NC House; District 18

This is my district, so I will pay special note to this one. The NC House seat was held by the controversial Representative Wright, when he had to resign over scandal, Sandra Spaulding Hughes was appointed to take over his post. She is being challenged by George R Swart. As before, I am taking from the League of Women Voters questionnaire and reorganizing by question as opposed to by person. This time I will comment after posting Hughes', and Swart's statement.

Question #1: What is your position on drilling off the shore of NC for oil and why?

Hughes:

I would not rule off shore drilling out as a means to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We must be particularly careful because historically the east coast of North Carolina has experienced numerous destructive hurricanes. The potential damage that a hurricane could cause to off shore drilling operations may negatively impact the environment and coastal economy. We must carefully evaluate the real economic benefits against possible environmental impact. Oil companies should be encouraged to fully utilize land already designated for drilling while seeking energy alternatives.

The reason I caution restraint in off shore drilling is that our coastal environment is "the golden egg" that fuels our economy. One major oil spill could ruin our coastal economy for years to come. We must not rush to judgment, but rather study and understand the pros and cons of off shore drilling. We could then make intelligent decisions on this issue.

Swart:

I favor the United States utilizing all of its domestic energy. This includes drilling off the coast of NC for oil and natural gas as long as there is reasonable oversight of the process and the rigs are at least fifty miles offshore. I also believe that the US should develop all other energy sources such as wind, solar, hydrogen cells, etc.
My reasons for this are twofold:

1. The US must provide immediate relief to the American people (who are suffering a serious financial strain in many aspects of their lives) from the VERY high price of crude oil. High gasoline prices affect all businesses, food price and other segments of the economy. It is also the largest transfer of wealth in history.

2. The high cost of energy also affects the ability of the US in the area of national defense. If there were any significant interruption in the flow of foreign oil, the US would not be able to provide domestic crude to fill the gap. Serious interruption has a high probability of occurring due to the instability in many countries from which the US imports crude oil; for example in the conflict between Georgia and Russia.

My Opinion is that off shore drilling would NOT provide immediate benefit to our country. It will take years to survey, explore, build and start pumping oil. Our time and money is better spent implementing new technologies that we already have as well as developing new technologies. The chance of a spill and the impending environmental and economic devastation it would cause to our local area is too scary to even consider for NC.

Question #2: While the State spends approximately 60% of its budget on education, the system is not meeting the expectations of state citizens. How would you address this situation?

Hughes:

I would put greater emphasis on early education and preventive programs such as Head Start, Smart Start, and More at Four. This will positively impact the drop-out and suspension rates. I would provide more support for teachers including mentoring, better training, and increased performance based salaries. More emphasis should be placed in teacher development and vocational training programs. A long-term comprehensive plan for improving our educational system should be developed through broad collaborative initiatives with all segments of the community.

Swart:

There are several areas where the State can provide for a better educational system that meets citizen expectation:
1. The cap should be lifted on charter schools,
2. The money provided by the federal, state and local governments for education of a child should follow that child the school where the parent or guardian decides to place their child,
3. Tenure should be eliminated so the system may terminate teachers that are not meeting established goals,
4. There should be merit pay for teachers and administrators that are meeting or exceeding expectations.

I really can't argue with Hughes statement I would like to state that performance/merit based pay for teachers is a great idea, but needs to take into account that some teachers take on the poorly performing students and shouldn't be penalized for doing so (in fact, they should be encouraged). I do not like vouchers, as it sounds like Swart is talking about in his second point. I do however agree, with the idea that parents should be able to move their children within the public school system if needed. I believe in tenure, but certainly understand the arguments against it, maybe it needs to be more difficult to attain.

Question #3: What should be the role of the state in developing fast (clean and efficient) rail transportation to and from the eastern part of the state and in development of localized fast rail system in the larger cities?

Hughes:

It is important to develop rail and other means of public transportation throughout the state as a means to reduce our dependence on oil and impact on the environment. A rail connection with the eastern part of the state should be a high priority in addressing future transportation needs. However, we must concurrently maintain our present highway system and continue appropriate improvements. Our larger cities should definitely consider developing rail and other public transportation initiatives as a means to address traffic, pollution, and infrastructure issues.

Swart:

1. First, this question begs the question: Will the citizens of the eastern part of NC utilize such a system? I think not, look at the current use of public transportation in this area. A better use of taxpayer dollars would be to provide alternative energy sources to NC citizens such as those I have spoken of above.
2. I do support the provision of subway systems in highly populated areas such as the triad area and Charlotte.

This is a really difficult subject. I believe that improving our infrastructure for alternative fuel usage is necessary as well as making current public transportation better. However, one of the biggest complaints most people have about public transportation is that it is not very cost-effective (meaning the cost is somewhat similar to what driving a vehicle is) and the amount of time it takes to navigate the system to get where you are needed takes a large chunk of time. If a high-speed rail system could address these problems then I would support such an idea.

Question #4: What do you see as the major problem(s) (my addition) in the efficient working of the General Assembly?

Hughes:

The General Assembly works efficiently. More time and staff could be allocated for research and study.

Swart:

There are so many problems in the General Assembly that I do not know where to begin. However, here are a few:

1. The current short session should be remembered for what they didn't do than what they did. For example: they did not address the mental health needs of people, they did not resolve the needs of state infrastructure in the area of highways and bridges, they did not address the overwhelming desire of the people for a change in "forced" annexation laws etc.;
2. The General Assembly has become an "oligarchy" with the leadership of the House and Senate completely dominating the rest of the representation. This is done by controlling bill introduction, floor debates, and amendments to bills on the floor;
3. The general Assembly is required to produce balances budgets. I do not consider a budget balanced when money is removed from the highway trust fund and placed in the general fund of when the legislature votes to issue nearly a billion in new debt;
4. And the list goes on.

As I've been learning quite a bit with NCFOM I'll try to see if I have this information right. It is not the short session's intent to get new bills passed through. While it is arguable that it means that things do not run efficiently, our state congress do have jobs that they have to keep up. Most "work" is done during the long session and most research is done before and after the short session with bills that have already made their way through being voted on during the short session. So it is disingenuous to look only at the short session and say that it is not effective.

Question #5: Please list your top three legislative priorities.

Hughes:

1. Economic development and creation of good-paying jobs. Our citizens are suffering and need immediate and long term relief from job lose compounded by higher food and gasoline costs.

2. Affordable health care and tax relief for senior citizens. Relief is needed for senior citizens and others on fixed incomes as property values continue to escalate.

3. Intelligent growth together with effective handling of water, sewer, drainage and environmental issues. . The natural beauty of our area will continue to attract development. We must be diligent in balancing growth with protecting the environment and impact on existing neighborhoods.

4. Quality education and safe neighborhoods.

Swart:

1. The state legislature MUST establish a permanent change in ethics for that body where there is an open, honest and ethical state government. This requires a serious culture change in the legislature.

2. Uncontrolled spending must be ended. There is not a revenue problem in NC; there is a spending problem. Budgets should be zero based and indexed to inflation and population growth.

3. High taxes, such as income, fees, corporate and gasoline, must be reduced. Appropriate reduction in the corporate tax rate would eliminate the need for incentives to corporations to locate in NC.

Frequently we hear about how government spends too much, however, when pressed most politicians can't find anywhere to cut, only new places that need funding. This makes me skeptical at best when it comes up repeatedly in political discourse. By reducing taxes on corporations we are allowing them to get away without paying their fair share. Since most corporations end up paying as little (percentage wise) as individuals after they take every deduction that loop holes allow them, I'm not too sure that reducing taxes on them does anything but hurt the services that government provides. Instead if the Federal government (as well as the state, but since deductions are mostly taken on your federal tax return it's more a federal problem) would close loop holes that allow corporations to effectively lower their own tax rate to, at times, lower than individual tax rates, this problem would correct itself.