_______________________________________________________________________________________

Wide support for school choice

Since I have been attacked by name in a recent editorial and letters, let me set the record straight.

I wish I could claim school choice as my idea (“Stam’s crusade,” April 20 editorial). It was initiated around 1955 by Milton Friedman, the Nobel Prize winner in economics. The Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation is now the main instigator of school choice legislation across the nation. In many parts of the world, governments fulfill their obligation to fund education by supporting either private schools or parents who send their children to private schools. Nations where this is a widespread practice include Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

While school choice is part of the Republican platform, statewide polls over the past eight months have demonstrated that it is equally or even more popular among Democrats and African-Americans. A poll released by Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, performed by Survey USA, found that 67 percent of Democrats and 79 percent of African-Americans support “the state providing scholarship grants of around $4,000 a year to help families pay for tuition and other educational expenses at a school of their choice.” The Democratic leaders who reject this proposal demonstrate how far out of touch they are with those they claim to lead.

The claim that this drains money from public resources is curious. It drains costs from the public schools as fast as it drains resources. The end result is that traditional public schools will have slightly less money and slightly fewer students but will still receive approximately the same amount in per-pupil funding as before.

Rep. Paul Stam

The Act includes the following requirements for advertisements:

1. Advertising that states a total of payments to be paid over a period of time must also state the present value of the prize.
2. Advertising that states the probability of winning a prize must not omit the value of the lowest prize to be won.
3. When stating the odds of winning a prize the advertisement, at a minimum, must include the odds of winning the prize with the largest value.
4. Advertising or sponsorship of the NCEL in connection with any high school or collegiate sport or sporting event is prohibited.
5. Advertisements must not refer to the role of accountants or auditors.

The University of North Carolina will develop materials explaining the probabilities and other mathematical features of a lottery game. This information will be available for high school civics and math courses.

The North Carolina State Lottery Act (2005) did not ensure completely honest advertisements. Although advertisements were required to include the overall odds of winning something, there was no requirement that advertisements include the odds of winning the prize with the largest value—the value that most people play to win. So while the overall probability of winning any amount of money, from $5 to $200,000, may be 1 in 3.90, the probability of winning the top prize may only be 1 in 800,000.

A significant amount of research suggests that lottery advertising is indeed deceptive and contrary to the fabrics of government itself.  Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook, leading experts on state-run lotteries, suggest that the consequence of deceptive advertising, such as the absence of providing the odds of winning a grand prize, is that the consumers’ perception of the chance of winning of winning is distorted.[1] Further contending on the same note are James M. Stearns and Shaheen Borna, who found that omitting objective information about the actual value of a lottery ticket is deceptive and that more complete information would allow lottery players to make more informed decisions.[2]

Sponsors were Paul Stam (R-Wake), Rick Glazier (D-Cumberland), Jon Hardister (R-Guilford), and Larry Hall (D-Durham).

Please see the following post for additional information: Honest Lottery Act: Improving Advertising Standards for the North Carolina Education Lottery.

• Advertising that states a total of payments to be paid over a period of time must also state the present value of the prize.
• Advertising that states the probability of winning a prize must not omit the value of the lowest prize to be won.
• When stating the odds of winning a prize the advertisement, at a minimum, must include the odds of winning the prize with the largest value.
• Advertising or sponsorship of the NCEL in connection with any high school or collegiate sport or sporting event is prohibited.
• Advertisements must not refer to the role of accountants or auditors.

Lastly the bill asks that the University of North Carolina develop material and teaching methods that explain the probabilities and other mathematical aspects of a lottery game.  This information will be available as a component of high school courses in mathematics and civics.

How is the North Carolina Education Lottery Currently Advertising?

• The North Carolina State Lottery Act did little to regulate the tactics used to advertise the lottery. It did not ensure completely honest advertising.
• Although advertisements were required to include the overall odds of winning a prize, there was no requirement that advertisements match the odds to the prize.  For example, the disclaimer in a NCEL ad just last year read, “Approximate odds of winning are 1 in 3.9,” but, only advertised the top prize of 200,000. While the overall probably of winning any amount of money, from $5 to $200,000, may be 1 in 3.90, the probability of winning the top prize may only be 1 in 800,000. 
• The Lottery Act also did not require advertisements to include the lowest prize to be won.  For instance, the same TV advertisement clearly omitted the lowest prize to be won by only including the top prize of $200,000 in the ad.  As a result of the leniency regarding advertising standards, the NCEL is inducing people to engage in the lottery by advertising the largest prize amount along with the overall odds of winning (the smallest ratio) in order to smokescreen the near impossible odds of becoming a big winner.
• The Lottery Act did not require advertisements to include the present value of a prize that is paid out over a period of time.  For example, the headline of a recent 2012 TV advertisement read, “Jackpots Start at $40 MILLION,” which is the amount received if the winner chooses to take the prize received over twenty years instead of the lump sum.  There is no mention of the amount the player receives if the player chooses to take the lump sum; the lump sum being a significantly lower amount and the true value of the prize.
• For examples of advertisements click here.

Why Should the General Assembly Improve the Advertising Standards for the North Carolina Education Lottery?

• Lottery advertisements overstate the true value of winning a jackpot by failing to communicate that if winners choose to receive their winnings over a twenty year period then their earnings are subject to inflation and lost interest.[i]
• The state of New Jersey compiled a study in 1988 and found, “[an annuity system of lottery payment] would be considered fair if it were not for the fact that only one person in twenty even has the remotest idea of what an annuity is.”[ii]
• Lottery advertisements do not point out that the winnings a jackpot winner receives are subject to income taxation, thus, overstating the true value of the prize.[iii]
• State Lotteries are not held to the same advertising standards that private gambling institutions must adhere to.  For example, the Federal Trade Commission mandates that commercial sweepstakes provide the probabilities of winning various prizes for a game.[iv]
• James M. Stearns and Shaheen Borna found that omitting objective information about the actual value of a lottery ticket is deceptive and that more complete information would allow lottery players to make more informed decisions.[v]
• Charles T. Clotfelter and Philip J. Cook found that in lottery advertising the absence of information regarding the odds of winning a top prize can distort consumers’ perception of winning.[vi]

Academic Support for Lottery Advertising Requirements

• “What are the Consequences of this kind of advertising?  While no one can be sure, it seems likely that all attention to prizes and winning at the expense of information on the odds…increases players’ ‘subjective probability’ of winning.  [T]he virtual absence of information on the probability of winning a grand prize-these are the essential ingredients in lottery promotion…One possible if unproven effect of this lottery advertising policy is that consumers’ perception of the chance of winning might be systematically distorted. Another possible effect is an undermining of the credibility of the state government in general.”[vii]
• “The results of this research demonstrate that the value of a lottery ticket is relevant to lottery players because their intentions to buy changed when such information was present…Based on the behavioral intentions results of this research, the omission is ‘serious’ in that fewer tickets would be sold under most conditions if expected values were known…This research presents some evidence that more understandable, complete information might allow those who play the lottery to make more informed decisions.  Lotteries, therefore, should publish expected value information for a reasonable sampling of payoff level…”[viii]
• “Whether or not elaborate statements of odds are feasible, it is instructive to note that in the case of sweepstakes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission advertising must disclose the odds of winning all prizes as well as other facts about the game.  Applying these standards to lottery advertising would necessitate a dramatic shift in current industry practice.”[ix]
• Research shows “that simply providing information may reduce the effects of error on decision making (Fischoff 1984, 1995).  For example, Arkes, Dawes, and Christensen (1986) find that merely providing people about probability information improves performance in a prediction task.  Fong, Krantz, and Nisbett (1986) show that training decision makers about expected values and simple statistics also leads to more accurate predictions.  Therefore, providing information that counters misconceptions regarding lottery play decisions may reduce or eliminate those misconceptions and their associated effects on intended or actual lottery play.”[x]
• “Assume once again that $2 million dollars are wagered in order to create an alleged million-dollar jackpot.  The state, instead of paying out the million dollars, must make installments of fifty thousand per year…If the winner were to receive the actual jackpot, steps could be taken by the winner to protect their winnings from further tax obligations by investment in exempt bonds…[A]t the end of the twenty years, the winner would have the redemption value of the bonds…[T]he effects of inflation is never mentioned by states…The cost of an annuity that will pay its owner $50,000 per year for the next twenty years was, in spring of 1988, less than $500,000.  The winning player prevailed over odds that were indeed one in a million, yet the real value of his win is substantially less than what the odds warranted.  The annual payment method lost its justification years ago, but the cynicism that pervades the lottery system continues to triumph, and again, it is a matter of what the market will bear.”[xi]

• When respondents were asked whether they would support or oppose a $4,200 scholarship for eligible students, 71 percent said they would support the proposal. Sixteen percent (16%) opposed. Surprisingly, 78 percent of those respondents who identified themselves as Democrats supported the proposal

• The same question when controlled for race and education level shows  equally surprising results. Some of the strongest levels of support for  the scholarship grant come from the African American population.

• When asked whether the proposed scholarship should be increased to $5,500 to better reflect education costs, 57 percent of respondents supported increasing the amount. Twenty-eight percent (28%) opposed. Again, the level of support among Democrats and African Americans is higher than expected.

• The scholarship grant proposal requires that eligible students be from households whose income does not exceed 300 percent of federal poverty levels. This equals $69,150 for a family of four. (The threshold will be 225 percent in the first year only.) When asked whether the threshold of 300 percent is too high, too low, or about right, 44 percent of respondents said it is about right. Twenty-six percent (26%) believed it is too high, 22 percent believed it is too low.

• When asked what type of school respondents would send their child to get the best education available, results show that no one type of school is particularly favored across demographics.

Another school choice proposal would establish scholarship grants of up to $4,200 per year for eligible students. These grants would enable parents to choose which school is best for their child. For a PowerPoint explaining this proposal, click here.

• The Child Fatality Task Force unanimously voted to support this legislation at its December meeting.
• The association of induced abortion with prematurity has been reported extensively in over 125 publications (http://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-pre-term-birth/bibliography/).
• An analysis done by the Fiscal Research Division in 2008 reported that annually in NC induced abortion is associated with 745 early preterm births, 379 preterm deliveries resulting in death, 119 preterm infant deaths, and 32 cases of very low birth weight infants suffering cerebral palsy. Induced Abortion/Cerebral Palsy Memo.
• In September 2012, the NC Fiscal Research Division revised its report using inflationary data to update the fiscal impact portion of its analysis. For 2012, the cost-consequence contribution attributable to previous induced abortion to initial neonatal hospital costs was estimated to be $98,858,694. Updated Induced Abortion/Cerebral Palsy Memo.
• There is a remarkable similarity (almost identical) between the level of risk for preterm birth associated with smoking and the level of risk for preterm birth associated with induced abortion in a previous pregnancy. (Rosanne Freak-Poli, et al., “Previous Abortion and Risk of Pre-term Birth: A Population Study,” Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 22, no. 1 (January, 2009, 1-7). North Carolina has made significant effort to support programs that make mothers aware of the consequences of smoking on the outcome of pregnancy. If there is rationale for including the risks of smoking in preconception education, then there is rationale to include the risk of previous induced abortion.
• For ethical and practical reasons, all research done with induced abortion to look at safety or effectiveness will be observational; however, this is the case with most other exposures and health outcomes, e.g. cigarette exposure.
• Induced abortion is an immutable risk factor for future preterm birth after an induced abortion has occurred. Because of this, information about induced abortion should be included in preconception education with the intention of preventing a pregnancy that might result in an induced abortion.

More information on the bill, including the bill text and bill history is available at: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=s132

For presentations made by Dr. Marty McCaffrey, Dr. Watson Bowes, and Dr. John Thorp at the Perinatal Health Committee meeting, click here:  Presentations at Perinatal Health Committee

HR 286 Honor Recovery of North Carolina Bill of Rights

Old State Capitol – Raleigh, North Carolina 

March 18, 2013

In August 2005, the General Assembly narrowly passed the North Carolina State Lottery Act establishing the North Carolina Education Lottery (NCEL). Advertising began on March 27, 2006. NCEL offers 5 major games (Carolina Pick 3, Carolina Pick 4, Carolina Cash 5, NC Mega Millions, NC Powerball) and 69 different types of scratch off tickets at over 6,600 retailers throughout the state.

The 2005 bill did little to regulate the tactics used to advertise the lottery. It did not ensure completely honest advertisements. Although advertisements were required to include the overall odds of winning something, there was no requirement that advertisements include the odds of winning the prize with the largest value—the value that most people play to win. So while the overall probability of winning any amount of money, from $5 to $500,000, may be 1 in 3.90, the probably of winning the top prize may only be 1 in 800,000.

The Honest Lottery Act includes the following requirements for advertisements:

1. Advertising that states a total of payments to be paid over a period of time must also state the present value of the prize.
2. Advertising that states the probability of winning a prize must not omit the value of the lowest prize to be won.
3. When stating the odds of winning a prize the advertisement, at a minimum, must include the odds of winning the prize with the largest value.
4. Advertising or sponsorship of the NCEL in connection with any high school or collegiate sport or sporting event is prohibited.
5. Advertisements must not refer to the role of accountants or auditors.

The University of North Carolina must develop materials explaining the probabilities and other mathematical features of a lottery game. This information will be included in high school civics and math courses.

Critics argue that people are smart enough to make their own decisions and can recognize that their actual chances of winning are minimal. Yet many studies and articles show that not including true probabilities affects consumer behavior. Other studies and articles recognize the manipulation techniques that lottery advertisements employ to entice people to place. The 1999 National Gambling Impact Study Commission’s Final Report even recognizes the criticism that “in pursuit of revenues, some lotteries have employed overly aggressive—and even deceptive—advertising and marketing methods.”

Because the state of North Carolina runs the lottery it is not subject to federal “Truth-in-Advertising” standards. In any other circumstance, the government would not tolerate such blatant misrepresentations of the facts. The Honest Lottery Act holds the North Carolina Education Lottery to higher standards.

Policy Area

Issue

Republican Position

Democrat Position

Family

Marriage

“We support federal and state constitutional amendments to limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman” (Article I)

“We support marriage equality and domestic partnerships. (pg. 8)”

Services and Rights for Families

“We support policies and laws that encourage the stability of marriage. We oppose taxpayer-funded initiatives that support cohabitation.” (Article I)

“We want stiff penalties enforced for abducting, exploiting, or abusing children, including unborn children. We abhor domestic violence.” (Article IV)

“We support adoption through significant tax credits.”(IV)

We support “measures to reduce teenage pregnancy, infant mortality, and domestic violence; to create and sustain a safe, nurturing and stable child care system accessible to more families; to encourage adoption and foster child programs; to improve youth advocacy in our courts and in our communities; and to promote responsible parenting and family preservation programs.” (pg. 1)

Economy

Regulation

“To protect [the inherent right to property], government ought to provide an environment for individual initiative and enterprise unencumbered by excessive regulation and taxation.” (Article II)

We support “a fair marketplace that is free from price fixing, unfair restraints on trade, deception, fraud, and other abuses that undermine the free enterprise system.” (pg. 2)

“Democrats believe in fair business practices with full and honest public disclosure for stockholders, enforced by government regulations.” (pg. 2)

“We support vigorous enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws to ensure that all persons have access to good jobs at fair wages and benefits.” (pg. 9)

Taxation

“The government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions” (Article II)

“We support zero-based budgeting and a taxpayer’s bill of rights.” (Article II)

“We oppose taxation of capital gains as ordinary income.” (Article II)

“We support transition to a simpler, fairer, more efficient tax system that reduces the overall tax burden.” (Article II)

“We believe in a balanced approach to offering incentives to grow local business and to attract new business. We believe that economic incentives should result in a real net benefit for North Carolina citizens.” (pg. 3)

“We believe that small and local business development in North Carolina is the best use of tax breaks and other support programs.” (pg. 3)

“The use of a progressive tax system is the only way to fairly pay for the government services needed to build a solid foundation for our future economic security…any future changes in the tax laws should increase the progressivity of our tax system.” (pg. 9)

Government Assistance

“We oppose bailouts and corporate welfare” (Article II)

We support “encouraging assistance for workers, job creation, new investment in hard hit areas, and leveling the trade playing field for North Carolina industries.” (pg. 3)

“We will adopt measures to preserve and protect existing public and private pension plans…We will automatically enroll every worker in a workplace pension plan that can be carried from job to job and we will match savings for working families who need the help.” (pg. 3)

“We support a living minimum wage” (pg. 9)

Individual Liberty

“We support the right of religious institutions to refuse to provide contraceptive or abortion services consistent with their religious tenets and oppose government mandates to require such coverage.” (Article III)

“Government should treat all citizens impartially.” (Article III)

“Private property should not be taken by eminent domain except for a public use, and upon prompt payment of just compensation.” (Article III)

“Public schools should not discriminate for or against any religion or deny equal access to school facilities.” (Article III)

“We support the ownership, sale, purchase, and “lawful carry” of firearms by law-abiding citizens.” (Article III)

“We demand civil rights for all people, races, genders, age groups and sexual orientations.” (pg. 2)

“We continue to support responsible measures to limit the amount of information gathered by governmental agencies about individuals and to prohibit improper use of such information.” (pg. 8)

Health

“We support a human life amendment. We oppose efforts to mandate the provision of abortion or to fund with taxpayer dollars organizations that provide or promote abortion services.” (Article IV)

“We urge enactment of laws requiring written parental consent for abortion and contraceptives, to regulate abortion facilities as ambulatory surgical centers and to require abortion doctors to have admitting privileges in hospitals near their abortion clinics.” (Article IV)

“We oppose human cloning and the destruction of human embryos. We strongly support adult stem cell research.”(Article IV)

“We oppose euthanasia.” Article (IV)

“We oppose infanticide. We urge the enactment of laws in this State to prohibit partial birth abortion and to require medical care for babies who survive abortions.” (Article IV)

“We support health care reform that provides universal and portable coverage, expanded preventive health care, and public effort to provide the prenatal care needed to reduce infant mortality.” (pg. 7)

“We applaud efforts to provide State-supported health care to the poor and to uninsured and underinsured persons.” (pg. 7)

“We encourage an increased level of support for stem cell research.” (pg. 7)

We “authored and continued to support the Patients’ Bill of Rights.” (pg. 7)

State Government

“Legislative session limits must be accompanied by measures to ensure that policies are made by legislators and not be unelected employees.” (Article V)

“We oppose gambling, including the state lottery.” (Article V)

“Each level of government should fund the programs it requires of other levels of government.” (Article V)

“We oppose “slush funds” as rewards from political support. Raiding of dedicated funds should not be allowed except in an emergency as determined by law.” (Article V)

“We support the issuance of a driver’s license or state identification card only to those who are lawful residents.” (Article V)

We believe government employees “deserve fair wages and benefits comparable to those in the private sector.” (pg. 5)

“We support annual pay raises within the limits of fiscal responsibility.” (pg. 5)

“We further support efforts to increase the numbers of qualified women and minorities at all levels of government where they are under-represented.” (pg. 5)

Elections

Voter Identification and Registration

“We support statewide procedures for updating voter rolls to insure accuracy.” (Article VI)

“We support photo identification to deter voter fraud.” (Article VI)

“We will continue to advocate measures to make voter registration and voting easier and more accessible.” (pg. 6)

“We oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or to register to vote.” (pg. 6)

Election Procedure

“We oppose the appointment of state judges to full terms.” (Article VI)

“Elected officials should not appear in “public service ads” during their election.” (Article VI)

“The party affiliation of judicial candidates should appear on the ballot” (Article VI)

“We are committed to passing the Count Every Vote Act.” (pg. 6)

“We will fully fund the Help America Vote Act and work to fulfill the promise of election reform.” (pg. 6)

Campaign Finance

“We oppose funding election campaign with public or foreign funds.” (Article VI)

“We support tough campaign finance laws…measures to reduce the cost of campaigning for public office…We strongly support the effort to amend the United States Constitution to reclaim our democracy and clearly state that individual citizens, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights.” (pg. 6)

Education

General Policy

“We oppose caps on charter schools.” (Article VII)

“We support the right of students to pray in school and at public occasions without censorship.” (Article VII)

“We encourage expanding vocational curricula.” (Article VII)

“Education reform requires local control of curriculum, budget, textbooks, and personnel” (Article VII)

“Teachers should be paid and promoted based on the quality of their work, not on longevity.” (Article VII)

“Reform requires nationally normed testing, cutting administrative waste, and facilitating alternate teacher certification.” (Article VII)

“Democrats stand against the deep and unnecessary cuts that have been made by the GOP-controlled legislature during the 2011-2012 legislative session.” (pg. 4)

“We strongly support the expansion of apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs to help our young people and displaced workers to develop marketable job skills.” (pg. 8)

“We support continued decentralization of decision making in our public school system.” (pg. 4)

“We encourage and support efforts of school systems to promote and maintain diversity.” (pg. 4)

“We support the principles behind Head Start, Smart Start and More at Four programs.” (pg. 4)

“We oppose any under funded or unfunded federal mandates, such as ‘No Child Left Behind’” (pg. 4)

Educational Tax Credits or Vouchers

“Choice and competition insure quality education. We support tax credits for parents who educate their children in private or home schools.” (Article VII)

“We oppose the implementation of private and religious school voucher programs.” (pg. 4)

Sex Education

“We oppose sex education in public schools without parental consent.” (Article VII)

“Public schools should not be used to teach children about homosexual behavior” (Article VII)

“We oppose school-based health clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related service for abortion and contraception.” (Article VII)

“We support medically and factually-comprehensive, age-appropriate educational programs in our schools and public health agencies encouraging abstinence and providing information about safe sexual practices.” (pg. 4)

Justice

“Premeditated and deliberate murder calls for the death penalty, which is directly proportional to the wrong perpetrated against the victim.” (Article VIII)

“We condemn gratuitous violence and pornography in literature and music. We support mandatory labeling of these products.” (Article VIII)

“Those who produce [child pornography]—and those who traffic in it—must be punished to the maximum extent of the law.” (Article VIII)

“Prisons should focus on security, education, and labor, inmates should be required to work.” (Article VIII)

“We support tort reform, including a cap on award for pain and suffering, and structure payments of awards for lost income.” (Article VIII)

“We support mandatory educational and treatment programs for illegal drug users and alcohol abusers.” (Article VIII)

“We condemn and oppose all efforts to repeal the 2009 North Carolina Racial Justice Act.” (pg. 2)

“We support continued efforts to develop appropriate alternative methods of dispute resolution.” (pg. 2)

“We enthusiastically support family, neighborhood, and school-based programs aimed at turning away young people from the use of illegal drugs and alcohol…We also call for strong state support of treatment facilities, halfway houses, and drug courts for drug and alcohol abusers.” (pg. 2)

“We oppose arbitrary caps on jury awards for victims of negligence.” (pg. 2)

“We support just compensation and adequate care for the victims of occupational diseases and work-related injuries.” (pg. 8)

The Environment

“If regulation is needed to protect the environment, government should only proceed with evidence that the benefits warrant the cost.” (Article IX)

“We support energy security and energy independence.” (Article IX)

“We support efforts to develop oil and natural gas through safe, clean hydraulic fracturing.” (Article IX)

“We support revenue sharing with those states directly affected by offshore exploration and development in federal waters.” (Article IX)

“We promote the research and implementation of alternative, sustainable, and renewable energy solutions.” (pg. 5)

“We support tax incentives and other benefits that encourage use of alternative means to disposal of chemical and waste by-products into the atmosphere, soil, and waters.” (pg. 5)

“We oppose any offshore exploration for oil or natural gas adjacent to this state.” (pg. 5)

“We believe we can and must take steps to reduce global warming.” (pg. 5)

“We support mandatory local and regional recycling of paper, glass, metals, plastic, and other reusable materials in order to reduce the need for landfills which are costly to build and operate.” (pg. 5)

We support “providing for the basic welfare of all animals, reducing cat and dog overpopulation and optimizing animal control and sheltering.” (pg. 6

National Policy

“Border security is essential to national security…the federal government should enforce its immigration laws.” (Article X)

“Rules against sexual misbehavior in the military should be retained.” (Article X)

“English should be the official language of the United States.” (Article X)

“We should withdraw from any treaty that compromises our sovereignty or undermines national defense.” (Article X)

“We support a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.” (Article X)

“Social Security should be placed on a sound financial basis with a budget separate from the general fund…We support the expansion of private savings accounts.” (Article X)

“We urge Congress to repeal the federally mandated the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” (Article X)

“We support medical savings accounts which combine personal responsibility with access to affordable healthcare.” (Article X)

“Legal barriers to competition among insurers and health care should be eliminated.” (Article X)

“We oppose encroachments upon all rights which the Constitution has reserved to the states or to the people.” (Article X)

“We support the right to work without being forced to join a union.” (Article X)

“We support reinstitution of the “Mexico City Policy” which would prohibit federal funds from being given to any organization that promotes or provides abortions.” (Article X)

“Our foreign policy should encourage freedom from slavery for all.” (Article X)

“The federal government must balance the budget, pay the national debt to generate economic growth, and make prosperity achievable for all.” (pg. 3)

“We believe that [Social Security] is indispensable…We will not privatize it.” “We believe Social Security is a contract that must not be compromised. We oppose privatization and the diversion of Social Security funds for other purposes.” (pg. 3 and pg. 10)

“We will eliminate all federal income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 per year.” (pg. 3)

We support “participation in the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Accords, and the full funding of our financial contributions to the United Nations, especially for humanitarian endeavors.” (pg. 7)

“We strongly oppose privatization of Medicare.” (pg. 9)

‘We believe that military force should be used in combat zones only as a last resort.” (pg. 10)

HB 2: Protect Health Care Freedom

(Stam, Barnhart, Hollo, Murry)

• House passed by a vote of 69 to 49: 2/22/2011
• Senate passed by a vote of 30 to 18: 2/16/2011
• Vetoed by the Governor: 3/5/2011
• House failed to override veto by a vote of 68 to 51: 3/9/11
  • Amicus brief from NC Republican Leaders submitted to the Court of Appeals

HB 3: Exclusionary Rule/Good Faith Exception (Stam, Ingle, Faircloth)

SL 2011-6: 3/21/11

HB 8: Eminent Domain (Stam, Lewis, McGrady)

• House passed by a vote of 98 to 18: 4/28/2011
• Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/2/11
• Not considered by the Senate

HB 27: Forensic Sciences Act

(Glazier, Stam, Michaux, Jackson)

SL 2011-19: 3/31/11

HB 40: Honor John Weatherly

(Hastings, T. Moore, Hager, Stam)

Adopted: 2/21/11

HB 41: Tax Fairness in Education

(Stam, Hager, Collins, Brawley)

Referred to Education: 2/7/11

HB 112: Realign Wake Superior Court Districts (Dollar, Stam, Avila, Murry)

SL 2011-203: 6/23/11

HB 139: Limit Contributions by State Vendors (Stam, Ross, Glazier, McGee)

• House passed by a vote of 114 to 2: 5/24/11
• Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/25/11
• Not considered by the Senate

HB 226: Prohibit Sweepstakes Devices

(Rapp, Sanderson, Glazier, Stam)

Referred to Commerce: 3/3/2011

HB 312: Register of Deeds

(Haire, Stevens, Stam, Spear)

SL 2011-246: 6/23/2011

HB 325: Judicial Appointment/Voter Confirmation (Rhyne, M. Alexander, Stam, Glazier)

Referred to Rules: 3/14/2011

HB 344: Tax Credits for Children with Disabilities

(Stam, Randleman, Jordan, Jones)

SL 2011-395:  7/1/2011

HB 358: Apex/Cary Annexation Into Chatham Restricted (Hackney, Stam)

SL 2011-151:  6/16/2011

HB 472: City/County Electronic Notice

(McGrady, Stam, Owens, Jackson)

Referred to Rules: 5/24/2011

HB 489: Mechanics Lien and Bond Law Changes (Pridgen, Stam, Martin)

• House passed by a vote of 116 to 0: 5/31/2011
• Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 6/1/2011
  • Became Section 2.6 of  HB 773 – Studies Act of 2011
  • Also see Mechanics Liens/Payment Bond Reforms (SL 2012-175) and Mech. Liens/PVT Lien Agent (SL 2012-158)

HB 494: Continuous Alcohol Monitoring Law Changes (M. Alexander, Guice, T. Moore, Stam)

SL 2012-146: 7/12/2012

• Portions of this bill were also implemented as part of HB 49 –SL 2011-191

HB 502: Preserve Biological Evidence/Custodial Agency

(Glazier, Stam, Jackson, Michaux)

Judiciary B: 3/30/2011

• Became Sections 1 & 2 of HB 778 – Amend Innocence Commission Laws (SL 2012-7)

HB 596: Transfer Surplus Prop. to Retirement System (Hastings, Stam, Crawford)

SL 2011-373: 6/27/2011

HB 609: Promote Water Supply Development (McGrady, Stam, Gillespie, Carney)

SL 2011-374: 6/27/2011

HB 615: No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty (Burr, Stevens, Ingle, Stam)

Judiciary B: 4/5/2011

• Passed the House as SB 9 – No Discriminatory Purpose in Death Penalty.  Passed the Senate and vetoed by the Governor.
• A version became law as SB 416: Amend Death Penalty Procedures (SL 2012-136), after the House overrode the Governor’s veto by a vote of 72 to 48.

HB 638: Uniform Faithful Presidential Electors Act (Jordan, Stam)

• House passed by a vote of 112 to 1: 5/19/2011
• Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/23/11
• Not considered by the Senate

HB 658: Change Early Voting Period

(Jones, Stam, Collins, Sager)

• House passed by a vote of 60 to 58: 5/18/2011
• Referred to Senate Judiciary I: 5/23/2011
• Not considered by the Senate

HB 713: Public Contracts/Multiple Awards

(Stam, Lewis, Murry)

SL 2011-360: 6/27/2011

HB 741: Law Enforcement/Emergency Vehicle Length (Barnhart, Stam)

SL 2012-33: 6/20/2012

• Original bill, “Amend Lab Accreditation Effective Date,” became law as Section 9 of SL 2011-307

HB 779: Electronic Recording/Custodial Interrogations (Glazier, Stam, Faircloth, Hackney)

Senate Judiciary II: 5/2/2011

• Became law as Section 2 of SL 2011-329

HB 787: NC Water Efficiency Act

(McGrady, Samuelson, Stam, Harrison)

Sen. Agriculture/ENR: 6/8/2011

• Became law as Sections 3.1-3.5 of HB 609 –  SL 2011-374

HB 805: Additional Name Change Requirements

(Stam, Spear, Randleman)

SL 2011-303: 6/24/2011

HB 806: Zoning St. of Limit./Ag. Dist. Change

(Jordan, Stam, Moffitt, Stevens)

SL 2011-384: 6/27/2011

HB 814: Fair Compensation for Mortgage Broker/Lender (Collins, Stam, Faircloth)

Rules: 5/10/11

• Became Section 2.26 of HB 773 – Studies Act of 2011

HB 833: Honor State Capitol

(Starnes, Stam, Dollar, Torbett)

Adopted: 4/12/11

HB 886: Increase Charitable Contribution Deduction (Moffitt, Brawley, Stam, Setzer)

• House passed by a vote of 110 to 7: 6/14/11
• Referred to Senate Finance:  6/15/11
• Not considered by the Senate

HB 947: Eugenics Compensation Program (Womble, Tillis, Parmon, Stam)

• House passed by a vote of 86 to 31: 6/5/12
• Referred to Senate Judiciary II:  6/6/12
• Not considered by the Senate

HB 1021: Justice Reinvestment Clarifications (Stam)

SL 2012-188:  7/16/12

HB 1104: Scholarship Funding Corporate Tax Credit (Stam, Brisson, Hager, Brandon)

Failed in House Finance as a PCS for SB 599 by a tie vote of 11 to 11:  6/28/12