Civitas Institute

Polls show Perdue's popularity slipping among voters

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:36:16 -0400

a news clip using Civitas poll numbers
Originally from News 14

Civitas Poll: Potential Burr Challengers Unknown

Civitas Staff — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:22:53 -0400

McIntyre, Marshall Start with Little Name ID

Raleigh, N.C. – As Democrats continue their search for potential challengers to US Senator Richard Burr in 2010, a new poll released today by the Civitas Institute shows that two potential Burr challengers would begin the race virtually unknown.

Voters were asked if they had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of potential Burr opponents Elaine Marshall and Mike McIntyre. Seventy-seven percent of voters said they either had no opinion or were not aware of McIntyre. Similarly, Marshall was unknown to 80 percent of voters.

Twelve percent of voters said they had a favorable opinion of Marshall. Seven percent said they had an unfavorable opinion. McIntyre was given a favorable response by 13 percent of voters, while 10 percent gave him an unfavorable opinion.

McIntyre was best known in his home district (Southeastern NC), where he had a 38-12 favorable advantage over unfavorable.

“It is somewhat surprising given that Elaine Marshall was just on the ballot last November and has run statewide a number of times that her name identification would be lower than a Congressman who represents just a portion of the state,” said Civitas Institute Executive Director Francis De Luca.

Thirty-one percent of voters said they had a favorable opinion of Richard Burr while 19 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion. Fifty percent of voters said they either had no opinion or were not aware of Burr.

“Burr’s name identification continues to sag, but he’s still quite a bit higher than either of his potential opponents,” added De Luca.

The Civitas Poll is the only monthly live-caller poll of critical issues facing North Carolina. For more polling information on Civitas polling, see www.nccivitas.org/media/poll-results/.

Full text of questions:

I would like to read you a list of names. Please tell me if you have heard of that person and if so, whether or not you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of that person?

Richard Burr
Favorable – 31%
Unfavorable – 19%
No Opinion – 30%
Not Aware – 20%

Elaine Marshall
Favorable – 12%
Unfavorable – 7%
No Opinion – 25%
Not Aware – 55%

Mike McIntyre
Favorable – 13%
Unfavorable – 10%
No Opinion – 23%
Not Aware – 54%

Click here for full results and crosstabs.

The study of 600 registered voters was conducted June 15-18, 2009 by Tel Opinion Research of Alexandria, Virginia. All respondents were part of a fully representative sample of registered voters in North Carolina. For purposes of this study, voters we interviewed had to have voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.

The confidence interval associated with a sample of this size is such that: 95 percent of the time, results from 600 interviews (registered voters) will be within +-4% of the “True Values.” True Values refer to the results obtained if it were possible to interview every person in North Carolina who had voted in either the 2004, 2006 or 2008 general elections or were newly registered voters since 2008.

Shameful Budget Theatrics from N.C. House

Brian Balfour — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:11:21 -0400

Did you see the major theatrical presentation put on by state leaders in Raleigh over the last several weeks?

The script was brilliantly followed, but the plot was a bit predictable.

I am talking, of course, about the high drama surrounding the North Carolina House of Representatives crafting its budget proposal for the coming fiscal year. Faced with revenue projections even lower than anticipated, the House knew it didn’t have the political will to balance the budget with cuts alone. Tax increases were sure to be part of any budget package.

In the midst of a recession driving unemployment to nearly 12 percent, and the public’s growing animosity toward bigger government as displayed by the April 15 tea parties, House leaders knew that North Carolinians would be outraged by any proposed tax hikes. So they went to the drawing board to devise a strategy to make tax increases more palatable.

Their strategy revolved around an age-old ploy that exemplifies the lowest form of political gamesmanship.

Step one was to convince the public that the House really, truly wanted to balance the budget without raising taxes. Step two was to craft a budget without new taxes, while purposefully including cuts to the most sympathetic of government programs; especially school teachers, the elderly and the mentally ill.

These changes were never serious; they were simply a scare tactic to rally public opinion against such heartless cuts in order to ease opposition to tax increases.

House leaders fueled the panic with comments such as “We have had to take draconian cuts, we have had to take cuts that people don’t like,” from lead budget-writer Rep. Mickey Michaux, D-Durham.

The tactic worked.

In response to the original House budget proposal, teacher groups, state employee organizations and social service providers across the state unwittingly played their role in this con game. N.C. Association of Educators President Sheri Strickland expressed her dismay by calling the House plan “dangerous and draconian.”

The ARC of North Carolina, a major player in the advocacy for people with disabilities, declared on its blog that the unintended consequences of the House budget will be “too horrific to imagine,” and even that “people will die.”

This public outrage spawned a flood of calls and emails to the offices of House members, pleading for a “balanced approach” to balancing the budget.

House leaders therefore had the cover they needed to introduce their $784 million tax increase.

It was the perfect script. Establish a villain – a “cuts only” budget plan that cuts funding for the most sympathetic items like school teachers and social services for developmentally disabled children – and then bring a hero in to save the day: new taxes.

Meanwhile, House budget writers insisted it is their deep concern about “restoring” funding for education and those in need motivating their massive job-killing tax increase.

They convinced the public that there was no other choice: either cut teachers and aid to the mentally ill, or raise taxes. But if they were indeed so concerned about such programs, why were they so quick to put those on the chopping block, but left substantial funding for much more questionable items intact?

A little research turns up significant amounts of uncut funding for programs that would be considered a lower priority than teachers and disabled children by any reasonable person. Such items include: $11 million for the N.C. Arts Council and N.C. Symphony, $3 million for oyster reef and sanctuary programs, $7.7 million for the Museum of Natural Science, $13 million for state public television, $1.2 million for a botanical garden at UNC-Chapel Hill and half a million dollars for an Ergonomics Center at N.C. State. And there are dozens more examples just like these.

Did House budget writers really think these programs were untouchable, but teachers were expendable? I doubt it. But presenting a budget plan with a more sensible prioritization of cuts wouldn’t have fit the script.

House leaders who orchestrated this pitiful ploy should be ashamed of themselves. Purposefully manipulating the emotions of thousands of educators and social workers for their political ends is why so many people have such a low opinion of politicians.

Bravo, House leadership. You executed your script to perfection and got your tax plan included in the budget. I hope you are proud of yourselves.

The Damage of HB 88/ S221—An Unhealthy Youth

Jessica Custer — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:57:00 -0400

The highly debated Healthy Youth Act, House Bill 88 and Senate Bill 221, will force 104 of the state’s 115 school districts to teach a more contraception-focused Comprehensive Sex Education program (CSE) to our impressionable youth, starting in 2010. It was passed by the North Carolina State Senate and House last week.

CSE will amend the previously taught Abstinence-Until-Marriage (AUM) curriculum and introduce the 18 FDA-approved methods of contraception including: condoms, diaphragms, surgical sterilization, and the abortifacient morning after pill included in the curriculum. While members of the liberal NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood praise the recent passage of both the bill and President Obama’s budget cuts to abstinence-only programs, the reality is, the Healthy Youth Act is actually hurting the youth it seeks to protect.¹

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) is the leading architect behind CSE programs in schools today. In particular, their Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten-12th Grade provides key fundamentals for developing sexually healthy adults. While these fundamental guidelines extol appreciation and respect for one’s own body, the guidelines do not stop there. According to SIECUS, issues that will be addressed to youth, as young as five, are: human sexuality, masturbation, sexual response, sexual orientation, gender identity, contraception, abortion and HIV/AIDS.² Within each concept addressed, there are respective topics separated into subsections based on age and corresponding levels ranging from one through four. Each topic then presents a developmental message, a take-home – if you will– for adolescents to use in their development to become a sexually healthy adult. The SIECUS Guidelines include the following developmental messages for students:

Level 1, (Early Elementary School) Ages 5-8: “Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched."³
Level 2, (Upper Elementary School) Ages 9-12: “Masturbation is often the first way a person experiences sexual pleasure. Many boys and girls begin to masturbate for sexual pleasure during puberty.”⁴
Level 3, (Middle School/ Junior High) Ages 12-15: “Some sexual and reproductive organs provide pleasure.”⁵
Level 4, (High School) Ages 15-18: “Individuals can learn what gives them sexual pleasure and communicate that to partners in order to enhance their sexual relationships.”⁶

In looking through the concepts admitted to the CSE, there are strong cases for some points advocated. However, the reality of the curriculum is that it presupposes that adolescents, starting at age 5, will engage in sexual intercourse and should be taught ways to make it “safe.” The concepts introduced step beyond the basic boundaries of reproductive science and emphasize sexual freedom as a means for human happiness. It is taught with a promise that natural consequences can be avoided with “fail safe” condoms, the morning after pill and abortion of course.

The argument that CSE is the more successful form of health education could easily be conceded, given the comprehensive nature of the curriculum. However, CSE is not more effective than AUM at reducing teen-pregnancy, increasing contraception use and decreasing STD rates. The Institute for Research and Evaluation concludes that no school-based CSE programs resulted in a decrease in teen pregnancy or STD rates for any period of time.⁷ So while CSE may be more comprehensive, it is not the most effective choice of educating our youth. And while adolescents know safe sex exists, and is possible, long before they walk into a health classroom, North Carolina legislators need to encourage our teachers to send a clear and singular message; the only way to avoid pregnancy and STDs is to practice 100 percent abstinence.

The consequence of a CSE program is far-reaching and beyond simple education of boys and girls reproductive parts. What is taught in middle and high schools around the country as “comprehensive” and “sexually healthy” is popping up on college campuses with twenty-somethings as the hook-up phenomena. This is not an inaccessible experience limited to publically promiscuous media starlets, but rather a culture that is dominating college campuses across the nation. The developmental messages that taught sexual freedom have now produced a generation of no-strings-attached sexual encounters. The consequences of this freedom include: increased rates of STDs, infertility, heightened depression, unwanted pregnancy, future fear of commitment and sexual confusion.⁸

So while North Carolina appeases liberal lobbying groups with a more “progressive” form of sex education, all we really are doing is further inviting another generation of responsibility-free “hook-ups” with increased warning signs of a sexually exhausted generation.

¹ http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/positions/fighting-real-sex-education-97.htm
² SIECUS, Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, 3rd Edition: Kindergarten Through 12th Grade, National Guidelines Task Force, pg 19.
³SIECUS, Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, 3rd Edition: Kindergarten Through 12th Grade, National Guidelines Task Force, pg. 25.
⁴Ibid., pg 52
⁵ Ibid., pg 25
⁶Ibid., pg 53
⁷ http://www.abstinence.net/pdf/contentmgmt/IREevidencepaperAnotherLook3609.pdf
⁸ http://ncfamily.org/PolicyPapers/Findings%200705-AUMvCSE.pdf

Reduce Education Spending Without Harming the Classroom? It Can Be Done.

Bob Luebke — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:36:10 -0400

In order to address the state’s growing budget deficit, Governor Beverly Perdue has called on state agencies to reduce spending and develop new ways to stretch tax dollars. At the same time Perdue, a former teacher, has come out against any further education cuts. The Governor has also stated her opposition to any budget proposals that will “cripple the classroom” including provisions to increase class size, reduce teacher pay or layoff teachers.

Regrettably, the Governor conflates all education cuts to “classroom cuts.” This is fallacious. With $8 billion in spending, K-12 education comprises 38 percent of all state appropriations. However, to exempt all of public education from reductions forces other state agencies to make disproportional budget reductions. The governor’s premise should be opposed. Prudent reductions can be made in the K-12 education budget without jeopardizing the public school classrooms.

BUDGET REDUCTIONS ARE MANAGEABLE, SOUND AND NEEDED

A five percent reduction in noninstructional support staff (clerical assistants, custodians and substitute teachers) will save $20 million. Even with cuts, over 40,360 noninstructional support staff remains.
Increasing class size by 2 saves $184 million (2009-2010) and $264 million the following year. This change will reduce the need for 6,000 teachers, about 6 percent of current state teacher workforce.

Research on Class Size is Not Conclusive. North Carolina has spent millions to reduce class size. Test scores do not justify continued investment. Major studies supporting smaller class size are flawed. Research shows student achievement is more tied to teacher quality than class size.¹

NOT ALL CUTS ARE CLASSROOM CUTS

Increasingly, Money is Spent Outside the Classroom. The Department of Public Instruction spends 37 percent on programs other than “Instructional Personnel and Related Services,” compared to 33 percent just 4 years ago.

Growth in Instructional Support & Administrative positions (Non Teaching): North Carolina schools continue to add instructional support and administrative positions at rates that exceed enrollment growth. Since 2000, ADM (average daily membership) enrollment increased 15 percent. From 2000 to 2008, the number of instructional support personnel increased by 37 percent and administrator positions increased 21 percent.

Hidden Personnel Staff. More and more public school personnel are hidden in nebulous categories such as “assistant principal non-teaching” and “other professionals”. From 2000-2007, the number of “assistant principal (non-teaching)” increased 20 percent to over 2,800. Over the same period the number of “other professionals” increased 51 percent to over 5,400. This category includes consultants, social workers, speech therapists, attorneys, and other non-instructional staff. There are enough “other professionals” to provide each of North Carolina’s 115 school districts with 48 “other” professionals.

Pupil/Staff Ratio. North Carolina’s pupil to staff ratio (7.3) has been declining since 2003 and is lower (i.e. meaning more actual staff) than the national average (8.0). ²

Spending Trends & Student Performance: Since 2000, spending on public schools has increased 44 percent. What kind of performance does all that money buy?

NAEP reading and math scores are flat or show only slight improvement.
Only 69 percent of schools met AYP target goals.
Only 27 percent of public schools made “Expected Growth” targets under ABCs.
Only 70 percent of North Carolina eight graders graduate within five years.

MORE TAXES TO SAVE JOBS? GOVERNOR’S NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP.

The Numbers. Budget provisions estimate the loss of 6,000 teachers, 4,000 teacher assistants and 1,000 non-instructional support staff. Saving all the jobs mentioned would cost the state approximately $517.5 million, far short of the $1-$1.5 billion estimate the governor says is necessary to save educator jobs (See note for calculations³ ).

Other Options to Save Teacher Jobs: Many employees have been offered the option of accepting a pay cut to save other jobs. Why shouldn’t teachers have this option? An increase of 2 students per class in grades 4-12 will save the state approximately $184 million but also result in the loss of several thousand teacher jobs. The same jobs could be saved if teachers agreed to reduce pay by approximately 3.6 percent ⁴

For additional evidence see: George W. Bohrnstedt and Brian M. Strecher, eds. What We Have Learned About Class Size Reduction in California, RAND Corporation. August 2002; Eric Hanushek, Some Findings from An IindependentInvestiga- tion of the Tennessee STAR Experiment and From Other Investigations of Class Size Effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Summer 1999. For additional readings on the link between teacher quality and student achievement see: http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/site/c.kjJXJ5MPIwE/b.1510983/k.2A6A/Teacher_quality_and_student_achievement_research_review.htm

No Bureacrat Left Behind, Spotlight report, John Locke Foundation, May 28, 2009.

Job loss estimates are as follows Teachers - 6,000; Teacher Assistants - 4,000; Noninstructional staff – 1,000. Teachers cost to employ = $48,000 average salary + 14,400 (benefits) = $62,400 x 6,000 =$374,400,000; Teacher Assistant Cost to employ = $21,000 + $6,300 (benefits) = $27,300 x 4,000 = $109,200,000; Noninstructional staff cost to employ - ave. salary = $26,074 + $7,822 (benefits) = $33,896 x 1,000 = $33,896,000. Total cost to employ all three categories $374,400,000 +$109, 200, 00 + $33,896,000 = $517,496,000.

The Fiscal Research Bureau estimates that the cost of each 1 percent salary increase for teachers and instructional personnel is $51,152,928.

Perdue Decline Tied to Loss of Base Voters

Chris Hayes — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:32:45 -0400

Civitas polling over the past two months has shown a significant decline in both Gov. Bev Perdue’s job approval and personal favorability ratings.

After beginning the year riding high on the Democratic honeymoon period thanks to President Obama, Perdue’s numbers have taken a sharp nose dive. Her job approval rating is basically even and her personal favorability has fallen into the negative range.

While there has been some bleed off from her Republican and unaffiliated supporters, the largest decline can be attributed to the loss of her Democratic voter base.. This may explain why she traveled on a recent five city tour rallying teachers and state employees to fight to raise taxes and “save” education. Whether this tactic will work to bring back her base or push independent voters away is a fairly substantial risk; and one worth watching over the next few months.

Looking at her favorability ratings, Perdue’s overall favorability has declined from 58-20 (+38 percent) in March to a net negative rating 34-38 (-4 percent) in June. Her drop of 42 percentage points in just four months should sound the alarm for any politician.

Her drop in favorability rating can be tied directly to the erosion of her Democratic-base support. In the past four months her favorability among Democrats has dropped from 72-11 (+61) to 41-28 (+13).

In fact, her support among those who would be considered her core constituency – government employees – has plummeted from a 64-13 (+53%) rating in March to a 42-45 (-3%) rating in June.

While her job performance ratings have not dropped negatively in our polls yet, the disturbing trend reveals that those who initially sat on the fence and had no opinion of her job performance are breaking overwhelmingly negative. Basically, any voter willing to give the new Governor a honeymoon to get things started has turned negative on her job approval.

While her approval rating overall has remained basically flat, the “not sure” and “disapprove” polling numbers have basically flipped since January. As voters make up their mind on her job approval, it is predominately negative. Perhaps the best illustration of this is her approval rating among voters who work for government – what would seem to be Perdue’s base.

While her approval number has declined by only 9 percentage points, her “disapprove” number has increased nearly tenfold to a point where government employees now disapprove of her job as Governor. This dramatic change is probably a combination based on her decision in May to cut teacher and employee pay, and to remain silent while House leadership played chicken with the state budget, and state employees’ jobs, in an attempt to create support for a massive tax increase.

The immediate risk for Perdue is she is using significant political capital in her campaign to implement higher taxes to “save” education. She may be trying to restore her base but it is a campaign that may very well further alienate her with moderate and conservative voters. Voters already disapprove of her handling of the economy (43%-49% May 2009). A public push for an unpopular tax increase could very well drive her already sagging approval and favorability numbers even lower.

N.C. American Beauty Plastic Bag Parody

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:43:36 -0400

Perdue Decline Tied to Loss of Base Voters

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:25:45 -0400

Civitas polling over the past two months has shown a significant decline in both Gov. Bev Perdue’s job approval and personal favorability ratings.

In fact, her support among those who would be considered her core constituency – government employees – has plummeted from a 64-13 (+53%) rating in March to a 42-45 (-3%) rating in June.

N.C. Senator Speaks Out Against Obama Health Care Reform Option

Marianne Suarez — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:28:28 -0400

In spite of the inefficiency and costliness of government provided healthcare projects to date (think HMOs and Medicaid part D), the Democrats in Congress are pushing for a public health care option open to all. While many eager liberals are flying straight towards the shiny blue light of “universal health care,” some are taking a moment to step back and reconsider what they’re signing us up for.

North Carolina Senator Kay Hagan (D), a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) committee, has recently voiced trepidation over this public health care plan, and is receiving a tremendous amount of - to put it nicely - anger from congressional Democrats who support the plan. According to the News and Observer, Moveon.org, a liberal advocacy group, has threatened to run ads against Hagan if she does not rescind her opposition against the public option plan. Her vote might prove crucial to moving the measure out of committee, but she understands that more effort should be forwarded to find a compromise between the proposed national level public option and more efficient state level reforms that would not threaten the existence of private or non-profit entities which provide health care for the majority of Americans.

The NC Senator is not alone in her opinion, as the proposed public health care option has received bipartisan opposition. Many moderate Democrats have joined the unanimous Republican opposition to the plan. The two Senate bills in question are being put forward by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D – Mass.) and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D- MT). The proposals are estimated to cost $1 trillion and $1.6 trillion respectively in the next 10 years, while still only reaching about a third of those currently uninsured. The new plan would restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, who currently provide health care to 70% of Americans, thanks to low-ball reimbursement rates and premiums offered up by the government plan (which of course can be compensated for with taxpayer dollars). Doctors already taking Medicare patients would be forced to participate in the new program – regardless of whether or not they have the capacity to accept these new patients, meaning longer wait times for patients. The American Medical Association, although committed to the expansion of affordable health insurance for all Americans, has reacted against the plan as its members continue to believe insurance is better provided through private markets.

Recent surveys suggest the public opposes the plan as well. A Rasmussen poll states that just 32 percent of Americans believe that the addition of a public sector insurance option would reduce the cost of health care; 40 percent say it would not. Sixty-three percent (63%) say it’s likely that a government insurance company would lose money and require taxpayer subsidies. Just 20 percent say that’s not likely. Forty-nine percent (49%) of Americans believe private insurance companies will provide better service and more choice than the government option. Thirty-four percent (34%) hold the opposite view. These numbers demonstrate that a majority of people are convinced that such a public plan would reduce available options and make health care more costly and less effective in providing quality health care for Americans in the long term.

Senate Republicans have provided several alternatives to the health care plan, but their voices have gone largely unheard. Last month, North Carolina Senator Richard Burr (R) along with Senator Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma proposed a plan to provide tax credits that would open the space for better options for people alongside serious health care reform, without annihilating the free market. But this suggestion was quickly knocked down by Sen. Baucus’ supposed bipartisan proposal that did nothing more than add $600 billion to the bill. Our best hope is waiting for a sea change in the mindset of the congressional Democrats, before all Americans are faced with the disastrous effects of a universal government run health care plan.

Does the health care system need reform? – Of course. But unless we are looking for a system that gives all decision-making power to the federal government, will cost trillions more, and essentially ensure we are forced into a health care system with all the personal charm of the DMV and efficiency of the post office – the federal government’s plan is not the answer, and people are all too aware of this.

Given the evident public opposition and internal party divide among Democrats, why are some lawmakers rushing to support a plan the majority of people are not onboard with? Then again, to them, what is another multi-billion dollar spending project, the collapse of more private American businesses, and another ineffective government project further sinking us into debt at this point, but a drop in the bucket?

http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/moveon_could_be_bad_for_hagans_health

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2009/06/24/healthcare-reform-cost-estimates-have-democrats-on-defensive.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/june_2009/41_favor_public_sector_health_care_option_41_disagree

Chris Hayes on Lockwood Phillips: Special Needs Education and Perdue Budget Tour

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:53:31 -0400