RALEIGH – The prospect of continuity in North Carolina government got enough boost Tuesday when NC House Democrats appeared to coalesce around longtime Speaker Jim Black for a fourth two-year term starting next year. Marc Basnight will begin his seventh term as president pro tem of the NC Senate at the same time, and of course Gov. Mike Easley was easily reelected to another four-year term.
There have been many different explanations offered for the outcome of the 2004 elections, the differing fortunes of the national and state Republican parties in North Carolina, and voter attitudes about government and political leaders. At this point, however, what will matter most to North Carolinians is the policy outcome of the choices they made. As Black indicated after his caucus nomination for speaker, the policy agenda for the 2005-06 legislative session appear to involve several major subjects:
• The state budget. A $1 billion-plus budget gap will likely result in a package of tax increases along with some budget savings. That’s the approach that Easley, Black, and Basnight have taken to a series of budget deficits since 2001. Continuity means that the approach will continue, though likely with even more of an emphasis on the tax-hike side because of larger Democratic margins in the legislature and Easley’s lessened need to worry about winning reelection.
• The state lottery. Easley may still seek to distance his fiscal policy from that of legislative leaders by insisting that a state-run lottery would be an acceptable alternative to broad-based tax increases or budget savings. Of course, if legislators still require the political cover of a referendum to enact the idea, the necessary delay means that the $400 million or so in expected tax revenues from a lottery wouldn’t be available to help with the 2005-06 budget.
• Death-penalty moratorium. Activists trying to dismantle capital punishment in North Carolina – make no mistake, that’s the goal of a moratorium, not simply to “study and reform the system” – previously got a favorable vote in the NC Senate but failed to get a vote in the House. Black seems to be signaling that, as sole speaker, he may be favorably disposed to granting such a vote. That doesn’t guarantee it will pass, as some senators likely voted “yes” to placate activists knowing that the moratorium would never become law. If that prospect changes, those in competitive districts (alas, not so many) will probably think twice, as will many House members.
• Leandro. Part of the budget debate will involve varying proposals to comply with the courts’ mandate in the Leandro school-equity case. This need not be so, as I have previously explained, because the constitution does not necessary require that total state spending go up. Those who still see Leandro as a court order to equalize district spending per pupil are stalking the wrong prey. I’ve just updated the numbers: in 2002-03, per-pupil spending in the five plaintiff counties (Hoke, Robeson, Vance, Halifax, and Cumberland) was higher in real, inflation-adjusted terms than what five “high-wealth” urban systems (Mecklenburg, Wake, Durham, Guilford, and Forysth) spent in 1994, when the Leandro case began. Not only is equalization the wrong prey, but it’s a fast-moving prey. While the lawyers were arguing the case, large increases in state and federal spending on K-12 education have in percentage terms largely eliminated the funding gap between these two groups of counties, contrary to what you may have heard.
Basically, if you like the way things have been going in North Carolina government, be reassured – it will probably keep going that way.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of Carolina Journal.