Document Actions
Tues: To be continued
posted at 2009-06-24 00:07 | Last modified 2009-06-24 15:51
In between the many controversies of the day (keep reading), Senate leaders held a couple of around-the-desk committee meetings today to move a continuing resolution, S311, on to the floor.
The CR is a permission slip for the state to keep spending money into the new fiscal year while lawmakers iron out budget details. Its appearance generally signals that the conference committee isn’t likely to reach a deal by July 1.
Senior Sen. Approps chair Linda Garrou didn’t go that far, exactly. She said the measure was “just in case” no deal was reached. But, she said, the state stands to lose "$5M a day" if spending cuts aren’t in effect as of July 1.
The CR would okay spending at 85% of the levels approved by the Senate in 2008. In addition, it would let agencies keep the money they haven’t spent at the end of the fiscal year, but would also bar the Controller’s office from writing any checks for last-minute requests. It appropriates federal recovery funds as needed to draw them down from DC, and possibly most controversial, it would remain in effect till the final budget is passed.
That’s not normally how CRs work, but in this case, it may not be a bad idea. Most years, the CR includes a date certain for expiration, at which point lawmakers and the Gov either have to reach a compromise or go through the five-day rigamarole again for another CR extension.
Proponents of this practice say it adds needed deadline pressure to the negotiation process. Skeptics, on the other hand, say it’s more like the snooze button on an alarm clock. If you know you can reset a deadline as many times as you need to, is it really a deadline? Plus, the more time lawmakers spend skirmishing over CRs, the less time they have to spend on the budget.
House Maj. Leader Hugh Holliman says the House won’t accept an indefinite CR. Guess we’ll see how it plays out later this week.
Bully Ban
By a single vote – 58-57 – the House gave final approval today to S526, the controversial bullying ban. The measure requires all school districts to draft anti-bullying policies that protect all children. It also includes a list of groups likely to be targeted.
That list drew fire from conservatives because it includes sexual orientation and gender identity. House Republicans said the bill would promote homosexuality and crossdressing, a charge Democratic sponsor Rick Glazier called “silly.”
Listen Now!
Glazier said Republican ideologues miscast the bill as being about everything BUT its actual goal: protecting all kids from prejudice, even that of their teachers.
"Anti-bullying programs don’t promote lifestyles. They promote basic respect for human rights, and basic understanding that only when every child is safe will all children be safe."
Opponents fought to remove the list. Wake Republican Nelson Dollar says the emphasis on defining potential victims is misguided.
"What we need to identify is not categories -- we need to identify the bullies. And address their bullying, address what they are doing – and in many cases, getting away with."
It was a heated debate, and a very close vote. One Dem (Hill) and one Republican (Boles) changed from ayes last night to noes today after pressure from conservatives and constituents. If another Dem No, Ronnie Sutton, hadn’t “taken a walk” today (present but not voting), the measure would have lost by one instead. (Two other likely No votes, conservative Dems Ray Warren and Bill Brisson, were granted excused absences today, even though both were reportedly seen in the building.)
The measure’s now on the Governor’s desk. There’s been no official statement either way, but word is Perdue will sign it.
Sex Ed
Today was 0-for-2 for NC’s social conservatives. Not only did they fail to block the bullying bill (not for lack for trying, either), but H88, the Comprehensive Sex Ed bill, made it through the Senate, too, 25 to 21. It’s headed back to the House.
Not that you could really call the current incarnation of H88 an unqualified victory for progressives, either. The watered-down Senate version is a far cry from the House measure – so much so that House sponsor Susan Fisher (D-Buncombe) went to a Senate committee last week to speak against the substitute.
That may have changed. After session today, Fisher wouldn’t say today whether she’d recommend concurrence in the Senate measure. She says she wants to read it and discuss it with other sponsors first. But she implied pretty plainly that she might be willing to accept incremental progress over none at all.
Comments? Drop me a line.
