Archive for April, 2010

You Have the Right to Not Like Me

I was just reading this morning’s Reason article by Jacob Sullum entitled “Free Speech for Us: The Gray Lady’s inconsistent defense of the First Amendment.” The fact that some legislators are out of focus when it comes to First Amendment rights is both amusing and disturbing.

That led me to make this loosley-related post, where I’d like to tell you up front: You Have the Right to Not Like Me.

What does that mean? That means that while I speak about libertarianism, promote Libertarian candidates, and discuss my campaign and platform, you have a right to disagree, and you even a right to say so!

If I were a Democrat, some might consider it a more faux pas for folks to disagree with me in public, but you’d still have that right. If I were a Republican these days, I’d probably just keep my mouth shut to avoid the ridicule. As a Libertarian, though, I’ve already had to develop a thick skin to ward off those who are so indoctrinated in government-sponsored entitlements that they’re unable to effectively listen and logically evaluate my arguments. Now, not everyone is opposed to me, my platform, or libertarianism to that degree, but it is something I am prepared for, especially during the campaign.

More importantly, you also have the right to agree with me.

More important, you ask? Your right to agree with me is more important right now because if you agree with me, you’re part of the fight against an oppressive two-party duopoly. I’d argue that essentially the majority of Americans are libertarian at heart, but that’s not something that’s proven in numbers. When you’re not in the majority for something, those that are often impose their viewpoints in ways that ignore your right to disagree.

You have a right to agree or disagree with me, my platform, or libertarian ideas.  Either way, though, I’d ask for you to at least be able to provide an educated answer to: “Why?”

Why Candidate Questionnaires are Important for Libertarians

The SEANC candidate questionnaire asked if I was going to be seeking their endorsement. My response was: “I’m not seeking any organization’s endorsement as I’m an individual running for office to represent individuals, not organizations. However, I welcome and encourage organizations to consider me for such endorsements if they feel that I represent their political interests.”

It’s because I’m not seeking an endorsement that I find it important for Libertarian candidates like myself to complete and return their candidate questionnaires. It’s not about coloring responses to get endorsements, though I’m sure there are some Ds and Rs that do that without hesitation. Instead, I’m providing informed and carefully constructed responses that educate readers about what I stand for as a candidate. It’s my hope that also translates into a positive representation of the Libertarian Party of North Carolina.

As I complete each questionnaire, I publish the responses here at GoLiberty.net. This is also important for Libertarians, not just as recourse if an organization says we didn’t respond, but also because organizations don’t typically post the responses from the candidates they don’t endorse. I want the voters to have all the information about my responses so they can make an informed choice, whether or not that agrees with an organization’s endorsement.

You see, if we as Libertarians don’t speak up for what we believe in, rest assured that an ill-informed media will be there to fill in the blanks. We don’t want that. We need to return every questionnaire, be available for every interview, and participate in every debate with researched and well-prepared responses. In fact, we need to create such opportunities where we haven’t been invited or where they just don’t exist.

That said… it’s impossible for most candidates who work for a living to research every topic thoroughly, attend every event, or promptly return every questionnaire. I’m working on it as I can, though, and my friends and family have been very patient and supportive. Volunteers can help with some things (and have already been helping a lot :-) , but they have jobs and families of their own. Unlike the Ds and Rs, I don’t have a pre-paid marketing engine at my beckon call, so my campaign, like many Libertarians, is about as “grassroots” as you can get.

Back to the questionnaires, though: I feel the questionnaires I’ve received deserve my well-informed responses and offer a great opportunity for me to structure my responses on related issues. It’s not easy to meet some of the requested deadlines, though: I’ve still got half a dozen to complete and return right now, some past due but still, I think, important for me to respond to. Add work deadlines and a programming project at school into that mix this week, and I sometimes wonder how I find time to make the occasional blog posts like this one.

Candidate Questionnaire: Equality NC

Equality NC
2010 Legislative Candidate Questionnaire

[omitted biographical information]

ITEM 1: Non-Discrimination…

A. Public Employment: In North Carolina, it is legal to fire or refuse to hire someone just because they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual, or transgender. 74% of North Carolinians support legislation that would ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity by state and local governments. Would you vote for such a bill? (Reference: 2009 S.B. 843/H.B. 1049)

YES.

B. Private Employment: More than 430 of the Fortune 500 companies have already adopted inclusive anti-discrimination policies, as have many smaller employers in North Carolina. Would you vote for legislation to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender by private employers?

NO. Employment itself is not a right or an entitlement, though we do have a right to seek and hold employment if we can. Owning and using property as we want is also is a right protected by our Constitution provided that use it isn’t interfering with another individual’s rights. So, as a legislator, I must defend the right of the private business owner to hire and terminate at her own discretion without interference from the government. This said, I hope that boycotts and other grassroots activism will continue to reduce patronage to businesses who insist on discriminating based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

C. Housing: North Carolina’s fair housing laws fail to protect renters from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have been literally turned out of their homes simply because of who they are. Would you vote for legislation adding sexual orientation and gender identity to our state’s fair housing laws?

NO. Such legislation could be easily abused in our court system at the expense of private property owners. The property owner should have the right to refuse rental service to anyone he chooses, provided he keeps his contractual obligations under an existing lease agreement.

D. Public Accommodations: North Carolina law does not currently prohibit public accommodations, such as restaurants and hotels, from denying service to customers on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Would you vote for legislation prohibiting this type of discrimination?

NO. Restaurants and hotels are private businesses and should have full discretion over who they will and will not serve.

ITEM 2: Safe Schools: Studies show that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students face disproportionate levels of violence, harassment, and discrimination in public schools. In 2009, the legislature passed S.B. 526, the School Violence Prevention Act. This law requires schools to adopt strong policies against bullying, including acts motivated by the victim’s actual or perceived race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and other categories. Would you support the continued implementation of this law and oppose attempts to weaken this law by removing protected categories?

YES. As long as there is compulsory education, these policies should remain in place and enforced.

ITEM 3: Privacy Rights: In June 2003, the US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas declared unconstitutional all remaining sodomy laws, including North Carolina’s Crime Against Nature law, which prohibited certain sex acts for consenting same- and opposite-sex couples. However, this law remains on the books and police in some jurisdictions continue to enforce it. Would you vote for legislation that would conform North Carolina law to the Supreme Court decision by clarifying that the Crime Against Nature law does not apply to private, non-commercial acts between consenting adults? (Reference: 2009 H.B. 100)

YES. I’d go farther than that and say let’s repeal the original archaic laws, not just patch it with something new.

ITEM 4: Safer Communities: In 2009, Congress voted to expand the federal hate crime law to include sexual orientation and gender identity among the protected classes. North Carolina also has a law to address crimes motivated by bias against a certain group, but it only protects against bias crimes committed on the basis of race, color, religion, nationality, or country of origin. Providing penalty enhancement for these state-level crimes recognizes that bias crimes terrorize an entire community, not just the individual victim. Would you vote for legislation that would add gender, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, and disability to the list of protected classes? (Reference: 2009 H.B. 207)

NO. Though I support the intent to protect the LGBT community from hate crimes, I oppose the intent of the original law which is to mandate unequal punishment for an equal crime simply based on the motivation. Law enforcement is in the realm of the courts, and that’s where the degree of punishment for a crime should be determined.

ITEM 5: Sex Education: In 2009, the legislature passed H.B. 88, the Healthy Youth Act. This law replaces failed “abstinence only” sex education programs with comprehensive programs that emphasize abstinence while providing students with accurate information about contraception and disease prevention. Would you support the continued implementation of the Healthy Youth Act and oppose attempts to weaken the sexual health education curriculum?

YES. [No comment provided when I submitted the questionnaire, but I'll note for the site that I favor privatizing all sexuality education and ensuring sexual biology is not compromised in its accuracy and completeness. If  the public schools continue to offer sexuality education, though, I would vote against any mandate for an abstinence-only or abstinence-centric curriculum.]

ITEM 6: Anti-LGBT Constitutional Amendments…

A. State Marriage Discrimination Amendment: Some legislators have proposed amending the North Carolina Constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman and deny same-sex couples any form of relationship recognition, such as domestic partnership. North Carolina law already denies marriage rights to same-sex couples. This amendment serves only to legitimize discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens and make them second-class citizens under our state’s founding document. If elected, would you vote against such an amendment? (Reference 2009 S.B. 272/H.B. 361)

YES.

B. Federal Discrimination Amendment: Members of Congress have proposed a similar amendment to the US Constitution. If passed by Congress, it would require ratification by state legislatures. The constitution has only been amended 17 times since the Bill of Rights, and has never been amended to deny rights to a specific group of people. Using our founding document to address current social issues is playing politics with our very foundation. If elected, would you vote against ratification of such an amendment?

YES. Marriage should not be defined by a government entity and, thus, subject to the whims of whoever is in power. Furthermore, affixing an item to our state or national constitution to transcend that is a blatant affront to our natural rights and individual liberty.

ITEM 7: Anti-LGBT Parenting Legislation: Currently, North Carolina’s adoption and custody laws rightly focus on protecting the best interests of the child. However, some legislators have indicated that they wish to prevent LGBT people or same-sex couples from adopting, regardless of the child’s interests in a specific case. Would you support keeping the current standard in place and oppose additional restrictions on adoption for LGBT people or couples?

YES.

ITEM 8: Sponsorship of Legislation: Would you be willing to Sponsor or Co-Sponsor legislation addressing any of the issues in Questions 1-4 above?

Yes, I would be happy to co-sponsor legislation to address privacy rights in North Carolina.

Candidate Questionnaire: State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC)

2010 SEANC EMPAC Legislative Questionnaire

[skipped biographical items]

1. Are you, or have you been, an employee of the State of North Carolina?

Yes, 1996-1999 at Rockingham County Schools. I was a mathematics teacher at Western Rockingham Middle School in Madison, NC.

2. Are you, or have you ever been, a member of SEANC or a member of any other public employee or teachers association or union, or a member of any employee association or union?

Yes, Professional Educators of North Carolina (PENC), 1997-1999.

3. SEANC occasionally must defend efforts to remove state employees from State Personnel Act provisions. Will you vote with SEANC against any legislation to eliminate the State Personnel Act or remove any employees currently protected by the Act?

Yes. The State Personnel Act intentionally discriminates against who is and is not afforded its protections, creating an unjust dichotomy in how state employees are managed. For this reason alone, I would support removal or major restructuring of the general statutes associated with the State Personnel Act.

4. Will you vote against any legislation that seeks to eliminate longevity pay for current or future employees?

No. Pay increases should be based on performance and promotion, not just the willingness to stay or the ability to keep the job.

5. Do you think that state employees and retirees should pay a portion of the premium for their employer-provided individual health insurance?

Yes. If the employee’s compensation provides for sufficient income to cover the cost of living, the individual should be able to determine for himself what constitutes “living.” For most people, this includes health care, through some combination of payments to health care providers and insurance companies. By putting the money and decision in the hands of the individual, he can buy the employer-provided insurance, or he can take 100% of that money to whatever health care or health insurance provider he chooses.

6. As an incumbent, what bills have you sponsored, co-sponsored, or supported that would improve the quality of life for state employees? As a challenger, what have you done to support or improve the quality of life for employees in general?

During my work as an educator, technical trainer, and technical writer, I have always been an advocate for the needs of the customer. I start by getting to know the target audience so I know where they are and what they need to know to accomplish the target objectives. Then, I do hands-on research into the topic in an effort to become a subject-matter expert. When I shape the message, it becomes a bridge that takes the person from where he is to a place further down the road of understanding the topic.

I have translated this approach to many other parts of my life, and I look forward to taking the same approach when researching and writing legislation in the General Assembly. There, the important things will be to understand the individuals affected, ensure that individuals’ rights are protected, and provide for equal treatment under the law.

7. In 2009, the General Assembly used the rainy day fund and adopted Senate Bill 287 that shifted approximately $600 in additional out-of-pocket health care costs to State Health Plan members to shore up the State Health Plan. Nonprofit Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has $1 billion in reserve and holds a secret, no-bid, cost-plus contract to administer the State Health Plan, made a profit off the State Health Plan, passed unrelated expenses through the State Health Plan, paid its CEO almost $4 million, and was not asked to give up a dime to help make up for the losses encountered by the State Health Plan. The bill also enacted saliva testing for nicotine usage and BMI checks for state employees to punish the obese and smokers, which required a HIPAA waiver.

If you are an incumbent, how did you vote for Senate Bill 287? If you are a challenger, how would you have voted?

Vote Against. The root of the problem here is that the State has decided it wants to provide services, contracted a private entity to provide those services on their behalf, and now expects the private entity to behave in ways they can’t control. I do not think the State should be in the business of providing the health insurance to its employees, nor should it contract with any private entity with expectation that the entity will bend to the State?s will in ways that exceed their contractual obligation.

The state’s request with regards to obesity and smoking is an outrage. First, I have to remind those who don’t know: BMI is an arbitrary number created with no scientific basis, and health professionals know it is not a sufficient means of measuring the health impact of a person’s weight. Second, it’s the private insurance group that should decide what factors impact the costs for its members. After all, insurance is a group buy-in to support its members when they need it most, and only the group has sufficient data to know which members will be its biggest burdens and, thus, should bear a bit more of the load than the rest of the group.

8. In 2009, the State Auditor found that the State Health Plan lacked adequate transparency and oversight. Will you support legislation that moves oversight of the State Health Plan away from legislative control into an executive branch agency? Why?

Oppose. Executive branch agencies cannot be voted in or out. This does not offer appropriate checks and balances on the state’s affairs. In the legislature, the voters can elect representatives who will eliminate or replace programs like the State Health Plan when necessary, whereas a permanent executive branch assumes the program should be a permanent fixture and removed from voter influence.

9. In 2009, Senate Bill 800, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, passed the Senate. The bill would have permitted state agencies to suspend, without pay, an employee suspected of wrongdoing, with no evidence needed. This bill, if it had passed the House, would have stripped away a vital provision of the State Personnel Act. How would you vote on Senate Bill 800 as passed by the Senate? Why?

Vote for. This is not the ideal solution to the problems created under the State Personnel Act, but it does help address them. Certainly, if an individual is unable to perform effectively in his job, whether or not he has been suspected of wrongdoing, the employer is completely justified in terminating or suspending the individual, with or without pay. Employers should be able to do the same even if the individual is performing effectively, but when the State is the employer such decisions are inevitably subject to political scrutiny.

10. Will you vote to require the employer contribution to the Retirement System (TSERS) at least match the employee contribution (6%)? Why?

No. Contribution to a retirement savings service should be private and voluntary, not mandated by law. As such, TSERS should be a private and voluntary system with the employer contribution independency from the employee contribution. The state could then make agreements with employees on an individual basis about this level of compensation, and raise or lower the amount based on each compensation package offered.

11. For the past three years, there have been hearings on bills repealing NCGS ? 95-98* the statute which prohibits public sector workers from entering into collective bargaining agreements with their employer. SEANC seeks collective bargaining rights for state employees while maintaining the ban on strikes for state workers. Would you support or oppose legislation to repeal NCGS ? 95-98 provided the ban on strikes remains intact? Why?

Oppose. The government as an employer should only bargain with individuals, not with collective organizations. A collective does not have rights; only individuals have rights. That said, people are free to join together in peaceful protest when supporting those who feel their rights have been violated.

12. What is your opinion of the role of public employee associations and labor unions in our society? Please elaborate.

People have a right to come together and support one another for common interests. They also have a right to pool their resources in raising a voice in support or opposition of public policy. No employer, including the government, has an obligation to listen to that voice, and it should be able to respond as it sees fit provided the response is not an aggression against those demonstrating.

13. Faced with a budget shortfall in 2009, Governor Perdue required all state employees and teachers to take 10 hours of mandatory furlough leave without pay during the last months of the fiscal year to help balance the budget. Additionally, House Bill 708 would have authorized up to 20 days of mandatory furlough of state employees during budget crises.

Do you support or oppose the Governor?s decision to furlough state employees to balance the budget?

No. Though labor costs are some of the highest expenditures the state has to pay, there are a lot of other ways she could have addressed her budget shortfalls without imposing on employees’ incomes.

14. Would you support or oppose legislation like House Bill 708 to authorize mandatory furloughs of state employees up to a specified period of time? Why?

It depends on the legislation and what other options are available. If the government is going to serve as an employer, it should have the option to trim its operating costs in what ways it deems appropriate. Though I disagree with Perdue’s approach using furloughs to address the 2009 budget, it is still a valid business decision and the state should have that option.

15. The Office of State Personnel calculates that turnover of state employees costs the state over $500 million each year. What ideas do you have to reduce the turnover rate of state employees?

The only effective ways to reduce the cost and turnover rate is to reduce the size and number of state agencies. At a minimum, though, each agency should stick to a tight and consistent annual budget with quarterly reporting.

16. Does your campaign accept PAC money?

Yes. It hasn’t yet as of this response, but I am delighted to accept any campaign contributions from organizations provided that my platform and that organization’s platform are in agreement.

17. Does your campaign accept union PAC money?

Yes, again, it hasn’t yet as of this response, but I’ll accept contributions from an organization only if my platform and that organization’s platform are in agreement.

18. Will you be seeking the EMPAC endorsement?

No. I’m not seeking any organization’s endorsement as I’m an individual running for office to represent individuals, not organizations. However, I welcome and encourage organizations to consider me for such endorsements if they feel that I represent their political interests.

Liberty Prevails for Demonstrators in Raleigh Today

This post is a follow up on my post from yesterday about the unreasonable new restriction on flag and sign poles by the N.C. State Capitol Police.

Turns out someone with authority has a sense of reason and liberty. According to today’s N&O, the ban will be lifted/not enforced for the Tax Day Tea Party event at the State Capitol this evening. The article states that the decision”was made this morning by N.C. Crime Control and Public Safety Secretary Reuben Young, and questions whether such a ban is legal.”

Read the full article at this link:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/15/438534/ban-on-flag-poles-lifted-for-tax.html

N.C. State Capitol Police Attempt to “Disarm” Demonstrators

Thusfar, the Tea Party activists have had peaceful protest demonstrations across the U.S., including many locations in North Carolina. This includes groups meeting at the State Capitol in Raleigh on such occasions as Tax Day (April 15). Demonstrations include a scheduled slate of speakers, people carrying flags and signs or just there to listen to the speakers, and political organizations manning booths and distributing information.

Not yet has there been any hint of the peaceful demonstrations in Raleigh turning into a violent mob. But people are clearly are afraid of this passionate and multi-faceted group of folks who are “taxed enough already.”

So today, there’s this article in the N&O: http://bit.ly/9uvV2q

My reactions were: Seriously? Wait… WTF? *facepalm*

Here’s what wrong with the State Capitol Police’s decision:

(1) Flag poles and signs on poles aren’t weapons. By that standard, folding tables, chairs, and tent poles would qualify, too. Oh, and womens’ purses: some of those are pretty dangerous behind a strong swing, you know! Where will they draw the line?

(2) We should all have a right to carry weapons to defend ourselves at any time, in any place. Proclaiming that a peaceful demonstration could turn violent seems to suggest prior knowledge that the crowd will be provoked into acts of physical aggression. Police: if you know something we don’t, please share! Otherwise, this is taking away our rights based on something they don’t know and can’t predict in the name of “safety.”

NOTE: It’s in our U.S. Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment, not the First Amendment, where the true violation lies in these actions.

It sounds to me like the State Capitol Police is trying to make it easier for themselves to “control,” and potentially dispel, the fervent freedom-loving crowd. From their perspective, I understand trying to look out for safety against a mob mentality. However, this ridiculous new restriction is not going to save any lives, and it only serves to limit the power of our free speech.

Or… maybe that’s the point?

Express your thoughts by contacting:
Scott Hunter Chief, N.C. State Capitol Police North Carolina
417 N. Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: 919 733 4648 Email: scott.hunter@ncmail.net

New “Fan Page” at Facebook

At the request of some of our supporters, I’ve started a “Fan Page” at Facebook for the campaign. You can check it out here, and click the link at the top if you’d like to “Become a Fan”:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stephanie-E-Watson-for-NC-Senate-District-16/114843185201363

Candidate Questionnaire: Independent Weekly

Independent Weekly Candidate Questionnaire
2010 General Assembly

[skipped biographical items]

1. What do you see as the most important issues facing North Carolina? If elected, what are your top three priorities in addressing those issues?

The most important thing North Carolina can do right now is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent more efficiently, and that we pay down our debt so our kids aren’t struggling even harder than we are to catch up. My top three priorities in this campaign are focusing on your power to choose, and these choices should direct the State in how it should be spending its money. Those priorities are municipal growth management, school choice, and reducing the cost of doing business in North Carolina.

2. What in your record as a public official or other experience demonstrates your ability to be effective on the issues you’ve identified? Please be as specific as possible in relating past accomplishments to current goals.

My background is in training and writing, and in doing extensive hands-on research about the topic I’m teaching or writing about. As a middle school teacher in Rockingham County (‘96-’99), I put that to work in the classroom as I got to know the lifestyle and challenges each student was facing. I worked to shape the students’ learning experiences, making lessons meaningful considering those lifestyles and challenges.

I’ve taken this same approach into my training and writing in the tech industry. I’ve always felt that the best voice to teach someone about a topic is someone who thoroughly knows both the topic and the audience. I’ve received accolades for my ability to dive in and get hands-on experience on a topic, and to serve as an advocate for the audience when writing or training about that topic. Voters should select legislators that, like me, are willing to get her hands dirty studying the topic of legislation and the people affected. Let’s dig deep to find all the relevant information needed to make meaningful law.

3. How do you define yourself politically, and how does your political philosophy show itself in your past achievements and present campaign platform?

Politically, I define myself as libertarian. Some describe this as being “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” I prefer to say that we have a certain set of natural and constitutionally outlined rights, and I believe that people should be free to do what they want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. As a result, government should be small enough to fit inside the State and Federal constitutions, and its only role should be to protect and defend those same natural and constitutional rights for its citizens.

My platform is consistent with my political philosophy across the board. For example, my “More Choice in Education” platform issue, described at GoLiberty.net, is about putting education decisions in the hands of the parents and students, where they belong, not in the hands of government officials that seek a one-size-fits-all approach. The only way to ensure we have the power to choose things for ourselves is to make sure the law keeps that power in our hands, not takes it from us.

4. The Independent’s mission is to help build a just community in the Triangle. Please point to a specific position in your platform that would, if achieved, help further that goal.

When you choose that great house on the edge of town or that great older house near downtown, location is probably the biggest factor in your decision. Every real estate agent knows that to be true. So, it’s only fair that if you purchase that property, the advantage of that location aren’t forcibly removed from you by some State law or city annexation.

My “More Choice in Managing Municipal Growth” platform item, described at GoLiberty.net, describes the forced annexation issue in North Carolina. Current NC law allows an organized city or town to annex any land connected into its city limits, and then to impose all of its new city rules and taxes on those who own the land. Those who own the land have no recourse except to appeal to the State which passed the law.

The North Carolina League of Municipalities, an organization of city governments, have a stronger voice in the General Assembly than any of the individual affected by these annexation laws. As a result, they continue to persuade the GA time and again that current annexation law is just and reasonable. It’s time to reverse that trend. It’s time for meaningful annexation reform that protects the rights of those being annexed. See the four points of meaningful reform under “Issues” at GoLiberty.net.

5. Identify and explain one principled stand you would be willing to take if elected that you suspect might cost you some popularity points with voters.

For many reasons, the general public has increasingly looked to government to provide solutions to its problems. A typical attitude is that government should force people to do “what’s right” instead of trusting they can do it on their own. This has resulted in a prevailing attitude of helplessness and entitlement that has eroded the core U.S. values of independence and liberty.

Here’s my concern: when government assumes a power, it historically keeps that power no matter who’s in charge. That means the more power we put in the hands of the government, the more we’re subject to the whims of each changing regime. On top of this, ballot access laws are designed to snuff any of the small, grassroots voices that rise in opposition to that regime. If you like the guy who got the most votes, you may be in luck. If not, you’re screwed until the next election.

If we retain our power to choose, we won’t have to hope we’re in the majority come next election. Instead, we can solve our problems with the choices that are right for ourselves and our community. My platform is about taking on both the power and the responsibility of those choices, against the growing attitude that government can do it better.

6. If these issues haven’t been addressed above, would you please comment on:

a. Poverty: What steps, if any, do you advocate to lift up the poor in North Carolina?

We should lower the cost of doing business in North Carolina. By lowering the barrier of entry, and easing the tax and regulation burdens, businesses can grow, provide more jobs, and pay their existing workers more. Not only will this improve the standard of living for those able to work, but it will improve the economic outlook for those unable to work who are supported by friends and family.

b. Transportation needs in the state, including roads and transit in the Triangle?

Joseph Coletti of the John Locke Foundation stated in a recent press release that the key to improving transportation in the state is to make a better selection in which projects are funded. Studies show that building new structures while old structures continue to deteriorate is a path that will further destroy our state’s budget. Roads and bridges that need the most repair need priority, especially when money is tight. I was excited to see the work on Wade Avenue in Raleigh, and it’s projects like that we need to focus on right now.

c. Job creation: What strategies should the state use to attract new business and lower the unemployment rate?

We need to make sure that the jobs created are sustainable. Government incentives that bring hand-selected businesses are a crap shoot: the business opens because it gets money to do so, not because it actually believes it can sustain long-term. That means the jobs “created” by those incentives may or may not be there in a couple years’ time. The recent example of Dell is the definitive example of this failure resulting in a loss of over 900 jobs.

The real solution to creating jobs is to lower the barriers of entry for business, reducing the burdensome taxes and regulations so that NC is a truly desirable place to set up shop. If a business comes, it should be because it has determined it can be successful here, not because they’ve been paid to “take a chance.”

d. Health care: What should the state do next to address the problem of adults and children without adequate health care or insurance?

The only thing the State should do with regards to health care and insurance is to remove any excess taxes and regulations that continue to drive up the cost. It’s true that the government may actually be “protecting us to death” with some of its health care law.

e. Foreclosures: What more should the state be doing to help consumers avoid foreclosure and hold onto their homes?

It’s not the role of government to intervene in the fulfillment of a private contract unless there is a violation of individual rights. It is unfortunate that so many people have found themselves victim of too-good-to-be-true mortgages. However, it’s still the personal responsibilities of those in those contracts to deal with the consequences they signed on to. If an individual can truly prove their rights have been violated, such as through deceptive business practices, just compensation may be in order for that individual from the entity found guilty of the violation.

f. The mental health crisis: Everyone agrees it’s a mess. Now what?

The mental health system a mess because of mismanagement by State. The libertarian in me wants to say that the only real solution is to privatize the system. It’s a big system, though, and it’s been going for too long for privatization to be an overnight fix. Instead, the State should order a ground-up restructuring of the system with a clear mission, up-to-date goals aligned with a modern understanding of mental health, and distinct and fiscally restrictive boundaries as to what the State can and cannot be responsible for in patient care.

g. Taxes: Given the needs, are they too high? Too low? Too regressive? Where else should the sales tax be applied? Should it be raised? What’s your position on “combined reporting” for national corporations?

The State’s taxes, like the Federal income tax, is the cumulative result of years of special interests getting what they want and making the taxpayers fund it. The bottom line is that if you want something from the government, the government has to pay for it. As I think we have the government trying to do too much, I naturally think our taxes are too high.

Currently, though, lowering taxes is not yet a reasonable solution. That can come in time, but first, we need to get spending under control. That means no new programs, eliminating inefficient and irrelevant programs, and tightening the budget across the board with reduced funding to existing programs. If we have to cut back in tough economic times, the government should have to, too.

h. Energy: What steps, if any, should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? What policies should be put in place to incentivize innovation in wind, solar and future energy sources?

There are two things the State can do, reasonably, to aid its citizens in protecting the land, air, and water around them. The first is to eliminate or significantly lower restrictions on individuals and business who take their own actions to reduce their “carbon footprints.” For example, they could overrule any local restrictions on an individual who wants to set up his own wind tower or solar panels on his property. The second thing the State can do is to continually improve the existing littering and pollution laws so they protect the rights of everyone.

7. What local bills would you introduce and how closely will you work with local elected leaders in advancing their legislative agendas?

I plan to research and write a bill to lift the cap on charter schools, and I look forward to supporting Senate Bill 494 or a subsequent bill to offer true annexation reform.

8. What is your position regarding LGBT rights? Please address whether gay marriages or civil unions should be made legal in North Carolina; also, whether sexual orientation and identity should be added as a protected class under state anti-discrimination laws, including state personnel laws.

It is one of our basic rights to have the government leave us alone as long as we’re not violating the rights of others. This includes living the lifestyle we choose. In addition, government should neither reward or punish us for those private decisions.

Current marriage laws in NC and other states were created for the sole purpose of letting the State have the power to decide who could marry. It’s continued as a way the State can determine who gets certain privileges. A long as the State has this power, then whoever is elected has the power to tell me what “marriage” means. As a result, I would support any legislation to remove all “marriage” law from the books, replacing it with nothing, or with an act ensuring that any number of consenting adults be able to seek legal contractual obligations that take precedence in legal matters, such as personal health decisions. However, it’s the individual, not the State, that should be able to call that “marriage.”

As I stated in my response to Equality NC, there should be no protected classes under the law. This includes private business employment as the legislation should not violate the right of the business owner to select individuals he or she wants to work with. Also, there should be equal punishment for equal crimes, and hate crimes legislation seek to punish thought (one of our basic freedoms) in addition to the criminal act. It’s the courts, not the legislators, that should determine the degree of punishment for a given crime.

State employment is a different game. We are, unfortunately, subject to whoever is in charge of the State. As such, while I would like to see a law prohibiting discrimination for State employment based on sexuality, I’m not the only “employer” whose vote counts in the election. As a result, any such legislation will always be subject to the power of the current regime. That said, I would still support the legislation to stop such discrimination in State employment.

9. Do you support women’s reproductive rights, including the “right to choose” as set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade? Given that North Carolina has the ninth highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation, do you support medically accurate sex education that includes information about birth control?

I think there is no role for legislation on abortion. We have our rights to both life and happiness, and it should be up to courts, not legislators, as to whether any one specific act is in violation of that law. If the State takes any action, it would have to step forward and define when “life” begins and ends, and I believe that’s an individual moral decision, not something that the government should legislate.

Sex education in public schools, like many other things in public education, will always be in the power of whoever is in charge. I believe that education should not be a tool for pushing propaganda toward any particular social stance. My preferred “solution” to the controversy is to privatize sexuality education altogether while teaching only the biological side of sex in public schools. In other words, let the parents select which type of sexuality education they want their child to receive. Whether or not you agree with your neighbor’s choice, they still have the right to choose what they think is best for their children.

10. What steps will you take to increase transparency and outreach to constituents, and root out corruption, not only personally but among other General Assembly members?

When I take office, I will have a Web site to keep people informed on what I’m doing in their Senate seat, and to blog my research and logic in each decision. Of course, my office will promptly read and respond to each email and phone call received from the constituency. I also plan to hold monthly “town meetings” where I can speak directly to the constituency, allowing them to share their thoughts on current legislation.

I refuse to be bullied by my peers in the General Assembly or by special interest groups seeking preferential treatment in legislation. I will stand on my libertarian principles in every decision I make, continually working to keep us free.

JLF: Better project selection process can improve N.C. transportation

The John Locke Foundation just put out a press release by Joseph Coletti, JLF’s Director of Health and Fiscal Policy Studies, describing ways to improve N.C.’s transportation system through better fiscal policy, not just more funding. Coletti will testify to the General Assembly Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee about the JLF research and his recommendations. The press release outlines six key areas centered around choosing projects based on better selection of the transportation projects that the state should complete. Coletti explains that fiscal responsibility and maintenance on existing structures needs to take a higher priority, with less emphasis on “ribbon-cutting” projects.

Click here to read the press release

Click here to listen to a short audio interview with Joseph Coletti about these recommendations

Volunteer opportunity: envelope stuffing on April 17

On April 17 from noon to 1 PM, volunteers will be helping to prepare about 500 envelopes for the campaign’s first fundraiser letter. For details and to RSVP, go to the event page at Meetup.com/GoLiberty using this link:

http://www.meetup.com/GoLiberty/calendar/13092522/

Return top