Gov. Easley's fantasy?

What exactly was Gov. Mike Easley trying to say when he called “fantastic” the legislature’s passage of a bill that could cost $20 million more than a $40 million bill the governor vetoed the week before? Is the governor aware the word means “based on fantasy” and “so extreme as to challenge belief”?
Here’s what he said in a statement shortly after he signed the bill:
“This tool is a fantastic statement by the General Assembly that North Carolina is focused on the future and determined that our citizens will compete and win in the new world economy. This legislation will create cutting edge economic competitiveness in North Carolina, unlike any state in America. It requires huge investments -- each more than $200 million -- by companies that accept the challenge to build world-class facilities here that are the most technologically advanced on the globe. The bill ensures workers’ job security, wages, benefits and advanced training as part of the incentives. It is performance based with clear criteria for earning any incentive.”
No doubt the governor was using the word the same way the gubernator – California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – often uses it, to connote a superlative – usually a positive one.
But here’s the Merriam Webster entry for “fantastic” from its online website:
1 a : based on fantasy : not real b : conceived or seemingly conceived by unrestrained fancy c : so extreme as to challenge belief : UNBELIEVABLE; broadly : exceedingly large or great 2: marked by extravagant fantasy or extreme individuality : ECCENTRIC 3 fantastic : EXCELLENT, SUPERLATIVE (a fantastic meal)
.... synonyms FANTASTIC, BIZARRE, GROTESQUE mean conceived, made, or carried out without adherence to truth or reality. FANTASTIC may connote unrestrained extravagance in conception or merely ingenuity of decorative invention (dreamed up fantastic rumors to spread). BIZARRE applies to the sensationally queer or strange and implies violence of contrast or incongruity of combination (a bizarre medieval castle built in the heart of a modern city). GROTESQUE may apply to what is conventionally ugly but artistically effective or it may connote ludicrous awkwardness or incongruity often with sinister or tragic overtones (grotesque statues adorn the cathedral) (though grief-stricken, she made a grotesque attempt at a smile). synonym see in addition IMAGINARY
I’m guessing these are not quite what the governor meant. But some folks probably think the legislature’s action really was unbelievable.

Lawmakers express sorrow to Michigan gov, leg.

Politicians are having too much fun with Appalachian State University's win over then-No. 5-ranked Michigan on Sept. 1. Monday night the state Senate approved a joint resolution "expressing sorrow to the Governor of Michigan and the members of the Michigan legislature for the victory of Appalachian State University over the University of Michigan."
The resolution originally included the wording "upset victory" over Michigan but Sen. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, offered an amendment striking the words "upset." It was no fluke victory, he explained; "It was fully expected."
The resolution directs the N.C. Secretary of State to transmit a copy of the resolution of condolence to the Michigan authorities as well as to ASU Coach Jerry Moore and the ASU athletic director.
Usually legislators don't consider other bills during a special session or reconvened session of the legislature called for the sole purpose of considering such things as a veto, but in this case Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, D-Cumberland, said the Senate was only considering this one bill because of such special circumstances as Appalachian's landmark win.
When Sen. Jean Preston, R-Carteret, asked if the Senate would also consider a resolution commmemorating the victory of the East Carolina University Pirates over the UNC Chapel Hill Tar Heels Saturday night in Greenville, Sen. Rand, a die-hard Tar Heels fan, explained good-naturedly it was simply not possible. The Senate, he said with a smile, was considering "just this one."

Good news about the return of the chestnut

Here’s a note from Doug Gillis of Charlotte, vice president of the Carolinas Chapter of the American Chestnut Foundation, with encouraging wrods about the hoped-for return of the chestnut. See also the foundation’s website:
Thank you for your article in the August 26, 2007, Charlotte Observer about the Hemlock and the wooly adelgid infestation that is devastating the tree. Thank you also for your comments about the American chestnut and the devastation it has suffered due to the introduced chestnut blight, which resulted in the removal of billons of trees from the environment. There is great hope that the strains of blight resistant, hybrid American chestnut trees being developed by the American Chestnut Foundation and its State Chapters will result in the chestnut returning as a dominant, self sustaining tree in the eastern forests.

The American chestnut tree, though thought by some people to be extinct, continues to sprout from the stumps and root systems of parent trees that are long gone. Relatively large, flowering, native American chestnut trees, which have sprouted from the root collars or root systems of blighted trees, have reached reproductive size and will produce viable nuts if pollen from another chestnut tree is present. A flowering 10-inch diameter American chestnut tree at Pilot Mountain State Park and an 8-inch diameter flowering tree at Crowders Mountain State Park are two examples of such trees. Larger survivor trees exist, and examples are those growing on Wayah Bald west of Franklin, NC. One survivor tree is 16 inches in diameter.

When American chestnut trees are of a size that they flower and they are accessible, they can be back cross-pollinated to hybrid chestnuts by State Chapters and its growers, using pollen from the American Chestnut Foundation’s Research Farms. Some flowering American chestnut trees are used by the Foundation as sources of pollen to cross with hybrid chestnut trees growing at its Research Farms. The hand pollinating done by the American Chestnut Foundation and its State Chapters (stretching from Vermont and New Hampshire to Alabama) helps create genetically diverse, blight resistant trees. Each generation is tested for resistance to the chestnut blight and for strong American chestnut characteristics, with the best trees selected for further crossing. The end product are trees that are 94% American chestnut and 6% Chinese chestnut, which display strong American chestnut characteristics and which demonstrate resistance to the chestnut blight. These trees are intercrossed to reinforce the desired characteristics and to develop trees for use in seed orchards.

Nuts developed in seed orchards are sprouted, and seedlings tested for how well they grow in the forest. Such testing is being conducted at the Bent Creek Experimental Forest adjacent to the North Carolina Arboretum.

You should find the above information about the efforts of the American Chestnut Foundation to restore the American chestnut tree heartening. The story of the American chestnut tree, its demise and its potential recovery (with the help of science and many dedicated people) captures the imagination of most who hear that restoration of the “King of the Forest” is possible.

The Carolinas Chapter of the American Chestnut Foundation would welcome an article in the Charlotte Observer about this fascinating story to further the interest of people in restoring a tree that needs the help of mankind, stewards of the environment, to recover.

Farm Report: Wild dog in the hills

We’d see her lurking in the woods, hanging behind the rhododendrons and mountain laurel that dot the hillsides of Belcher Mountain up in the Blue Ridge.
Her flanks were thin, hip bones and ribs standing in relief of her short coat.
Her neck was a mess, a big raw weeping wound on one side, badly swollen on the other. Blood matted her chest.
When we made a move in her direction, she’d fade further into the woods, but something made her keep hanging around.
Our neighbor down the road, Eugene Tinker of Charlotte, first spotted her earlier this summer with another dog. Foxhounds, he thought. He put out food for the pair whenever he was up in the hills.
The county dogcatcher came by and put out traps; the mate was captured and taken away weeks ago.
But this one was too skittish to catch. She avoided the cage with the trap door the dogcatcher put under a tree. She wouldn’t go near the food left inside as bait.
But she would reappear out of the shadows when we walked away. And she’d warily approach the bowls of chow and water we’d leave for her in the woods.
She’d creep up on the pan, hunched down and tensed, ready to run as if she were suspecting a trap. She’d grab a morsel, then run away to eat it, then creep back for another bite.
It was a sad sight. We wondered if she’d been abused, and if she’d ever trust a human.
We’re still not sure. But after several weekends of leaving food for her and speaking to her in calm voice, she has begun to tolerate our presence. She’ll walk with us down to the fields, trailing just a step or so as long as we aren’t looking at her.
I’ve learned to carry some dog biscuits. She won’t take if from my hand if I’m looking her way, but as we walk down the hill she’ll bump the hand with the biscuit and I’ll drop it right there for her to pounce on.
She’s put on a little weight. Her wound is healing and looks clean now. She seems to watch for us and tag along, keeping her distance but clearly interested in our company.
I hopped on the tractor the other day to head down the road to mow some of the late-summer hay. She raced along on a parallel track maybe 10 yards into the woods, laying her ears back and jumping deadfalls like a greyhound and just streaking along with a exuberant joy that made me wish I felt that good.
It was an inspiring sight. This broken dog, afraid and suspicious and distrustful, had found her stride. She bounded through the woods as though it was her favorite thing in all the world, as if these woods were hers.
I don’t think she’ll ever be a pet, certainly not an inside dog. But in time and if the bears and coyotes don’t get her, I think she might be a regular friend for us.
We’ll watch for her as often as we can and make sure she’s got something to eat, but we don’t want to capture her, don’t want to put her on a leash or cart her off in a cage.
She’s a free dog, and we hope to help her stay that way.

Rauch family got a kick out of Michigan game

Former state Sen. Marshall Rauch of Gastonia has an athletic family. He came South after serving in World War II to play basketball at Duke University.
A daughter, Stephanie, was a professional tennis player for a while and is an accomplished golfer.
And his grandson Julian Rauch deflated the hopes of 100,000 or so University of Michigan fans the other day when he kicked the field goal that put his Appalachian State Mountaineers ahead 34-32 in Ann Arbor to knock off the then-No. 5-ranked Wolverines.
The whole family was there except for Stephanie, reports Rauch, and she regrets cancelling plans to go. "To be honest, we were just hoping that Appalachian State would go and give a creditable performance," Rauch says.
At one time in the 1990s, Sen. Rauch was considering running for governor. For years he was a Senate power and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee as well as the Legislative Ethics Committee. Now he brags about his grandchildren. He says the late Hargrove "Skipper" Bowles once told him, "Them that can brag without lying can keep talking," so Marshall Rauch keeps talking.
Julian Rauch, a senior and communications major, had three field goal attempts and made two. One hit the crossbar, another went over "and the important one was the last one with 26 seconds left" that won the game, Marshall Rauch said. He asked Julian if he was nervous. Julian said, "Everyday I dream of being in that situation."
Former state Sen. Zeb Alley, a longtime legislative lobbyist from Waynesville who served in the Senate with Marshall Rauch, didn't go to the game but watched it and later talked with Rauch. Alley said Marshall Rauch, now 84, was “proud as punch.”
Well, who wouldn’t be? It’s an amazing thing to beat Michigan in Michigan Stadium, which seats about six times as many people as Kidd Brewer Stadium in Boone and more than twice as many as Kenan Stadium in Chapel Hill.
On Oct. 1, 1966, the Tar Heels flew up to Ann Arbor and stunned Michigan 21-7 in an upset predicted by then-UNC Chancellor Carlyle Sitterson on the team bus as it left Chapel Hill for the airport.
I was a Carolina cheerleader that year and no one expected the Tar Heels to play even with the Wolverines, let along knock them about on their own field. I had never seen that many people before in one place (the crowd was only about 88,000 or so that day, the biggest crowd all year) and it was loud most of the game – but it got pretty quiet in the fourth quarter after the Tar Heels sewed it up.
I imagine it was pretty much the same Saturday when Julian Rauch kicked the Wolverines around.

State has paid to keep jobs since '04

It's no secret North Carolina has offered financial incentives of various kinds to companies considering moving here and to existing companies to create new jobs. But I didn’t realize until the other day that since 2004, the state used various kinds of incentives not to recruit or encourage new jobs, but simply to keep the jobs we’ve got. The issue came up when Gov. Mike Easley vetoed a bill that would provide up to $40 million in cash grants to Goodyear Tire & Rubber in Fayetteville if the company invests $200 million in new equipment and meets certain other conditions. That would be a significant step in North Carolina’s economic development policy, but state officials say it would NOT be the first time incentives have been used this way.
Bill Holmes, spokesman for Speaker Joe Hackney, passed along this note from the House’s tax counsel, Caanan Huie:
* This is not the first time economic development incentives have been authorized for retaining jobs. In 2004, the General Assembly codified some of the requirements relating to the One North Carolina Fund. That legislation specifically allows for those funds to be used to encourage job maintenance (as well as the creation of new jobs). (The Fund wasfirst created in 1993 as the Industrial Recruitment Competitiveness Fund, but was limited only by uncodified language that appeared in the budget bills for the next ten years.) The administration felt is was important that they have the flexibility to use those funds to incentivize job maintenance as well as job creation. In addition, some of our tax credits are for items other than creating jobs (i.e. investing in machinery and equipment, exporting cigarettes, producingfilm and TV programs) and have no requirements related to job creation or maintenance.
I also asked Kathy Neal, assistant commerce secretary for communications about these incentives. Here’s part of what she said:
Yes, North Carolina has used incentives to retain jobs and to keep companies from leaving NC.
As you know, JDIGs (Job Development Investment Grants) require job creation. You may not be aware that when the state provides a JDIG grant, in most cases we require that the company maintain existing jobs, as well.
One NC (the One North Carolina fund) is somewhat more flexible. 143B-437.71 (b) states that, “Moneys in the One North Carolina Fund may be allocated only to local governments for use in connection with securing commitments for the recruitment, expansion, or retention of new and existing businesses. …”
Nearly all One NC grants include job creation as well as investment, but a few have focused on retention of jobs.
One example is Philip Morris. A $1 million One NC grant to PM was announced in October 2004, with a goal of helping the company retain jobs at its North Carolina facility in Cabarrus County. The company this year announced it was closing the Cabarrus County plant and moving jobs to Richmond starting in 2008; North Carolina subsequently recovered the $750,000 that had been disbursed to the company.
As for assisting existing industry, it’s important to note that:
· Of the 60 JDIGs awarded since the program began in 2003, 25, or 42 percent, have gone to new companies, and 35, or 58 percent, have gone to existing companies.
· Out of the funds available to JDIG, 70% is going to existing companies.
· Of the 251 One North Carolina grants awarded since 2001, 145, or 58 percent, have gone to new companies; 105, or 42%, have gone to existing companies.
Our overall philosophy about incentives is that, 1) They’re performance-based; and 2) by and large, if a company creates new revenues in the state, those new revenues are typically the source of the incentive, e.g., under JDIG, companies receive a percentage of the withholding tax from the NEW jobs created.
Last but not least: Commerce also has a wide variety of other, non-incentive programs designed to help existing industries/businesses succeed, such as incumbent worker training (in partnership with the Community College System), export assistance, business consulting services and marketing support for travel-related businesses.

Writing's on the wall for Goodyear giveaway

I’m not a betting man, but if I were, I’d wager the South Forty that Gov. Mike Easley is about to veto that ill-considered $40 million over 10 years corporate welfare giveaway for Goodyear Tire & Rubber to stay in Fayetteville.
The governor’s staff isn’t saying, but the signal his office sent Wednesday afternoon could not be clearer. His office proposed legislation to be considered next year that will create incentives to keep major manufacturers in North Carolina.
That’s the same goal of the Goodyear giveaway bill approved so overwhelmingly by the legislature before it left town. But the Goodyear bill has some huge flaws. It’s aimed at just one company. It would pay the company to stay, rather than paying a company to bring jobs here. It would pay cash. It wouldn’t even require that the company maintain all the jobs it now has.
Easley’s new proposal would be available for more than one company, such as Bridgestone-Firestone in Wilson. It would offer tax incentives to stay if the company invested more money in North Carolina, if it paid wages 40 percent above the local average wage, and if it kept all the jobs it now has. Companies would be eligible for rebates of certain taxes related to their investment in North Carolina. The money would be a rebate on future taxes paid, rather than a grant from a pool of money.
This proposal probably won’t satisfy all the critics of incentives for recruiting companies, but it’s a sight better than giveaways to companies that won’t even maintain the current employment levels.
One more thing is clear: There has been talk among supporters of the bill that if the governor vetoes the Goodyear bill, there will be a legislative session to override the veto. So far the legislature has not overridden Easley’s vetoes of previous bills, and the proposed legislation – Easley’s staff calls it the “American Productivity and Competitiveness Act of North Carolina,” an awkward mouthful – is surely designed in part to head off an override vote or at least diminish support in the House and Senate. It will give the governor – and legislators, too – political cover.
Here’s a link to an Observer editorial, "Veto the outrages" last week urging the governor to veto the bill.

And here’s a link to the Goodyear bill.

And here’s a link to the governor’s announcement today.