• What: A very brief description of the action item
• Additional Details: Links to the original legislation text or alternative information sources for those wanting more details (this is also to keep us honest and maintain our credibility)
• Action: A brief explanation of what to do and the tools to make it quick, easy and efficient

 

by Peggy Smetana

 

The Oregon mass murder illustrates the folly of banning faculty and adult students from carrying guns on school campuses. Which condition would you prefer for your child or grandchild if s/he is sitting in a classroom when crazed gunman strolls in, intent on killing as many people has he can?

 

     Condition 1 -- Today's status quo; s/he's on a "gun-free" campus where the psycho knows he has as much time as it takes for someone outside the classroom to comprehend what is happening, dial 911, get connected to the campus police and notify them of the shooting, for the person taking the call to then get the word out to the officers on campus and for them to find the right building, or

     Condition 2 -- S/he's on a campus where people can defend themselves; where the psyco finds a professor and two students drawing their guns and shooting him before for he can murder more than just a few, if any, innocent people.  

 

For some inscrutable reason, the wackos don't comply with the "gun-free campus" signs. In fact, since the vast majority of mass shootings in the US have been in "gun free zones," reasonable people might conclude that these people purposefully choose such places (see article).

 

In NC, a citizen with a concealed carry permit may take his gun on a school campus as long as it's in a closed container (such as the glove box or armrest) before he drives onto the campus, and only if he leaves it there until he leaves campus. It's time to change the law.

by Jerry Montgomery, MTC Vice Chair

I think it is time to repeal the 17^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The 17^th Amendment changed the method of choosing U.S. Senators. Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provided for Senators to be chosen by the Legislatures of the States. The 17^th Amendment changed that, providing for the Senators to be chosen by a direct election vote of the people (like their U.S. House of Representatives).

 

The 17^th Amendment was ratified on April 8, 1913. It has been in effect for 102 years. 

 

I contend it was a bad decision because in the process of getting a direct vote in the election of their Senators, the span of the people's influence was severely diluted. What do I mean by diluted? For instance, in the House of Representatives there originally was one Representative for every 30,000 people. The founders wanted the people to have influence and access to their Representatives. This was also true within the State Legislatures where there still are reasonable ratios today. By having the State Legislators select their U.S. Senators the people had better access for indirectly influencing and controlling the loyalty of their Senators and what went on in DC. 

 

As the number of people in our country grew, it was no longer possible to maintain this ideal ratio in the House of Representatives, and eventually it was settled on having a maximum of 435 House Members distributed among the states by population. With our current 320 million people that works out to be approximately 736,000 people per Representative; 25 times more dilution. 

 

By allowing the people to choose their Senators the dilution is spread across the entire state population resulting in much less real access and influence. We see that today with the current Senators not paying attention to the wishes of their people. They are only interested in their power, the lobbyists, growing the Federal Government, and especially getting reelected.

 

By repealing the 17^th Amendment and restoring the original selection method we would get back much closer to the historical people ratios and having our U.S. Senators trying to please the people in their own state for a change.

 

Reading the Federalist Papers can provide more insight on the people ratios.

 

Reading articles on repealing the 17^th Amendment will provide insight on the pros and cons.

by Neil Oakley

Our General Assembly recently passed its budget, which was signed by the governor. One phrase we seem to hear constantly regarding government budgets, including this year's, is that we need "more money for education/teachers." Since I am married to someone with 25 years of public school teaching experience, I thought I'd unpack this statement and see what it means.
 
The first word is "more." "More" is a comparative term - "more" than whom or what? How much "more"? The proponents of "more" money for teachers or education never tell us. They use nebulous phrases like "living wage" (whatever that is), or they say they want North Carolina to move to the "national average" in teacher salaries. Here's a thought - when you move to the average, the average changes. Let's say Bobby has 3 apples, Jane has 5 apples, and Johnny has 10 apples. The average number of apples is 6. Bobby wants to move to the average, so he picks 3 more apples to give him 6. But, the average has now moved. The average number of apples among the three people is now 7. Bobby still is not at the average. "Average" is a moving target. The proponents of "more" money should ask for a specific amount, not use a moving target. Plus, these "average teacher salary" arguments do not take into account benefits, cost of living, etc.
 
Also, do these proponents want "more" money for "education" in general, and what does this mean? Since the Republicans took over the North Carolina General Assembly in January 2011, they have increased the funds allocated to the NC public schools in every budget (set aside the issue of whether the taxpayers are getting what they paid for). Proponents of "more" claim the Republicans have "cut" education. They claim that per-pupil spending is lower. That may be true, but so what? What are we getting in exchange for that per-pupil spending? Also, unlike when the Democrats controlled the General Assembly, the Republicans are not merely using the previous year's budget numbers as a starting point and are requiring those requesting money to justify the amounts. So, if you get a dollar from me last year, and you believe you deserve two dollars this year, but I give you a buck-fifty instead, is that a cut? Not in any rational world, it's not. If you want two dollars, tell me why, using specifics.
 
Next, let's look at the word "money" and consider where this "money" comes from. In government, there are two ways to get money - raise taxes or cut spending elsewhere. So, where do the proponents for "more money for education" want to get the money? They haven't said. Again, please be specific. If you want to increase taxes, then which taxes? Property? Sales? Income? Something else? And by how much? Are you using a percent, or a flat amount? And on whom? "The rich" doesn't count, because you have not defined "rich." If you want to cut spending, then on what? What would you reduce or eliminate? And by how much?
 
The final words are "education" or "teachers." Do the proponents of "more money" want higher teacher salaries? Higher administrator salaries? Better benefits, such as health insurance, retirement, matching 401(k)s, etc.? Or do they want more funds for "education" in general? What does this mean? Does this include increased funding to hire bureaucrats, such as assistant deputy associate superintendents for paper-pushing? Or does it mean more money to the classroom to buy things that actually help students, such as, you know, books, desks, pencils, computers, musical instruments, art supplies, physical education equipment, etc.? Or does it go to hiring more and better-qualified teachers?
 
Don't get me wrong. I'm not dismissing the "more money for education/
teachers" argument out of hand. Depending on the specifics, I might be in favor of it. Under Article IX of our state Constitution, our state government is required to "provide by taxation and otherwise for a general and uniform system of free public schools," and I have taken an oath to uphold our state Constitution. In addition, both my wife and I grew up in public schools, and our children go to public schools. I don't want our public schools to fail. I just want to know exactly what I'm being asked to support. A slogan is not a plan, and just because it can fit on a bumper sticker doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea...and I know a thing or two about bumper stickers.