You’ve been pushing this Fred Smith letter all over the blogosphere to little effect. You must be pretty desperate if you have to troll around here to beg people to read it.

Fred Smith of CC Mangum wants us to spend out tax dollars on “worthwhile investments like …NEWSFLASH… building and maintaining roads”.

Go back to hawking Revival Soy. At least that’s a real product.

Time For Leadership on NC budget
By North Carolina State Senator Fred Smith

During the 2006 election, many candidates for office faced questions from voters about the increasing size of North Carolina state government. Questions about the fiscal responsibility of the Easley Administration and Democratic legislative leaders are timely. The past ten years, General Fund spending has grown 24% faster than combined inflation and population growth – translating into a $1,116 increase in real dollars for a typical North Carolina family.(1)

State government spending continues to be out of control with a projected $500 Million revenue shortfall in 2007. The most recent state budget increased spending 9.7%, on top of an 8% increase last year. The failure of the Democratic legislature and Governor Easley to prioritize and control spending has resulted in millions of dollars of inefficient expenditures – instead of worthwhile investments like educating our children or building and maintaining roads. Ultimately, this careless, undisciplined spending has also forced North Carolina to impose on its citizens the highest tax burden in the southeast. Meanwhile, the local tax burden is also increasing.(2) Irresponsible year-after-year increases in spending strain family budgets, stifle private sector growth and damage the ability of small businesses and entrepreneurs to create new jobs.

Even Lt. Gov. Perdue, one of the most liberal Democratic officeholders in our state’s history, seems to recognize the problem. She recently penned an email to supporters touting her hot new “reform” idea: a permanent state efficiency commission. The commission, she says, would “present a maximum of ten separate governmental efficiency proposals” to “counter the pressures in the system favoring wasteful spending and loopholes.”(3)

Taken as a stand-alone plan, her proposal is not a bad idea. However, Perdue’s latest press release misses the larger point. The failure to control spending isn’t for lack of boards, commissions, or processes – it’s for lack of leadership. The governor already has the power to appoint advisors or seek outside counsel on fiscal issues – or any other state problem. The governor has the veto power on the budget. He controls the Office of State Budget and Management. He has the bully pulpit.

On the campaign trail in 2004, Gov. Easley’s “solution” to the spending problem was a self-enforced spending cap. During the 2005-2006 General Assembly, Easley promptly broke that pledge by signing two budgets that blew through his own cap. Now, Perdue has the magic bullet: her permanent efficiency commission. She says the group will create the “institutional momentum” needed to fight spending. Why add a new commission to the over four hundred boards and commissions already in existence, rather than just rolling up our sleeves and tackling the spending problem? Real leaders take excuses off the table, use the tools they have and get the job done.

Some skeptics may look at Perdue’s record and fear that her efficiency commission proposal is just political lip service. She can prove the skeptics wrong though by signing on to support the constitutional amendment I have introduced to cap state spending growth.

Our rapidly growing, rapidly changing state doesn’t have time for bureaucratic piddling with new processes. Instead of tinkering with the system, we must make real change which requires leadership. My Taxpayer Protection Amendment limits government spending growth to inflation and population growth. This legislation would immediately put real limits on government growth, finally forcing the legislature to prioritize spending.

Talking about fiscal restraint, finding government efficiencies, and getting tough on spending is a lot like talking about going on a diet. There are a lot of gimmicks and new fads, but we all know there’s only one real solution: discipline. We don’t need a new “fad” plan, we just need a leader with the discipline to make sure government eats less and exercises more. A constitutional spending cap would force government to create a strategic plan for growth, prioritizing what we consume and cutting outmoded, irrelevant spending.

We don’t need a new blue ribbon commission. We don’t need to pass the buck. We need results – and that takes disciplined leaders who will roll up their sleeves and make tough decisions. At the end of the day, improving government efficiency and reducing unnecessary spending reduces the demand that government places on the private sector, so the private sector can create jobs and economic growth.

(1) “The State Budget.” John Locke Foundation: http://www.johnlocke.org/agenda2006/statebudget.html
(2) Lowrey, Michael. “By the Numbers: What Government Costs in North Carolina Cities and Counties.” The Center for Local Innovation. http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/btn2006.pdf
(3) Perdue News Update, December 29, 2006.
 

Obviously, I think the Council of State elections should be reviewed. I kinda went through the list in my head and couldn’t think of another seat that fits the same circumstances, though. The Board of Education already has the reins.
Some people would advocate that Lt. Gov and, maybe Attorney General are all you need. I like the idea of direct election for most of these seats because it keeps them closer to the people—or it least it could if people gave a whit about it.
Unfortunately, we’re in a situation where donations and PACs rule the races.

The W-SJ said about June Atkinson: “She has few duties other than those assigned to her by the state board” and “In the past, the board has given superintendents a good deal of responsibility. For reasons that escape us, it has not chosen to do so with Atkinson”

The duties delegated to Atkinson by the Board are outlined in this policy statement dated 09/02/2004, prior to her election to office. In addition to those duties she serves as Secretary to the Board of Education, is a member of the Council of State and, the Governor’s Education Cabinet.

There is nothing new in the fact JB Buxton’s salary will be the same as his predecessor Janice Davis. Like his predecessor he will “report directly to the State Superintendent” per State Board of Education Policy. The same policy, dated 09/02/2004 which also describes the State Board of Education’s current delegation of authority to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Position Description: Deputy Superintendent
Department of Public Instruction
REPORTING LINES:
The Deputy Superintendent reports solely and directly to the State Superintendent.

To date there has been no change, nor no proposed changed, in State Board of Education policy regarding this delegation of authority and lines of reporting.

The authority extended to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction has ebbed and flowed. The State Board of Education, over a period of several years found a comfort level with Mike Ward that allowed for an expansion of that authority beyond that afforded to his predecessor Mike Etheridge.

In the summer of 2004 with Mike Ward’s resignation as Superintendent, the State Board rescinded much of the authority it had extended to Ward pending the election of a new Superintendent. This was done with the approval of then Interim Superintendent, Board member Patricia Willoughby. The protracted election dispute served to extend the tenure of Patricia Willoughby as Interim Superintendent and the rescinded authority was never restored to June Atkinson after she took office. To be fair her tenure has run just a little over a year, having been sworn in August 23rd 2005 only after the General Assembly settled the vote.

The authority extended to Mike Ward was to some extent unusual though not unprecedented. The retention of authority by the State Board is similarly unusual but understandable. The election results were not predictable and the rescinding of authority was as much an immunization strategy against a potential win by Bill Fletcher as it was smart management tactic in the absence of Mike Ward. When Mike Ward first ran he defeated challenger Vernon Robinson. Ward earned his trust from the Board of Education over a period of almost eight years.

The Board’s failure to restore some if not all of that authority to June Atkinson may be a matter for exploration but it has not been precipitated by the appointment of JB Buxton. I would expect a delegation of authority to be consistent with that given to Mike Ward when he assumed office, not when he left

June Atkinson received 1,655,719 votes in 2004 general election. She and Marshall Stewart had more votes than JB Buxton in a three way primary. Stewart actually had the most votes but lost in the run-off to Atkinson who obviously garnered much of Buxton’s support. There is no evidence of animosity between Atkinson and Buxton or the Board or the Governor.

There may be an argument for eliminating the election to this position but it should be in the context of other Council of State elected positions. Eliminating a position simply because political rivals may have out-maneuvered it is hardly a sound or Democratic basis for action.

The stories about JB Buxton’s appointment have sought to put a spin on a controversy that does not exist by assembling some grains of truth into a flimsy fabrication. Your post amplifies that spin.