It was back-to-back all day today. The Budget. The Land Conservancy. The Technology Association. Sick inmates. School Nutrition. Involuntary Annexation. Anti-gang bills. Senate. House. Ethics.

On days like this, you can’t help but wonder -  if they can get this much done in six weeks, why do we even need a long session?

Conversely, you could also argue that this is why there shouldn’t even be a “short” session – it’s so crammed that some really important issues get crowded out of the daylight and the coverage they deserve. 

I wish I could cover it all for you here, but a girl’s gotta sleep sometime.  So here are the highlights.

Prison break

No one stood up today in House J1 today to speak against a bill that would let prison and parole officials set some terminally ill or permanently disabled inmates free.

Don’t get too misty-eyed about the bill’s humanitarian import. It’s all about the benjamins when you get right down to it.  An aging and ailing prison population is racking up the bills – $200M or so last year for about 39,000 inmates – and around 9% of that is spent on the 100 sickest inmates. 

State prison inmates aren’t eligible for federal money via Medicaid and Medicare. Once they’re paroled, though, most of them qualify for help.  So it’s a question of cost-shifting.  Sure, the state still has to pick up part of the tab, but it’s a lot less than the 100% it’s responsible for when the inmate’s in custody.

The latest version of Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand’s bill includes some safeguards against patient dumping: the state can’t turn anyone loose till the inmate has an established place to go, a medical plan, and health insurance in place.  

There are lots of other safeguards, too. No murderers, sex offenders, or violent felons need apply.  The victim’s family (if there is one) gets a say.  And if the released inmate miraculously gets better, the state is supposed to re-incarcerate him or her.

Okay, but...

It’s hard not to like this bill.  I mean, who’s really going to argue against letting an inmate who’s no longer a threat to society die in the company of his or her loved ones?  But there’s a mercenary twang to it that’s a little uncomfortable.  How does Medicaid/ Medicare compare to the coverage prisoners receive behind bars?  It’s not clear who’s following up with these dying inmates. And there’s no internal review system to ensure it won’t be abused.

There’s no doubt this bill is headed for Gov. Easley’s desk.  Rand sponsored it, House leadership likes it, and no one – not even the Rs – offered any resistance.  But you have to wonder what it’ll look like 5 years out.

Policy/Politics

Out of nowhere, the Senate leadership moved a long-delayed anti-gang bill out of Approps into Rules today.  It sailed right through, even without a fiscal note.  It's headed for floor vote Wednesday.

Given that the gang bill’s gotten approximately zero traction for the past three years, its sudden popularity might be hard to fathom if NC mayors weren’t about to converge on Raleigh tomorrow in support of anti-gang legislation.  Chief among them – you guessed it – is Charlotte mayor and GOP gubernatorial nominee Pat McCrory. 

Ever since McCrory entered the race, he’s been slamming Dem leaders for inaction on the gang issue. Suddenly, an anti-gang bill moves in the Senate. His opponent, Lt Gov. Bev Perdue, is Senate President. Coincidence?

The Ds

Why, yes, Dems say.  House sponsor Mickey Michaux (D-Durham) says the reason it’s moving now is because more and more small towns are experiencing gang problems.  Senate sponsor Malcolm Graham (D-Meck) says the leadership promised him the measure would move this year because “the people of North Carolina wanted it, law enforcement agencies wanted it, and more importantly, it’s very needed.”  (All of which were true last year, too.  But I digress.)

Sen. Rules Chair Tony Rand weighed in, too.  That’s here.

The Rs

As you’d expect, Senate Republicans called it a political manuever.  Pat McCrory didn’t go quite that far. He happened to be in Raleigh today, so he popped down to Jones St. to comment on the anti-gang legislation. 

McCrory says he doesn’t care if the bill’s progress is politically motivated or not. 

“If it’s political, that’s fine with me, because it’s finally getting the bill passed.  But I think it’s political because of the outside pressure…of people outside the state capitol who said ‘Enough is enough, and people are dying on the streets.’” 

McCrory was savvy enough to send some credit across the aisle to Michaux and Graham, as well as to all the citizens he says have signed on to his “Virtual Caravan” anti-gang email campaign.  When GN-R's Mark Binker asked him whether he’s losing a platform issue, his answer was as good as it gets without a speechwriter: 

“Listen, I’d love to lose the political campaign issue of crime, if that’s what – if we start saving lives.  Who gives a damn about the political issue?”

Nicely played, Mayor. 

Then again...

It’s not at all clear that the “Gang Suppression” bill will do anything of the kind.  It does more to enhance punishment than prevention, and expert DAs have said boosting deterrents doesn't make much of an impression on young gang members.  

We don't really know what it'll cost, either. Rand says the reason there was no fiscal note in Senate Rules is because no one’s exactly sure what the cost might be, since most of what’s in the bill would already get you prison time, gang-related or not. 

Michaux doesn't know, either, but he says an associated $10M in gang prevention money will save the state money on jails in the long run.  We’ll see, I guess.

More tomorrow (I hope) on involuntary annexation, etc.

Comments? Drop me a line.