and reduced lunch programs at your local public schools.  In 2011, the federal government spent $14.3 billion just on the school lunch program, not that the Constitution allows for such expenditures.  Politicians, however, never let that stand in their way.

Obviously, free lunches are not free.  Someone has to pay for them, and that is the US taxpayer.  We pay for the school lunch program at the federal level, the state level, and the local level, so we are on the hook for the cost one way or another.  If I pay full cost, we pay more at the local levels of government for lunch.  If we get reduced or “free” cost lunch, we pay more at the federal level.

A gallon of milk costs approximately $3.50 right now.  A box of Wal-Mart store brand cereal can be as cheap as $1, maybe $2 if you get a larger box of a more popular variety.  I know, since I do my own shopping.  A box of cereal will certainly last at least a week for one child.  That means breakfast will cost as low as $4.50 per week.  At less than $5 a week, I still cannot fathom the need for a regular school breakfast program in addition to a school lunch program.  If you can’t afford $5 a week for your child to eat breakfast at home, you need to either rethink the priorities of your budget or you probably should not be reproducing.
I had the discussion with my nine-year-old that the breakfast was not actually free.  Taxpayers are picking up the tab for his newly found breakfast.  Regardless of how many times he insisted that the meal was free, I corrected him on that concept.  I am paying for his breakfast one way or another, and I hope that he grasped the concept.

We all love our children, but there are no guarantees of equality of outcome in either one’s ability to provide meals or even in test scores.  Children can still live on a simple, home provided meal, and be happy.  To be honest, I wish that more parents took the personal responsibility to provide for their own children more seriously and the school cafeteria trash cans were overflowing with brown paper bags from home packed lunches and even breakfast items rather than letting the taxpayers pick up the cost.

Column for May 24, 2012

For the past couple of weeks, I have been slammed with work and family. When I have been home and do get to catch some news, it is in small fragments and my television viewing has been rather limited to whatever I can squeeze in between video-on-demand reruns of “Barney” and “Caillou”. Both of those shows are my 33-month-old’s favorites and anyone with fairly young children knows exactly to what I refer. When I do get to watch television shows I like these days, I am holding a baby bottle to my six-week-old’s mouth and hoping that I don’t encounter projective spit up afterwards. Yes, life has been extremely hectic, frustrating, often stretches my patience to the limits, I am grateful for it all.

I guess that this is all part of “cocooning”, as I call it. I ran across this to some extent when we had our last child. The affairs of life and family keep parents of young children busy. I don’t know if I am glad that I had to wait until I was over 40 until my firstborn child came into the world or not. I certainly have a different perspective on life and what is important in my 40’s than I did in my 20’s. In some areas I find myself infinitely more patient but in others still lacking. If there is one thing that I have learned is that having children, especially a toddler that is a Ritalin candidate, is that I am certainly only human.

I shared with the pastor of a Garner church recently only a fraction of what I had on my mind. I was literally in tears at his father’s funeral, not because I knew his dad well, but because he did. I lamented for his loss but also that I could never have a conversation with my own father while growing up and even into my adult life. He suffered a stroke while still younger than I am now, and I was only a toddler. His fine motor skills and some memory were affected, but his speech and temperament suffered most of all. See, my pastor friend is the son of a pastor, and had the good fortune of being able to get counsel from his dad on pastoring and on life in general. If I ever wanted anything in my youth, it was to be able to look to my own dad as a source of wisdom. I would have traded anything to have been able to have had a normal father-son conversation just once in my life.

For years, I vowed never to be like my dad was in how he treated other people. When I find myself getting angry and frustrated, I often reflect on how I was hollered and cussed at incessantly and don’t want to be that way to my boys or bride. With three boys in the house now, like I said, I am reminded that I am only human. I don’t condone child abuse, but I understand it. My dad was physically, emotionally, and spiritually sick. I don’t condone the way he acted, but I understand it.

For years, I have collected books on theology and history, hoping to share them and knowledge with my progeny. I have also intended to sit and read many of the books I have obtained. I used to be a voracious reader but have had little free time in which to enjoy that simple thing in recent years. I consider myself somewhat reasonably autodidactic, but I could always stand to do more. Fortunately, I now have a somewhat decent reference library for when I do need it. Hopefully some of the investment I am trying to make into the next generation will be of some avail.

I was never raised with any real political or religious opinions in the home, but I hope to change the course of instruction on those topics in my own home. See, political and religious views were considered excessively private. The name Jesus Christ was never used in a positive manner in our house, and God had a last name that began with D. Other than that, I was told nothing about politics but was angrily told that all Catholic priests were homosexuals and that all television preachers were just money grubbing scumbags. Now that I have been a born again Christian for over twenty years, I tend to think the latter to be more accurate than the former.

I chuckle at the comment about priests for two reasons. First, I heard just within the past few days that the homosexual brother of the man who told me that passed away at the age of 80. I wish I could have been able to see Uncle Raymond again before he died.

I have known a bunch of Catholic priests over the years, and though I personally have doctrinal issues with Catholicism, I have met some good priests and some bad ones. Though there have been recent scandals in the Catholic Church over the issue of child molestation, it reminds me that they, too, are human. I certainly am not condoning their sin, but I understand dealing with sin in one’s own life. That is the whole reason I still need Jesus. I am, after all, only human.

Column for May 17, 2012

The primary election finally came and went here in North Carolina.  Many of the races turned out as expected and some as hoped.  I pretty much figured that Amendment One would pass.  Thankfully, North Carolina is now the thirtieth state to pass a “defense of marriage” style state constitutional amendment.  There were amazing media blitzes that only intensified days before the election.

I have stated numerous times that I am more libertarian than most conservatives or even Christians on dealing with civil affairs.  If someone wants to live a homosexual lifestyle, I am not going to stand in their way.  I disagree with endorsing that lifestyle by forcing a vast minority view and morality on the vast majority via law, however.

I was astounded by the outright lies and false accusations about the ramifications of Amendment One.  For those who don’t recall, Amendment One was the constitutional amendment ballot initiative that would reads in part, “Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”.  Most of them surrounded the loss of benefits to children of homosexual or single parents, the inability to obtain protective restraining orders for victims of domestic abuse, and discrimination claims.  Some of these were so outlandish, law enforcement and district attorneys even had to go on television to refute the falsehoods.  This did not stop the ads full of hate, lies, and deceit, though.  Nor did it stop allegedly tolerant people from vandalizing or stealing the political campaign signs opposed to their views.

People I know who I consider to be fairly intelligent and educated totally bought into some of the lies and even were trying to get others to oppose the initiative based upon these false claims.  I couldn’t believe what I was both reading and hearing from these people.  Every position I heard or read against the amendment was a blatantly specious argument coming from total emotion rather than truthfulness and reason.

How is it that people who label conservatives and religious folks as being intolerant are so tolerant of anyone with a form of deviant behavior but not of anyone who has an opinion that differs from theirs?  I was literally told that my parents did not raise me properly if I simply supported the idea that marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman.  That does not make me a homophobe or a bigot.  It makes me a traditionalist who believes that marriage has been defined as man and woman with differing views on the numbers involved for all six thousand years of recorded human history.

When people railed against the amendment using secular reasons, I discussed the issue using secular logic.  When people discussed the amendment using religious reasons, I did the same.  To be honest, I cannot fathom how anyone can come up with accurate theological reasons defending the redefinition of marriage.  I saw ministers of religion come out on both sides of the issue, each side claiming to have the mind of God on the subject.  I wonder what religious documents both sides have been reading sometimes.

One argument against Amendment One was that it was pushing one particular religious view on everyone in the state.  Well, the truth is that if a redefinition of what constitutes marriage were to pass in any state, it would be no different.  Whether the values are permissive and liberal or traditional, someone’s religious values would end up coming out on top.  Even if the views are atheistic, atheism is a religious belief.  One ridiculous assertion was that in passing Amendment One, North Carolina just instituted Sharia (Islamic) Law.  Such a harsh and ridiculous statement deserved a harsh reply, which I gave.

Another argument against Amendment One was that it took away civil rights.  Well, you can’t take away rights that don’t exist.  North Carolina law already stated what the constitutional amendment states.  Another assertion was that we should oppose the amendment on the basis of equality.  If we can equate the marriage of one man and one woman with that of two men or two women, we essentially have said that there is no difference between men and women and their natural roles in marriage and family.  If that is the case, we should immediately abolish Mothers’ Day and Fathers’ Day.

Our glorious leader, President Barack Obama, has formally come out in favor of homosexual marriage and now a major news magazine is featuring his picture on the cover, dubbing him as the “First Gay President”.  I guess he had to be a “first something” President since Bill Clinton was already dubbed the “First Black President” before Obama was ever on the scene.  The fact is that this is not a federal issue, it is a state issue.  Ergo, this endorsement following the North Carolina election is moot, in my opinion.  If someone in North Carolina thinks that that this state is too backwards and full of bigotry now that we have a marriage protection amendment in our constitution, there are 20 other states that don’t have one.  After all, if someone can make the choice to be a homosexual and have a monogamous, committed relationship, they can also choose to live in a state that will be friendlier to their own choices.

Column for May 10, 2012

I read in last week’s “The Selma News” right on the front page that former Mayor Charles Hester has publicly said that the town should not cut its electric rates and instead should take those funds and construct a building on speculation in its new industrial park.  The idea was to attract industry to come to Selma by showing that we are serious about new tenants and have a move-in ready facility.  Mr. Hester has long championed the idea of increasing the town’s tax base.  On that, he and I are in total agreement.  We just differ vastly on how to accomplish that end.

It all comes down to the idea of the proper role of government.  I am much more of a free market person, believing that if there is a place in the market for something, then business will make it happen because of the motivation of profit.  That has been the driving force behind the capitalist system for centuries and has made America the most powerful nation on earth.

I am fully in support of the current Selma Town Council and mayor lowering the electricity rates that Selma charges.  Ever since I moved to Selma ten years ago, I have lamented the high utility rates.  Towns that participate in Electricities or are “public power communities” do their communities a disservice with higher than necessary electric rates for the sole purpose of extracting more revenue from their citizens.  I wrote some time ago (June 9th of last year) about how my electricity bill that month was almost exactly $100 higher than the rate I would have been charged had I bought my electricity straight from Progress Energy.  That $100 should by all rights be considered taxation.  Since the only method of receiving revenue by a government is by extracting it from its population, then a cut in the profits from the retail sale of electricity in Selma must equate to a tax cut.  A 3.5% rate cut for individuals or a 2% cut for businesses is not a big cut, but it is a start.

The former mayor is a real estate developer, so he is going to view town progress and purpose through that lens.  I could do the same with a background in both media and safety and take a great interest in seeing those aspects of the economy take the foremost position in my thoughts.   However, it is best to take the general welfare of the town into consideration.  That means protecting citizens and businesses from undue taxation and excessive costs of doing business.

I have spoken to a good many residents and some business owners in town.  One thing that is a common thread with them all is the high utility cost burden on their budgets.  Personally, I had one of the highest utility bills ever just a month or two ago, and it was a difficult with which to cope.  I have seen businesses have to shut down parts of their buildings and totally turn off their air conditioning systems just to be able to afford the confiscatory utility bills the town charges.  I don’t care if other public power towns charge slightly more than we do.  That does not negate the fact that our rates are still far above the fair market value.  If a private utility company charges $x, then that is fair market value.  If our town charges $x + $y, then y = taxation that is above the fair market value.

I have read the town charter and even the state statutes governing towns.  I do not see anywhere the purpose of government being to engage in speculative real estate development at the expense of the town’s captive utility customers or even property tax payers.  It is the purpose of government, however, to attempt to create an environment in which a capitalist economy can thrive.  Low utility costs, low taxes, good infrastructure, and less government regulation will do more to bring in business and residents than any edifice built for real estate speculation.   When the town brought Sysco to town, Selma was not sufficiently attractive enough to bring its vice president or employees to town as promised.  Why would anyone think that having a building that may or may not be sufficient for a potential industrial tenant would do any better?

To keep high utility taxation high or even borrowing to dabble in real estate speculation will not be the key to our future.  This was understood by James Madison when he wrote to Thomas Jefferson on February 4, 1790.  "All that seems indispensible in stating the account between the dead and the living, is to see that the debts against the latter do not exceed the advances made by the former."  Madison understood the purpose of government.  Keeping excessive burdens of taxation via utility costs for us now or in the future is not it.

Column for May 3, 2012

It is not all that unusual for me to be stuck in a hotel room instead of being with my family at night.  I occasionally have to travel for my job, and thankfully it is not an every week thing.  Though I would much rather be at home with my toddler saying “Hold me, Daddy!” because he is a bit jealous of the new baby and enjoying a home cooked meal with my family, this is a small sacrifice that I have to occasionally make in order to keep and properly execute my position of employment.  How is all of this relevant?  Well, it relates to the frustration my wife and I experienced this past weekend.

We were shopping for some household essentials, and we were not sure how we were going to pay for all that we put into our shopping cart.  I understand being on a tight budget.  I have gone through periods of lean times.  I have gone through periods of abundance, as well.  My wife has not been working for three years now, and we are minus an entire paycheck each and every pay period.  However, we decided that we would suffer through anything we had to in order to allow her to stay at home and raise our children rather than her work to have just enough to pay some day care center employees do it for us.  Add to that the high utility bills in Selma, a mortgage, car payments, and now a monthly payment for an expensive new air conditioning system, and we have a tighter than desired monthly budget.

Ahead of us in line at the checkout was a couple with at least one infant (that is all I saw at the time) paying for their groceries with three separate transactions.  The first was a WIC voucher, the second was paid for with a food stamp card and a little bit of cash, and the third was yet another WIC voucher.  My wife and I just looked at each other in wonder.  We had three children with us and a full grocery cart.  We had to come up with a method of paying for our own groceries and there we were helping pay for the groceries that were purchased in front of us as well.

Add to that the frustration that the couple were definitely “English as a Second Language” class candidates of most likely questionable legal status, and we were all the more frustrated.  According to the Center for Immigration Studies (as long ago as 2004), the costs of food stamp, WIC and free school lunch programs to "illegal alien households" costs approximately $1.9 billion per year.  I almost wanted to follow Julio and Maria home and let them serve us supper.  After all, we helped pay for it.  As we were leaving the checkout lane, what did we see behind us?  Another couple with a food stamp card in hand to tender payment for the cart load of groceries.  I am reminded of a quote I read recently from one of our Founding Fathers.

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects.  It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.  Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

~ James Madison, Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees" (January 10, 1794)

My wife and I attend a church congregation in Garner.  It is a bit far to go for worship services, but we chose that group of believers out of relationship and preference.  We have been overwhelmed with the graciousness of our church family yet again, who love to bless people in that congregation with meals whenever someone is sick or has a newborn baby.  Others have been blessed as well, going through the loss of a family member.  That is what the Body of Christ is supposed to do to minister to one another.  Locally, there is a church right down the street from my house that gives away groceries every Thursday to people in need.  I just wish I didn’t see some of the same cars and people there week after week, still in need.

As James Madison realized, it is the job of the Church to provide such charity, not necessarily that of the government.  As I am away from my family as a result of being willing to work some long hours and make some small sacrifices in order to feed my family, I am also reminded of the Bible verse in 2 Thessalonians3:10 “... if any would not work, neither should he eat.”  Nonetheless, I am still frustrated in seeing others eat at the expense of others every time I go to the grocery store.