Would you encourage family members to study to become teachers or other government employees? Unless we can answer “yes”, government is failing as an employer.
Can you hear the voices of elected officials berating and blaming their employees for government performance problems, laziness, and being “thugs”? Employees are tired of it. They want respect and fair treatment. Continue reading Legislators should learn from Ed
The 13 Senators who drafted a bill to replace Obamacare are all Republican, male, white, over age 40, and prosperous. California, Florida and New York, which together account for one-fourth of our population, were not in the room but there were two Senators from number fifty Wyoming.
Discussing diverse opinions is one way to identify and avoid unintended consequences of new legislation. Do Republicans think that women, middle class, minorities, young, poor, and other Americans left out of the process have no ideas worthy of consideration?
They did their work in secret meetings without input by experts in health policy or economics, out of the sight of the public and the press. The result is a political bill to satisfy Republican ideology with little regard for facts or alternatives.
Previously, Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a similar bill that was designed behind closed doors without serious public hearings, expert testimony or debate. They proceeded despite a Congressional Budget Office projection that it would cause 23 million Americans to become uninsured. The CBO’s estimate of spending reductions from the bill amount to $43 per month saved for each person who loses health benefits – not a good deal!
There’s no doubt that Obamacare has serious problems in the individual and small employer exchanges. Republicans try to mislead us into believing that those troubles mean that the law is failing. It isn’t. Because of Obamacare 20 million more Americans are now insured and the rate of growth in total health care spending is lower than it was before Obamacare. It is a successful law that needs improvements.
Bluntly, Republican lawmakers don’t believe that all Americans should receive basic health care regardless of their ability to pay and they’re willing to let other Americans die for that ideology. Republican leadership intends to pass their bill before Americans understand that it will cause more people to lose health benefits, more healthcare related family bankruptcies and more individuals suffering death or disability.
Rushing ill-considered bills through a legislature to satisfy an ideology is not limited to the congress. North Carolina Republicans imagined an “emergency” when Charlotte passed a civil rights ordinance allowing transgender citizens to use restroom facilities consistent with their gender identity (and, in most cases, consistent with their physical appearance). Rather than holding hearings and carefully considering what (if any) legislation was needed, they packed the infamous HB-2 with unrelated and controversial provisions then passed it as “emergency” legislation. If standard legislative processes had been followed, a more appropriate response (or no response) to Charlotte’s ordinance might have been made. HB-2 has been mostly repealed, but the damage to the state’s reputation remains and some economic losses will never be recovered.
Similarly, North Carolina Republicans gerrymandered the state’s congressional and legislative districts through secret processes. They hired attorneys who hired consultants to design legislative districts that would give massive election advantages to Republicans. Because the work was done through attorneys, they were able to claim attorney-client privilege as justification for refusing to let the public and the press see exactly how they instructed the consultants. The US Supreme Court ruled that the result of their work was racial discrimination. It again seems obvious that an open process with public hearings could have produced a better outcome.
If Republicans were practicing medicine rather than legislating, their negligence would be called malpractice. They circumvented the rules and procedures that assure thoughtful deliberation before laws are passed. That violates American values, undermines trust in government and exposes us all to the negative consequences of ill-considered laws.
Senate Republicans plan to debate, amend and pass a healthcare bill back to the House of Representatives in 10 days, with no public hearings and no expert testimony. As an example of the unanticipated consequences of doing that, unemployed Republican rural voters in the coal mining areas of the Kentucky mountains will probably lose their Medicaid benefits and see closure of clinics opened to serve them under Obamacare. Health care has added more jobs than mining lost in the Kentucky mountains. Similar outcomes are inevitable in other places. The damage to the credibility of our legislative processes is severe. Worst of all, Americans will die as a result of Republican legislative malpractice.
Many Americans seem to believe that our nation is declining and in danger of failure. I don’t think that facts justify that belief. For example, did you know that the number of law enforcement officers killed as a result of crimes peaked at 134 in the year 1973? By 2015 it had declined to 46, about one-third of the peak number. Any killing is one too many but failure to notice improvement encourages unsubstantiated beliefs that our nation is declining. Why are we losing our self-confidence and self-respect when objectively we are making progress?
I recently read a relevant commentary by Lee Hamilton, a retired congressman that I’ve admired for many years. He represented my conservative Southern Indiana hometown as a Democrat from 1965 through 1999 then served as co-chair of the 9/11 Commission after his retirement.
During Hamilton’s years in congress the issues faced by voters and elected officials were arguably even more contentious and vexing than the ones we face today: voting rights act, Vietnam War, school desegregation and busing, proliferation of nuclear weapons, cold war, creation of Medicare and Medicaid, impeachment and resignation of President Nixon, Equal Rights Amendment, Roe vs Wade decision, and assassination of civil rights and political leaders.
Why did conservative, predominantly rural and white Southern Indiana continue to send a moderate Democrat to Washington for so many years? After reading his May, 2017 column, I remember why so many of us, Democrats and Republicans, voted for him. He believed in the perseverance of his constituents; believed in American institutions; and worked honestly to improve those institutions for citizens.
Hamilton opened his comments this way, “I’ve had a number of conversations recently that convince me our country is divided into two political camps separated by a deep and uncomfortably wide gap. No, I’m not talking about liberals and conservatives, or pro- and anti-Trump voters. I’m talking about people who believe in politics and our political system, and people who don’t.”
He points to distrust of institutions and elected officials; popular belief that they are unable or unwilling to solve national problems or help individuals; the excessive influence of big money on policy making, and belief that elected officials are working for personal gain rather than for the public good as subjective reasons why Americans are losing confidence in the nation.
Hamilton makes the case that politics is a worthy profession and urges us to participate. Rather than a struggle between good and evil, he points to politics as “…our opportunity to help our neighbors, to give us better schools and hospitals and highways, to make our communities safer and more orderly. It’s a means of resolving our differences through dialogue and compromise, rather than through ideological battle or pitched warfare. If you pay attention, you’ll see a lot of politicians who go about their business intelligently, quietly, and competently — and who get good things done.”
We can find many flaws and failures in American history, but if you look at how we developed from thirteen fragile colonies to the USA of today two things are apparent. One is the remarkable perseverance of American citizens – our belief and our pride in continuously making our nation better. We’ve never been satisfied, nor should we be. Instead we continue insisting on improvement. The second thing that is apparent is that politics and the institutions of government have been our tools to facilitate the changes that we want.
Perseverance and politics helped create our national success. Despite the messy and contentious nature of our politics, we should respect how much better it is than anarchy. Hamilton argues for citizen involvement in politics as a means to improve our own lives, communities and institutions; and in particular he points out the responsibility to “…encourage young people’s engagement with the problems we confront.” Through personal involvement we can understand the difficulty of reaching agreement and the amount of work required to make progress. It’s hard. But the alternative is surrender to the status quo.
Hamilton closes his commentary with this argument, “Those of us who believe in the system must shoulder the burden of persuasion — and I’m worried about what happens if we don’t meet it. If we lose the argument and the next generation turns away, we face dangers and risks — chaos, authoritarianism — that are far worse than what we face now.”
Did you ever play a game with a child who wanted to change the rules after something didn’t go his way? As a child matures, parents and others teach him fair play and we expect him to accept fairness, honesty and basic decency as guiding principles by about the age of 10.
The few who don’t learn those lessons generally become known as whiners, bullies or both. They typically get their next lessons in places lacking adult supervision. The bullies get put in their place by somebody who stands up to them and the whiners are ignored until they figure out how to socialize. Most eventually learn to succeed without getting their own way every time.
A few folks never learn the lesson, and as big people (I’m reluctant to characterize them as adults) they are still bullies or whiners. Their behavior puts the leaders of North Carolina’s Legislature in these categories. (Please excuse the all-male characterizations in this column. I don’t know what else to do when all of the Republican leaders are boys.)
Phil Berger, Tim Moore and his predecessor Thom Tillis, as leaders of the House and Senate, changed the rules to enable Republican Governor Pat McCrory to politicize state employment. Specifically, they passed a law allowing him to hire up to 1500 political appointees into various positions in state government.
When Roy Cooper defeated McCrory for Governor, the bullies decided to change the rules again. The easiest way to do that was to revise state laws before the inauguration so that Cooper could not veto changes. They arranged a sneak attack at the end of a special session for flood relief by announcing plans to adjourn and re-assemble on the same day for another special session. It became obvious that they had been gathering signatures to authorize the session for some time. They allowed about five hours for introduction of legislation. In that brief time, carefully crafted legislation increasing the power of Republican leadership and drastically reducing the Governor’s authority was introduced. The plan was conceived well in advance.
Republicans have the votes to pass these bills. Given their history with HB-2, they may do it before this column is published. They can do it without serious debate and without time for consideration by the public. That’s how they passed HB-2, and North Carolina has paid a heavy price for it.
Here is some of what they want to do.
There is a lot more in these bills and there is no way that anyone can adequately understand their implications without time for consideration and debate. Much like HB-2, there will be unforeseen consequences in addition to the apparent self-serving intent.
There are two ways to prevent this impending train wreck. One is for enough Republican legislators to stand up to the bullies leading their party by refusing to pass the bills in a special session. They can insist on adequate consideration by the public and the legislature. If they fail, Governor McCrory could grow a spine and veto the bills. Taking such firm action might even create the possibility of resurrecting a political future for him.
Are there enough Republican legislators who value fairness, honesty and decency and who have the courage to stand up to bullies? Is Governor McCrory, who no longer needs the support of the bullies, willing to stand up and be counted? If these bills pass, is there any form of cheating that should be off limits to whoever has power?
I’ll close with a quote from one legislator. “This is why people hate us.” He’s right.
For those who are interested, here are links to the as-filed versions of some of the bills submitted for the special session as posted on the website of the North Carolina General Assembly
SB 4 : http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/Senate/PDF/S4v0.pdf Ethics, elections and court reform bill creates Republican advantage and control of elections Board
HB 17: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015E4/Bills/House/PDF/H17v0.pdf changes public instruction, UNC and department head appointments and authority of Superintendent of Public Instruction
HB 6: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015E4&BillID=H6 creates independent CIO nominated by Lt Gov
Link to all 21 house bills submitted for the special session: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016
Link to all 7 senate bills for special session: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/lastaction/todaysaction.pl?Biennium=2015E4&ActionChamber=H&DateReport=12%2F14%2F2016
Although our election decided who will hold public offices, the issues that divide Americans remain unsettled. Our political battlefield is strewn with social, economic, religious and geographic landmines ready to explode. And it’s too early to know what a Trump-led Republican administration will be like. Besides, election “winners” achieve mostly temporary victories because the “losing” side returns to fight another day.
In that unfortunate climate, vital responsibilities of government often go unattended. Perhaps the best example is our decades-long and increasingly urgent need to balance federal budgets. The last time we balanced our budget for more than two consecutive years was the eleven year period from 1920 through 1930.
If both conservative and liberal voters push for it, this might be a time when we could pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. With that in mind, here’s my Balanced Budget Amendment idea. It would force decisions on some issues that divide us, most notably taxes, health care and defense spending – maybe even uniting conservatives and liberals in support of practical ideas. Here is the concept:
IDEAS FOR A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
The President must propose a balanced budget to the congress at least five months before the beginning of each fiscal year.
The specific language and content of constitutional amendments requires extreme care and scrutiny. I’ve only tried to describe principles for an amendment, not the exacting language that would be needed.
My prediction is that it will be difficult to get legislators from either political party to consider an amendment because few, if any, are willing to make the decisions required to balance budgets. Facing a deficit, legislators from both parties are generally more willing to raise the debt ceiling than to raise taxes or cut spending.
After all the partisan shouting is done, the necessary compromises usually involve increasing our debt. The burden is borne by voters and taxpayers. With this amendment, if officeholders fail, they lose their jobs to someone who is willing to actually do the work. Holding new elections to replace a failing legislature is not a radical idea. Numerous parliamentary democracies do exactly that.
This column lays out an ambitious vision for solving an urgent national problem. It’s a good first step toward more effective government because it will also force more responsible decisions on all other federal priorities.
Is it unrealistic to think that our congress, president and voters would actually do this? Maybe… But if congress is unable to balance a budget, how can they expect to find success on other contentious questions like immigration, health care, war and civil rights that sit atop their agenda?
If we can’t make such decisions, our future as a viable nation is in doubt. Let’s get started.
The day after the election will be the first day of the rest of our lives. What should we expect of our elected officials? Will we help or undermine each other and elected leaders? If individuals, families and communities listen to each other’s ideas and agree on how to move forward together, we can invigorate the idea of “commonwealth”, a society that is organized to benefit all. Everybody wins. If, on the other hand, winners kick losers while they’re down in order to maintain dominance and if losers do all they can to stop winners from implementing their ideas then the republic will decline. Everybody loses.
It’s happened in great societies throughout history and it’s especially clear in the Bible’s Old Testament. When those in power dominate and abuse the powerless, everybody loses and the society fails. When the principle of commonwealth guides decisions, the society blossoms.
Poverty, income inequality and homelessness are at crisis levels in many places. Rural America has depended on agriculture and manufacturing to provide family incomes and property tax revenue for local governments. Both of those economic sectors now produce more goods with fewer people than ever before. At the same time that rural employment opportunities paying middle class wages have become scarce, the tax revenues of rural communities have stagnated. Budgets for public education, safety, and human services are under severe stress at a time when they are critical to redevelopment of communities. The plight of rural America has much in common with high poverty neighborhoods of urban America. Low incomes and insufficient resources have similar effects in both places.
Will legislatures reconsider how public services are funded and which tax revenues are available at local, state and federal levels? Will high poverty areas have funding for education, high-speed internet, water, sewer, quality of life, health and other priorities at a level that is proportionate to wealthy areas? If not, will their future be inter-generational poverty and emigration of successful residents to more desirable areas? Will legislators work at solving the underlying problems or will they pit urban vs rural and white vs black vs Hispanic for partisan gain?
What about the sanctity of human life? Will we expect our congress, legislatures and executives to behave as if “all lives matter”? Does someone who wants a gun have the right to own an assault rifle designed for mass killing? Does a woman have the right to remove a fetus from her body? In which decisions should government have a role?
Conflicts between personal and constitutional values will not be fully resolved but can we make progress for the common good? Could we agree to reduce the demand for abortion by providing free birth control, better access to pre-natal care, simple and inexpensive adoption procedures, and by solving our income inequality problems? Will we expect legislators to find ways to preserve gun ownership for self-defense and recreation while getting weapons designed for mass killing out of circulation and screening gun purchasers to rule out suspected terrorists and known criminals? Or will we reward leaders for continuing to insult each other?
The Republican controlled Senate has refused to consider President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court. They hope to win the Presidential election and get a conservative-leaning nominee. Senators Richard Burr and Ted Cruz have made the radical statement that if Hillary Clinton is elected, they will refuse to confirm nominees and let the court shrink. That abrogation of a senator’s constitutional responsibility would invite similar behavior from Democrats toward a Republican president. Will we insist that senators fulfill their constitutional duties?
Differences of race, wealth, religion and philosophy divide us on a long list of issues: immigration, transpacific partnership, climate change, war, taxes, LBGTQ rights, health care, and more.
We’re not all going to miraculously agree after the election. Continued success for our republic will require two things of us. First, we must look honestly at facts. Second, we must engage each other in ongoing conversation (listening more than arguing) about the principle of commonwealth – making decisions and laws that create opportunity and peace for all of us.
Our legislators are capable of that, but they will do it only if they know that we voters expect it, demand it, and that we’re doing it ourselves.
We can start on November 9.
The ongoing debate about the economic impact of HB2, North Carolina’s “bathroom law” seems both sad and laughable because its effect is so small when compared to another foolish decision made by the state’s Republican legislature. The economic and human damage done by the decision to reject expansion of the Medicaid program is greater by far.
Republican friends, before you disagree, do your homework and discover the facts for yourselves. Bring truth to the debate and then see how your legislature’s decisions look under that bright light. Before considering human impact, let’s examine some raw financial facts.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute have collaborated on research to understand the economic impact on states that rejected Medicaid Expansion. They found that health care funding in North Carolina would be increased by $41 billion in the decade from 2017-2026 if the state accepts Medicaid expansion. That would require $4.9 billion of state funding and would bring $36.1 billion in federal funding. Do the math. $36.1 minus $4.9 equals $31.2 in net gain. Another way to look at it, suppose someone offered you $36.10 in exchange for $4.90. Would you accept it? That is one billionth of the deal that Republicans rejected. The legislature knew this information when it rejected the Medicaid expansion.
Some will argue that our state budget is too large and we shouldn’t increase it further by expanding Medicaid. That is a reasonable concern, so let’s look at Medicaid expansion in the context of other government spending.
Most federal highway grants require a 20 percent state match. State funding of $4.9 billion would produce a federal highway match of $19.6 billion. That is $16.5 billion less than we would get if we spent the money on Medicaid expansion. Therefore, if one accepts purely financial justification for not expanding Medicaid, the state would be better off by $16.5 billion to reject the highway match and use the money to fund Medicaid.
In addition to providing health care to uninsured North Carolinians, the Medicaid expansion would create thousands of new jobs in health care to replace those lost in other industries.
The argument that “we can’t afford it” doesn’t hold water when made by legislators who spend money on items that yield a far smaller return on investment. It’s a matter of priorities, and this legislature obviously sees other spending as more important than keeping poor people alive and creating jobs.
What about the human effect of the decision? The Medicaid expansion was designed to provide coverage for the working poor, many of whom have jobs (sometimes more than one job) but who are paid so little that they can’t afford insurance even with the help of the Affordable Care Act. Whatever became of that right wing mantra “take a bath and get a job”? As cynical as it sounds, the Medicaid expansion is designed to support exactly that behavior. It provides health care for people at the bottom of the economic ladder so that they can stay healthy enough to work and support themselves.
Instead of supporting a program that fits with their own traditional philosophies, Republicans rejected the expansion. That leaves us with a law that requires hospitals participating in Medicare and doctors with privileges to practice there to provide emergency and obstetrical care without regard to a patient’s ability or willingness to pay. The cost of that is invisibly built into the prices paid by everyone else. As a result, North Carolinians will pay for surgery to add a few months of life for an emergency patient diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. But we won’t expand Medicaid to pay for the colonoscopy that could have prevented the cancer from forming in the first place. The result of Republican policy is higher cost and a dead patient.
Yes, HB2 is a foolish law that should be repealed. Yes, the cancellation of concerts and sports events has an economic impact on hotels, restaurants and tourism. Yes, the law unfairly discriminates against a largely defenseless class of citizens. Yes, it should be repealed. But so far no one has died as a result of HB2 and the economic impact is microscopic compared to the rejection of Medicaid expansion.
It’s a fabulous opportunity when the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do. We have two such opportunities at the moment. Accept the Medicaid expansion. Repeal HB2. Everybody will win.
Republican friends, the facts don’t support your policies. It’s time to change your minds.
After months of complaints from the political right about PC limitations on speech and discussion, it is ironic that those same right wingers see a national scandal in Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand for our national anthem. Like Muhammad Ali and Olympic Athletes of 1968, he is using his celebrity status to bring attention to what many see as American racism.
Kaepernick’s voice is but one in a crescendo criticizing the “land of the free”. Leaders from African American and Latino communities have politely spoken their minds on voting rights, law enforcement, criminal justice, public education and income inequality. Not much happened. If quiet and polite voices are ineffective, louder ones are to be expected. Whether it is an NAACP Chapter, a Latino Coalition, Black Lives Matter, the American Civil Liberties Union or some other organization, their list of unaddressed concerns is long.
Since passage of civil rights laws in the 1960s, many Americans, believe that we live in a post-racial society. We don’t. Our problems extend to the heart of democracy, consent of the governed.
It is with those thoughts in mind that I looked into the controversies surrounding North Carolina’s new voting law as one example among many concerns. For a more complete account, read Appeal-16-1468 published by the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals. It overturned portions of the law because of its discriminatory intent.
The court found that the law was specifically designed to target African Americans and said, “…by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an “omnibus” election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”
The court also found that, “Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist. Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation … the State took away [minority voters’] opportunity because [they] were about to exercise it. … Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”
Here are a few examples of discrimination that the court found in the law. In deciding which forms of identification would be acceptable for voting, the legislature used racial data to select IDs that whites are more likely to have than minorities. They used racial data to eliminate voting opportunities that were used more heavily by African Americans than whites. Similar processes were used to determine early voting days, eliminate same day registration, and eliminate out-of precinct voting.
North Carolina’s law was crafted by Republican leadership in secret sessions with advice from consultants employed by attorneys so that documentation of their work would not be available to the public. The court found that “… after the General Assembly finally revealed the expanded (law) to the public, the legislature rushed it through the legislative process…in three days: one day for a public hearing, two days in the Senate, and two hours in the House.”
The law passed by party line vote. Every Republican legislator supported it. I don’t think they are all racists. Instead, I think they are much like the Democrats who passed racist laws in the Jim Crow era. They bowed to pressure to win elections and one way to win elections is to keep the opposition from voting. That’s what they did, and it is an example of 21st century racism in operation.
Because of laws like this one and other grievances, some people don’t honor our national flag and anthem. Would you honor the flag of a nation that did such things to you? I’ll continue to pledge allegiance because our courts generally overturn unjust laws and because we’re free to replace those who passed a racist law at our next election. It’s time to have a record voter turnout.
Gotcha! That’s the word that comes to mind when I hear arguments about access to body-cam and dash-cam recordings. Advocates for law enforcement agencies and those who think they’ve been mistreated by police both want to use recordings to justify themselves but the “gotcha” blame game inflames tensions rather than improving public safety.
Controversies surrounding who can see the recordings will make our problems worse. Imagine the following two scenarios, both of which are likely to occur:
Neither truth nor justice will matter after those events converge into one story. Together they will appear to be evidence of self-serving decisions and bias by law enforcement – a no-win situation for police and for the public.
More than a year ago, I identified some of the issues and urged passage of a law to regulate access to the recordings. North Carolina legislators, including local representative Allen McNeill who has extensive police experience, drafted and passed HB 972 which addressed several important concerns. It’s a good beginning but it leaves law enforcement agencies vulnerable to charges of conflict of interest.
The law allows record retention and release rules that are customized to the unique issues surrounding law enforcement videos by declaring that the recordings are not “public records” to be made generally available like minutes of meetings and government correspondence. Nor are they “personnel records”. This will prevent:
HB 972 creates a presumed right to disclosure (seeing the video) for anyone appearing or heard in the recording and for their designated representatives. It also provides more restrictive criteria for release (obtaining a copy) of the video and it includes a list of circumstances where disclosure or release could be denied.
Four flaws in this otherwise reasonable law make allegations of conflict of interest by police virtually inevitable.
Legislators deserve credit for making this first effort and there is much in the new law that can be helpful. If they quickly fix its flaws, this otherwise promising law may help build trust between police and citizens. Without changes it is more likely to generate allegations of bias and conflict of interest by police, no matter how hard they struggle to be fair.
Lives are at stake along with mutual trust between police and the public that they are sworn to protect. Let’s not play political “gotcha” with these videos.
North Carolina’s Republican legislators have passed energy and environmental laws that impede innovation and economic competition by clean energy entrepreneurs. They show little regard for the interests of individual citizens and ignore twenty-first century science. Consider these examples.
In order to build a solar or wind energy installation, the company must own or lease the property where it will be built, comply with local zoning and land use rules, and acquire right of way for transmission of the energy that they produce to customers without use of eminent domain powers or other government authority. A bill (S-843) recently passed by the State Senate’s “small government” Republicans would add a maze of new regulations and barriers including a 1.5 mile setback from the property line and a 35 decibel (human whisper) noise limit at the property line for wind farms. Solar farms would have to be invisible from adjoining property. The bill removes corporate protections for stockholders in wind and solar farms, making them individually liable for damages caused by the corporation. And it requires the corporation to set aside sufficient money to return the land to its original state after the renewable energy site is closed.
State Law is starkly different for production of natural gas or oil via fracking. Corporations do not have to own or lease the property under which they drill. They are allowed to drill horizontally under private property without agreement by the landowner and to put wells on someone else’s land without permission. Payments to the landowner will be set by a government agency and the landowner can’t refuse the arrangement. Local governments are not allowed to regulate fracking via zoning, or in any other way. A government agency can force land owners to accept a pipeline for delivery of oil or gas to market. Executives who violate laws or rules governing fracking can not be prosecuted for anything more than a misdemeanor. Owners of corporations are not personally liable for damages that their companies cause. There is no requirement to return the land and water to it’s original condition after the fracking is completed or set aside money for potential damages.
There is no evidence of substantial or long-term environmental damage by wind or solar farms. Fracking, on the other hand, is a proven cause of well contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes. The energy produced by solar and wind farms is as clean as any that is available. Gas and oil consumption contribute heavily to climate change by putting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
North Carolina has few earthquakes but we do have inactive geologic faults. Two decades ago those statements were true of Oklahoma but that state experienced 581 earthquakes in 2014. In that year frackers injected over 64 billion gallons of wastewater under Oklahoma and that is clearly the cause of the earthquakes. (Scientific American, July 2016) It appears that frackers will not be required to pay for Oklahoma’s earthquake damage. It is clear, however that Oklahoma property owners will need earthquake insurance. The price of that coverage is bound to rise along with the number of quakes.
Why would a state legislature allow local zoning and regulation of wind and solar while denying it for gas and oil? Why make individual stockholders of clean energy companies responsible for damages caused by the corporation while immunizing frackers from similar claims? Why is government’s power used to enable environment-damaging industries while discouraging clean energy development?
The success of clean energy producers is visible in the form of solar and wind farms that produce electricity without pollution. Not everyone likes the changed landscape. Huge petroleum, gas, coal, and utility companies have a lot of influence with legislators and they don’t like competition from clean energy.
We need to let the market work by applying the same standards across all energy sectors. If they pollute, they should pay to clean it up. If they need a right of way to get energy to the market, the same laws and regulations should apply to all forms of energy. If they violate safety and environmental standards, criminal and civil penalties should be the same for all businesses.
Legislators who espouse free market principles should be able to collaborate with environmentally conscious colleagues to create fair competition and a cleaner state for all of us. They will if voters demand it.
