Carolina Politics Online

Gov. Mark Sanford made repeated efforts to have the State Ports Authority sell valuable land at Port Royal in Beaufort County to a favored developer, according to testimony a Ports Authority board member gave to the Senate Transportation Committee on Wednesday.

That developer, Chaffin/Light Associates, is led by Jim Chaffin, a Sanford campaign contributor.
Some legislators said the governor overstepped his bounds by pushing for a deal that would benefit a contributor.

The governor counters that he has acted in the best interest of the state’s taxpayers by weighing in on the plan to sell state-owned coastal property another developer tried to purchase for $26 million.

The State

Even if the Governor’s intentions were good as he claimed, this was a really stupid thing to do.  How did Sanford think people were going to react when they found out the man he has been pushing to get the deal is a major campaign contributor.  That’s your stereotypical “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” dirty politics.  This could get him into serious legal trouble.

FLAT ROCK — The $600 million “Road to Nowhere” could be back if the Republicans running for the 11th congressional district have their way.

At a debate at Flat Rock today, Highlands attorney John Armor, retired Army Col. Spence Campbell of Hendersonville and Asheville City Councilman Carl Mumpower described the 34-mile road through the Great Smoky Mountains National Park as a broken promise. Campbell and Mumpower said it should be built.

The Times-News

Well, that’s just wonderful. Right out of the gate you have your stunning example of today’s “conservatism,” a $600 million crap on the taxpayers of the United States of America.

“That’s a hard question,” Campbell said. “It’s a hard question because it’s two different issues for a conservative to deal with.”

The road would add to the federal deficit, “which a lot of us conservatives think is the principal economic issue we need to deal with,” he said.

“On the other hand, the government made a promise in 1942 I think it was that they were going to build that road. They didn’t do it. In this case I think the government’s promise trumps what the county commission wants to do” by taking the settlement.

It’s not a hard question for a fiscally responsible conservative to deal with, Mr. Campbell. The country is over $9 trillion in debt. You don’t go and spend $600 million on a useless road that will not yield a positive economic return from the initial investment, promise be damned. Who from 1942 is still alive that this promise was even made to? I think the statute of limitations has passed. Move on.

These guys know better. They are avoiding the truth because they don’t want to alienate any voters. Being a leader means having to tell people what they don’t want to hear sometimes.

All of the candidates pledged to remove “the fat” from state government, regardless of the state’s economic situation, with some blaming the Democrats who control the General Assembly for out-of-control spending. Salisbury attorney Bill Graham said he believes the state government’s work force — educators excepted — could be reduced by 5 to 10 percent.

“You have to hold down spending,” Graham said. “The budget’s out of whack because we spend too much, not because we’re taxed too little.”

Smith touted his “taxpayer bill of rights,” which would limit annual increases in government spending to a percentage no greater than the previous year’s increase in population and inflation.

“That would give us an incentive to reduce waste. It would set priorities,” he said. “As governor of this state, I’ll cut the government budget before the family budget.”

Former Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr questioned Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory’s focus on reducing the state’s personal income tax rate, saying such a plan avoids a bigger question of fixing the state’s overall tax system. The income tax raises more than 50 percent of the state’s general operating revenues.

“The approach Pat’s talking about, where you cherry-pick one particular tax or a couple of taxes, is the wrong approach,” Orr said.

McCrory defended him plan and said the rate — the highest wage earners pay now pay a 7.75 percent marginal rate — is among the highest in the Southeast.

“I am cherry-picking the income tax because I think the worst type of tax is the tax on people who are working,” McCrory said. “If I have an opportunity to cut a tax, that’s the first tax I’ll do.”

The News-Record

I am all for cutting the income tax.  Although I live in South Carolina, I work in North Carolina and am therefore subject to paying the North Carolina income tax rate of 7%, which is outrageous for a state income tax percentage.  Few states are higher.

And in regards to the teen pregnancy problem they talked about (not quoted above), there is an easy way to solve that one.  Stop paying for the childrens’ children.  You’ll see the number of teen pregnancies plummet once they realize there won’t be a free ride in the mail at the first of each month.

“I don’t know that there is any additional,” Kinnaird said. “I think we both said the same thing.”

The Herald Sun

Boy, that’s a frightening thought.

Kinnaird and Carey both talked about the need to fix the mental health system in North Carolina. Both talked about the importance of offering affordable health insurance and health care, and both stressed finding a solution for problems associated with illegal immigration.

“I think it’s reprehensible that other counties are putting people in jail that aren’t even convicted of anything,” Kinnaird said. Carey said it would be a stress on the economy to begin deporting or jailing illegal immigrants and instead favored intergovernmental work toward an answer.

No wonder Kinnaird can’t grasp the solution to resolving the illegal immigration crisis in North Carolina.  She doesn’t understand the definition of illegal immigrant.  Not convicted of anything?  The fact that they are here is what they’re being convicted for!

Mental health services and their link to criminal behavior seemed to be one of the biggest issues on the minds of Carey and Kinnaird. She said the state isn’t doing a good enough job of “keeping track of people” and keeping the mentally ill in touch with needed services.

“We need to put the ‘juvenile’ back in ‘juvenile justice system,’ ” said Carey. His opponent agreed again, and said she has co-sponsored a bill that would change the legal designation for juveniles from age 16 to 18. Kinnaird also said she has worked to introduce more therapeutic treatment for youthful offenders, rather than harsher treatment.

Oh yes, this is the juicy one.  I touched on this a few days ago.  This is the Kinnaird Special.  No more jail time for minor offenders.  You go out and steal a car and you’re 17 years old?  Probation.  You go rob a 7-11 and you’re 16?  Probation.  You beat the crap out of some old lady and steal her purse and you’re seven days short of your 18th birthday?  Nope, no jail for you!  You’re back out on the street courtesy of State Senator Ellie Kinnaird to pillage and plunder your neighbors all over again.  What a saintly and compassionate woman she is.

This is your brain……..

This is your brain on drugs…………..

Lots of drugs.  More specifically, multiple acid trips from 1968.  That is the only explanation for this woman’s separation from reality.

Legislation Gives States Control of Highway Funding, Flexibility to Innovate; New GAO Study Concludes Federal Transportation Role Should Be Reduced

April 7th, 2008 - Washington, D.C. - Today, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the Transportation Empowerment Act to reform the federal highway program. The bill would devolve federal highway and mass transit projects and their funding sources to states, allowing each state to determine their own transportation priorities.

“The federal highway system is plagued by thousands of wasteful earmarks, bureaucratic red tape, and outdated funding formulas that pick winners and losers,” said Senator DeMint. “Americans are angry at Washington politicians who waste billions on frivolous pork projects while bridges crumble and critical infrastructure is ignored. It’s time to empower states to make their own transportation decisions and stop making taxpayers pay for bridges to nowhere and teapot museums in other states.”

“I join Senator DeMint in his desire to pursue a dramatic shift in how we address transportation infrastructure from the federal perspective,” said Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I introduced a similar bill in 2002 because, like Senator DeMint, I believe that States and local communities know better then the Federal Government what is needed for their citizens. The Federal responsibility is to provide a national transportation system that promotes interstate commerce, not to micro manage individual choices of cities and counties. Thus, during the reauthorization discussions on SAFETEA-LU, I will be supporting efforts to refocus the federal program on true national transportation needs. I welcome Senator DeMint’s contribution to the debate.”

Senator DeMint’s Transportation Empowerment Act returns control of nearly all highway programs to individual states in the form of block grants to states starting in 2010 when the current highway program expires. After a multi-year transition period, the bill reduces the federal gas tax from 18.3 cents to 3.7 cents in 2013 in order to fund only the limited number of programs that serve a clear national purpose.

In return, states could adjust their state gas tax rates and keep nearly all of the revenue they collect instead of funneling it through Washington. The legislation also proposes new ways to finance roads and gives new authority to states that allows them to partner with other states to undertake major multi-state projects.

A 2008 Government Accountability Office report requested by Senators DeMint and Inhofe found that:

“Functions that other entities can perform better than the federal government could be turned back to the state or other levels of government. Given that already substantial roles states and localities play in financing, design, construction, and operation of transportation facilities and service, there may be areas that no long call for federal involvement and funding could be reassessed.”

“The reality is that the national interstate system was completed years ago. States should be able to keep their own transportation dollars instead of sending them to Washington and only getting a portion of them back with layers of regulations and earmarks,” said Senator DeMint. “The Transportation Empowerment Act is a commonsense solution to the broken highway funding system.”

If the Transportation Empowerment Act were passed, “Donor states,” which send Washington more in gas taxes than they receive back in transportation funding, would see a dramatic increase in their rate of return because nearly all of the tax revenues would never leave the state. This bill would also empower states to pursue more innovative and efficient ways to build roads by engaging in public private partnerships.

A report published by the nonpartisan Heritage Foundation from October 2007 found that most “donor states” have been receiving a losing share of federal transportation funds since the program’s inception in 1956, even though many of these states are experiencing above-average population growth. Heritage found that the five biggest “donor states” in the current federal highway funding system (Texas, South Carolina, Minnesota, Georgia and Indiana) lost a combined total of over $1.2 billion tax dollars in Fiscal Year 2005. According to the report:

“South Carolina was one of the biggest losers in 2005 because its motorists provided the trust fund with 1.836 percent of its rev¬enues while receiving only 1.535 percent of spending in return. In effect, South Carolina received only an 83.6 percent payback on its investment share. South Carolina is also one of the biggest losers over the 50-year history of the program. Only Texas and Oklahoma have done worse since the program’s inception.”

A 2007 report by the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General requested by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) contains the following findings on the problems created by transportation earmarks:

• Department of Transportation (DOT) earmarks have increased in number by 1,150 percent in 10 years (1996 – 2005), with the value of earmarks in the same timeframe jumping 314 percent.
• Ninety-nine percent of earmarks (7,724 out of 7,760) were not subject to the transportation agencies’ review and selection processes or bypassed the states’ normal planning and programming processes.
• Earmarks may not be the most effective or efficient use of funds. The IG report identifies five ways in which earmarks impact programs in the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration, as follows (see pages 11 – 14 of the full report):

o Earmarks can reduce funding for the states’ core transportation programs.
o Earmarks do not always coincide with DOT strategic research goals.
o Many low priority, earmarked projects are being funded over higher priority, non-earmarked projects.
o Earmarks provide funds for projects that would otherwise be ineligible.
o Earmarks can disrupt the agency’s ability to fund programs as designated when authorized funding amounts are exceeded by “overearmarking.”

Think of all the money that South Carolina could put towards the $90 million budget deficit we are facing in the next fiscal year if all of this money wasn’t leaving our state?  York County, where I live, is running several million short on some of our road projects that the Pennies for Progress program hasn’t been able to make up.  This bill by DeMint would provide that money and so much more for infrastructure projects around the state.

I have little faith that this will pass with a Democratic controlled Congress, but I wouldn’t have much faith even if the GOP still held the power.  The Senators from the receiving states aren’t going to give up the gravy train.  They don’t care that it’s at the expense of the rest of us.