Raleigh – The News and Observer today reported that former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand (D-Cumberland) worked in secret to enact a law resulting in enormous increases in medical care costs for NC prison inmates. Rand used a technical corrections bill to strip an essential cost cutting provision from last year’s budget. According to the report, “Rand kept inmate medical costs high,” (2/12/10) , Rand’s involvement in the “technical corrections bill” negated a provision in the previously passed budget initiated by the NC Department of Correction that would have limited medical costs for inmates to the same level as the State Health Plan. DOC spending for inmate medical care has increased over $38 million during the previous decade, according to the N&O.
The effort to inflate medical costs for inmates was carefully hidden kept during debate on HB 836, “An Act to Make Technical, Clarifying, and Other Modifications to the Appropriations Act of 2009.” In fact, an explanation of the bill by House Appropriations Committee Chair, Rep. Mickey Michaux, described Section 15A, providing Rand’s language, as merely “technical” during House floor debate. (For Transcript see below.) Rep. Michaux should take this up with former Senator Rand and his staff.
“North Carolina taxpayers have every right to be incensed by this irresponsible action of the Democratic leadership in the legislature. The current budget raised our citizens’ tax burden by almost $1 billion by claiming the deficit was much wider than the facts indicated. Now we see further examples of outright waste,” said House Republican Leader Paul Stam (R-Wake). “It is past time for our citizens to demand accountability from those who have mismanaged our state’s finances for too long.”
***For those interested in the fine details, click here to view the NC Auditor’s Report.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
NC House of Representatives
August 10, 2009
Debate on HB 836 – “Modify Appropriations Act”
Speaker Hackney: “The gentleman from Durham, Rep. Michaux, is recognized to explain the Senate committee substitute.”
Rep. Michaux: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this is the usual technical corrections bill to the Appropriations Act and I’ve got about three pages of explanation, but I’ll try to be very brief for you…”
“…14A is basically technical. 15A is technical. 16 extends the period that the Department of Corrections must operate the….”
“…I’d be happy to answer any questions. I urge you to adopt the conference report.”
Speaker Hackney: “For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Rep. Blust arise?”
Rep. Blust: “To see if Rep. Michaux will yield for a question.”
Speaker Hackney: “Does the gentleman from Durham yield?”
Rep. Michaux: “Yes.”
Speaker Hackney: “He yields.”
Rep. Blust: “Rep. Michaux, this bill was first published, Senate Bill 202 that this bill modifies…The conference report was first published over the internet at about eleven thirty or twelve last Monday. It was delivered to our offices Tuesday morning at nine thirty in hard copy. We passed it Wednesday. And now just five days later we’re coming back with 21 or 15 pages of modifications. Might it be reasonable next time to slow this process down so that we don’t have to turn around in five days and modify something that we rushed through?”
Rep. Michaux: “Well, Rep. Blust, the only thing I can tell you is that you can slow it down as much as you want to. Mistakes are going to be made, corrections have to be made, adjustments have to be made. And you can’t…I don’t care how much you slow it down, that’s going to happen.”
Speaker Hackney: “For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Rep. Stam, arise?”
Rep. Stam: “To ask Representative Michaux two questions.”
Speaker Hackney: “Does the gentleman yield?”
Rep. Michaux: “Yes, sir.”
Speaker Hackney: “He yields.”
Rep. Stam: “Representative Michaux, does this bill appropriate net additional more money than the bill it modifies?”
Rep. Michaux: “No sir.”
Rep. Stam: “Second question?”
Speaker Hackney: “Does the gentleman yield again?”
Rep. Michaux: “Yes sir.”
Rep. Stam: “Representative Michaux, does this bill impose additional taxes more than Senate Bill 202?”
Rep. Michaux: “No sir.”
Rep. Stam: “Thank you, Mr. Speaker.”
* * *
Speaker Hackney: “For what purpose does the gentleman from Caldwell, Rep. Starnes arise?”
Rep. Starnes: “Will the gentleman yield for a question?”
Speaker Hackney: “Will the gentleman yield?”
Rep. Michaux: “Yes sir.”
Speaker Hackney: “He yields.”
Rep. Starnes: “I just…Thank you Rep. Michaux. I’m just trying to understand the overall fiscal impact of this. I know you said it didn’t raise any taxes. But does it in…Is it basically revenue neutral? Does it raise any….?”
Rep. Michaux: “What it does is it makes, where you see some changes in there where you have moved…You move money from one part to another. It changes…It will change what you see in the availability section. It changes where it comes from and where it goes but it doesn’t change the amount.”
Actual audio of this debate can be found at this link on the General Assembly website.
Audio Sections:
– Reading of the bill: 01:05:26
– Rep. Michaux’s explanation of Section 15A: 01:08:53
– Rep. Blust’s question: 01:10:43
– Rep. Stam’s questions: 01:11:52
– Rep. Starnes’ question: 01:15:22
