Though Margiotta is often dead wrong about a lot of things, in this case he is at least partially correct: The moment the board majority began dismantling the longstanding, nationally renowned diversity policy of the school system, they did not engage in social engineering. Rather, they were acting as political engineers.

As a term used in social science, political engineering describes using the power of government to make and apply laws and policies to change society. Most of the time, political engineering is supposed to work to make the government and its services and structures better. In this instance, however, the disposal of the diversity policy can only serve to make things worse.

In fact, strictly speaking, the majority members have not really acted as engineers at all. They have only been political. There is no real alternative plan. John Tedesco, another member of the school board majority, has addressed the board's Student Assignment Committee with only vague descriptions of how the board will assign students in the future while trying to hold to Margiotta's promise that the board does not intend to create any high poverty, low achieving schools. Genuine engineering would require a formula, a plan, an algorithm, something that can be examined and built. No such thing exists.

All that currently exists are four maps on the Wake County Public School System website and a place where people can comment. It is hard to tell if the suggestions and comments will actually be used or if this is merely an attempt to give the impression that the board is being responsive to the public. The latter seems more likely. Previously, the board majority has acted to deter participation in public meetings and completely ignored a parental survey which showed that more than 94% of Wake County families were satisfied with their school assignments.

Dr. Michael Alves, an educational consultant and the proponent and creator of an assignment system called "controlled choice," spent some time in Wake County recently. Dr. Alves was impressed by the school district. He also seemed to believe that if he was hired, he could help the board to create a plan which would allow parents to choose what school their children would attend. It is unclear, however, if his system would be better than the plan discarded by the board majority.

It is also quite possible that no one will ever know. Although "controlled choice" gives parents some ability to choose, Alves' system also takes fairness and diversity into consideration as a way to create school excellence (much like the current system that Margiotta and Tedesco have sworn to abolish). Unfortunately, while Margiotta said that the school board is considering "controlled choice," he has also said that the board would not consider current levels of poverty in the schools in making assignments.

Meanwhile, though Tedesco seems open to perhaps considering poverty, he has also stated that he does not want to use the former system of counting the number of students who qualify for the federal free or reduced price lunch program as a measuring stick. He has not said what he would use to measure poverty.

All of this leaves the school district in a strange position. The chair of the board says there is no intention to create high poverty, low performing schools, but he is also unwilling to consider poverty in the way students are assigned to schools. His chief ally might be willing to consider poverty, but has not provided a way to measure it. Meanwhile, there four maps and a comment section on a website. Perhaps there will be some way to create diversity out of those maps and perhaps not.

In short, Ron Margiotta is correct that he and his allies are not social engineers. What they are is a group of befuddled political engineers. They have a vague intention to avoid creating a swath of high poverty, low performing schools but no coherent or plausible plan on how they might pull off such a feat.

At this point, about the only thing the board majority has managed to successfully "engineer" is anger, confusion and a tenuous future for the students of Wake County Public Schools.

Christopher Hill is the Director of the Education and Law Project at the North Carolina Justice Center.

Increasing the tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products is not generally viewed favorably by progressive leaders. It is often called "regressive" because it tends to hit lower income North Carolinians harder than their more affluent neighbors. This is largely due to the fact that lower income residents have a higher smoking rate than the more affluent. So why should progressives support the North Carolina Alliance for Health's efforts to increase the cigarette tax by $1? 

First a few facts: North Carolina's cigarette tax is currently 45 cents per pack-the 7^th lowest in the nation. Even South Carolina's cigarette tax is higher than ours. As of July 1, its tax is 57 cents per pack. More importantly, in contrast to our low cigarette tax, is the huge smoking-caused heath care cost to North Carolina-for every pack sold in North Carolina it costs state tax payers $7.17 per pack in health care costs to treat the serious chronic diseases brought on by cigarette smoking. Every year, thousands of young North Carolinians begin to smoke, creating a huge long-term health and medical liability for our state. 

Substantially increasing the state's cigarette tax is the surest way to keep kids from starting to smoke and one of the best ways to get adults to quit.  For every 10 percent we increase the price of a pack of cigarettes, 7 percent fewer children start to smoke and the same is true for pregnant women. As prices jump up, adult smokers also quit in greater numbers. If we are worried about the impact of an increased cigarette tax on low income residents, think about the impact of a devastating tobacco related illness-like stroke, cancer or emphysema-on this same group. Or simply the cost of a pack of cigarettes-the average cost of a pack in North Carolina is almost $5.

Increasing the tax by $1 will generate $366.2 million in new revenue in the first year to help fill the budget hole and more importantly, reduce smoking among youth by 16%, preventing tobacco addiction among 84,600 of North Carolina's children. This important public health measure will also reduce smoking among adults, help 52,200 people quit smoking, and save the lives of 40,900 North Carolinians from a premature smoking-caused death. Aren't these numbers of lives saved and chronic illnesses averted worth the $1 per pack? I think so. Increasing the tax on cigarettes by $1 isn't regressive, it is a proven public health strategy to reduce smoking and will save lives.

While it is true that ongoing reductions in state smoking levels will, over time, gradually erode state cigarette tax revenues (in the absence of any new rate increases), those declines are more predictable and less volatile than many other state revenue sources, such as state income tax or corporate tax revenues (which can drop sharply during recessions, as we are seeing in the current economy). In addition, the smoking declines that reduce tobacco tax revenues will simultaneously produce much larger reductions in government and private sector smoking-caused costs.

As progressives, we are all struggling with how our state can effectively  and efficiently deliver services to those most in need and how we can fairly raise revenue to support these services. We are also concerned with the health and wellbeing of our fellow citizens-especially in these difficult economic times. Increasing the cigarette tax by at least $1 won't solve all our problems, but it would be a huge step toward creating a sustainable source of revenue and most importantly would improve the lives and health of millions of North Carolinians. That's why progressives, like me, should support at least a $1 increase in the cigarette tax.

Peg O'Connell is the Tobacco Prevention Policy Committee Chair with the North Carolina Alliance for Health.

Wait, you thought I was talking about today's Republicans and Democrats? Sadly, no: I'm referring to people across the ideological spectrum throughout most of the past 100 years. 

An all-too common narrative these days casts President Barack Obama as a backer of expensive social programs paid for with tax dollars. 19 months into his presidency, though, Obama's record on taxes is to the right of nearly every Republican chief executive since Herbert Hoover.

First off, it's important to realize that our public programs - keeping cops on the street and teachers in the classroom, protecting public safety and keeping kids healthy and learning - pave the way for American economic prosperity.

But it's just as important to know that taxes are at historically low levels.

This leaves programs underfunded and our economy bereft of its lifeblood: capital. For much of America's history, presidents across the ideological spectrum backed more robust, more progressive tax policies than those we have today - and our economy performed better than it does now.

You don't have to look far back to see examples. If you ask a Tea Party conservative about tax policy, they'll praise Ronald Reagan up and down while reviling Obama. Most, if the option was offered to them, would happily endorse going back to Reagan's tax policies.

These folks would then be surprised to learn that almost everyone would be paying more in taxes. Yes, average families, corporations — and even most of the rich - would face higher rates.

What about investors and business leaders paying dividend and capital gains taxes? Yes, they'd be paying more under Reagan too. That's why Reagan administration officials are saying there is "not one iota of evidence" that the economy is suffering from overtaxation. 

The story is broader than Reagan and Obama: that's just a recent historical comparison. This divide between perception and reality is a long-term trend.

Over the centuries, radical right-wingers have waged a ruthless and successful campaign to demonize government - and the taxes we need to fund vital public investments that pave the way to our prosperity.

They've done so based on ideology, not evidence.

That's how we went from a Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, implementing popular progressive tax policies that built a robust, thriving middle class to now — where cutting taxes to record-low levels on a median family of four is called "socialism."

When candidate Obama proposed a top marginal rate of 39 percent for people earning $250,000 or more, he was smeared as an un-patriotic wealth-spreader. But Obama's plans were centrist and modest compared to most 20^th century leaders.

From 1932 until 1986 - every single year for more than five decades, through presidents Republican and Democrat alike -  that top marginal tax rate was 50 percent or higher.

If Obama is considered a liberal, by those standards, Richard Nixon was Ho Chi Minh.

As conservatives (rightly) like to remind us, the country is at war. But they wrongly use this rhetoric to divide the country and provide cover for laws that limit American freedoms.

Worse, some try to imply that defending the public safety, education and health care programs funded by taxes is somehow unpatriotic. Since the founding of the Republic, the opposite has been true - especially during wartime.

The top marginal tax rate for the rich was over 90 percent in 1944 and 1945 and again from 1950 through 1963. During the war years, it was acknowledged that the country had to pull together to fund crucial programs to help the troops and keep the home front strong.

We are currently at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the top marginal tax rate, the part of the federal code that asks prosperous Americans to support the country, is at its lowest rate since the Great Depression.

If you asked any president of the last 100 years for a reaction to this, they'd be shocked how far we've drifted. And if that diverse bunch could agree on ways to fund our troops, police and schools then, why can't we now?

Jeff Shaw is Director of Communications at the North Carolina Justice Center

In 1913, Alice Paul and friends organized the Suffrage Parade in Washington, DC. They were frustrated by slow, incremental progress in their fight to win the vote. On March 3, more than 5,000 suffragists hit the streets in support of a woman's right to vote. The Suffrage Parade was timed to coincide with Woodrow Wilson's Presidential inauguration. The suffragists wanted to send a clear message-they would hold Wilson accountable for women's suffrage.

Of course, there were many mainstream supporters of women's suffrage who discouraged demonstrations like the Suffrage Parade. These supporters clung to incremental change, believing that state by state, women would gain the right to vote. They didn't want to rock the boat and, of course, they didn't want to risk offending their friends in power.

More than ninety years later and we're still having the same debate. How much rocking do we do when our friends are captaining the boat? If this last year is any measure, it's time we start moving.

During the knock down, drag out fight for healthcare reform in this country, abortion was the only medical procedure purposefully carved out. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as the bill was ultimately named, marginalizes abortion care by forcing women who want a comprehensive health plan to write a separate check for abortion coverage.  In addition to signing new restrictions into law through healthcare reform, President Obama issued an Executive Order immediately following the bill signing that would keep in place all existing federal funding restrictions on abortion.

If this weren't enough, in July 2010, the President took the proactive step of issuing an abortion coverage ban in the newly created Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plans or high-risk pools. Part of healthcare reform, these plans are intended to insure those with pre-existing conditions by pooling them together to lessen the total cost of coverage. This means the most medically vulnerable women with pre-existing conditions like breast cancer or diabetes will not have access to comprehensive health care. These are the very women most likely to face health challenges related to a pregnancy. They deserve comprehensive care that includes abortion.

As bad as it all sounds, there were definite victories for women in healthcare reform. For many women, being able to cover their children until they reach the age of 26 is an immediate gain. Doing away with denying children health coverage because of pre-existing conditions is another win for mothers. Protecting access to essential community health care providers, many of whom are trusted and used primarily by women, was also a good thing.

Another potentially huge win for women was nestled inside the health care bill. The Women's Health Act, an amendment offered successfully by Senator Mikulski (D, Maryland), requires that health plans cover at no or low cost comprehensive care and screenings that address women's unique healthcare needs. The example given on the senate floor was breast cancer, which, of course, is not unique to women.

After passage of the bill, the administration released regulations stating that Pap smears would qualify for coverage under the Women's Health Act. Birth control, a uniquely female item for the most part, was not mentioned. Instead, an advisory panel has been created and instructed to decide if contraception should be considered preventive care.

It's tempting to suggest that the Federal government ask for assistance from the roughly 98% of women in the United States who will use birth control at some point in their lifetime. Likely, the majority of these women would say they used birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies, a condition unique to women.

But now we await a panel of experts to tell us that birth control is prevention and thus applicable for no or low cost coverage under the Women's Health Act.

Sixty-five percent of unmarried women voted for Obama in Election 2008. Fifty-seven percent of the pro-Obama vote came from women. Having birth control declared preventive sounds very much like incremental change.

It may have taken a while but Alice Paul and her friends did hold Woodrow Wilson accountable for suffrage. He was President when women won the vote.

It took 144 years after the founding of this country before women-representing more than half the population and having birthed the other half-won the right to vote. We can accept incremental change or maybe, just maybe, it's time to organize the next Suffrage Parade.

Paige Johnson is the Director of Public Affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina

At the same time, the combination of the recession, the Bush tax cuts, the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and government recovery efforts have driven the federal deficit to its largest share of the national economy since the Second World War.

In the midst of the prolonged jobs crisis and growing concerns about the national debt, Congress is set to begin debate on whether to extend the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003.  Both sides of the debate agree on extending the tax cuts for 98% of American households.  Where the two sides diverge is on whether to extend the tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000 per year and individuals with an annual income above $200,000.

The Treasury Department and Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that President Obama's proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest households would bring in almost $90 billion in additional revenue during the next two years and nearly $700 billion over the next ten years.

Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest households expire, thereby restoring the top two tax rates to the same levels as in the 1990s, represents a major opportunity for Congress to redirect those revenues towards investments that will promote much-needed job growth in the near-term and begin addressing the federal government's long-term deficits.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that extending the Bust tax cuts is the least effective of eleven strategies aimed at creating jobs.  According to the CBO's report, using the proceeds from allowing the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy to expire to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, temporarily reduce employers' payroll taxes, or extend federal aid to state and local governments would create three to seven times the number of jobs for each dollar spent during the next two years compared to extending all of the Bush tax cuts.  The difference is even more dramatic compared to just the tax cuts for the wealthiest, which the CBO states has the lowest impact on jobs among all part of the Bush tax cuts.

Government economists are not the only ones touting the benefits of targeted job growth strategies versus tax cuts for the wealthy:  Goldman Sachs recently revised its economic growth forecast downward to account for Congress wavering on whether to provide additional federal aid to struggling state governments.

Not only is letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire the right thing to do to spur job growth, it's also the right place to start addressing our nation's long-term deficits. 

Renewing the Bush income tax cuts for the wealthy is projected to add more than $1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.  Combined with extending President Bush's repeal of the estate tax, the total impact of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans will add an estimated $1.7 trillion to the debt between now and 2021-accounting for roughly one in every five dollars added to the national debt in the next ten years.

The impact of the Great Recession on our national and our personal finances requires that we make the smartest choices with the dwindling resources we have to invest.  It makes little sense to spend $90 billion over two years-more than $1 trillion over ten years-on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  Those dollars will not create jobs or boost our economy and will present further challenges for addressing our national debt. 

It's imperative that our members of Congress know that the citizens of North Carolina demand that our government make the right investments in the best interest of all North Carolinians, not just the privileged few.

Edwin McLenaghan is a policy analyst at the N.C. Budget & Tax Center

The North Carolina General Assembly is quiet once more as legislators have returned home following the busy 2010 short session. While the session saw the passage of some very important bills, one of the most important is Senate Bill 1015. This new law is particularly critical in addressing abusive real estate practices that have increased dramatically with home foreclosures and a worsening housing market.

The legislation, known as the "Homeowner and Homebuyer Protection Act," helps guard homeowners and buyers from abusive practices in transactions like "foreclosure rescue" agreements, "lease option" contracts, and "contract for deed" agreements.

In 2009, there were more than 63,000 foreclosure filings in North Carolina. Data from 2010 indicates that there will be more than 70,000 this year. This has led to an increase in scam artists who approach homeowners at risk of foreclosure with the promise (almost always false) that they will help them to keep the home.

In reality, these foreclosure rescue scams are designed to rob homeowners of any equity remaining in the home and transfer ownership of the home to the scam artist. For the unfortunate victim, this often results in homelessness.

Fortunately, North Carolina is now among a group of at least 22 states that have adopted legislation that prohibits or effectively regulates these abusive practices. As a result, law enforcement officials will now have stronger tools to crack down on these vultures.

Another similarly abusive practice involves targeting would-be home buyers with "lease option" contracts and "contract for deed" purchase agreements. In a lease option agreement, homeowners rent the property and pay extra for the option to buy the property at a later date. While these transactions can sometimes be legitimate, too often the "seller" knows the buyer will never qualify to buy the home and the seller is just milking the buyer for the payment of the option.

The "contract for deed" transactions can also be very abusive, with home buyers being told to pay a down payment and then monthly payments for 30 years — at which time they will be given the deed to the property. Too often the deed is never delivered after the buyer has paid thousands of dollars.

While threatening the economic well-being of our state, these unfair and unscrupulous uses of real estate transactions exploit and manipulate families struggling to pay a home loan and those who are having trouble obtaining a loan to purchase a home.

Fortunately, North Carolina lawmakers have acted by passing Senate Bill 1015, and the Governor has signed the bill. The bill creates valuable safeguards to homeowners and homebuyers.

It creates reasonable standards and protections for "lease option" agreements and "contracts for deed." It also prohibits the most abusive aspects of foreclosure rescue scams that gouge struggling families.

Most importantly, it will help protect the people of North Carolina who are investing in our common future by trying to secure the American Dream of homeownership.

This common-sense law builds a strong foundation for North Carolina's economic house and represents precisely the kind of law that we should expect from our elected officials. All of our state's families and communities will benefit.

Alfred Ripley is an attorney specializing in consumer protection at the North Carolina Justice Center

Americans' historical amnesia is stunning and dangerous. Many people become angry when the Obama administration keeps reminding them that it was the previous occupant of the White House who left the economy in near free fall. Certainly, it is now up to the current President and the Democrats in Congress (constantly battling Republican filibusters in the Senate) to get the economy back on track, but don't blame them for causing the problem in the first place.

A recent poll found that only one in every three people surveyed knows that the infamous bank bailout program (TARP) was passed under the Bush administration; nearly half of those queried gave the wrong answer that Obama had signed the legislation. And virtually no one seems to recall those dark days back in the fall of 2008 when Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson first floated the scheme, which provided for shoveling massive amounts of money into banks with absolutely no oversight or review. When Congress balked at the initial proposal, the markets plummeted, and even conservative Republicans felt forced to act. Many of these same reluctant legislators are paying the political price now, condemned by the very voters who two years ago screamed at them to do something, anything, to stop the economy from going over the edge.

If we are to understand what a real economic collapse looks like, we need to examine the Great Depression of the 1930s. But many Americans apparently slept through that subject in their history classes because they have no clue as to what that dark time can still teach us about the necessity for bold government action to pull a nation out of near paralysis.

In fact, today more Americans are pleading for the government to do less, even in the face of stubbornly high unemployment, because they have been misled into fear of the big deficit bogeyman. It is supremely ironic that the current obsession with deficits comes from the same conservatives who first hurtled towards record deficits ten years ago while giving massive tax breaks to the rich and fighting two wars off the books.

The current explosion in red ink is due mostly to those same tax cuts (which generated much speculation and few jobs), the same wars that go on without any clear goals, and spiraling health care costs. The United States certainly needs to control its deficits in the long term through a combination of reining in medical costs, restraining expensive military adventures, and targeting tax increases at speculation, stock churning, and windfall wealth accumulation. But drastic cuts in government spending in the next year or two, under the guise of smaller deficits, lower taxes, and "more freedom," hearken back to Herbert Hoover's failed policies in the teeth of market collapses and bank failures in 1930-32, and FDR's mis-engineered "Roosevelt Recession" of 1937-38.

Again, we ignore these historical precedents at our peril. If we slash federal spending in name of political pandering, we risk riding the economic roller coaster backward into a deeper morass; and the next drop in consumer confidence and spending may be even steeper.

It is true that the size of the current federal debt, on an annual and cumulative basis, seems to be mind boggling. Yet we must not forget still another piece of our history–we paid down another enormous debt after World War II by reinvesting in our people and our productive capacity as a nation. History's lessons are not always easily discerned or easily followed; but we need to keep our basic facts straight, remember what happened both yesterday and years ago, and learn from both the painful mistakes and the courageous achievements of those who have gone before us.

David Zonderman is a Professor of History at North Carolina State University.

What if there was a way to create jobs for North Carolina's working families now — and help everyone from kindergartners to adults changing careers get a high-quality education at the same time?

And what if this method had been proven to work for more than a century? What if it had drawn bipartisan endorsements from our most well-respected leaders? Finally, what if it could help maintain the public structures that create a robust middle class, the foundation of American prosperity?

We're all in luck. We have just such a method. It's called the estate tax.

The estate tax is our fairest tax, a levy on wealth rather than work. It affects less than one-quarter of one-percent of households, but it creates opportunities for the vast majority of Americans.

Making estate tax policy is one of the two most important economic tasks Congress faces in the coming weeks. We have to make sure our legislators understand that if we want economic growth and jobs, we have to take advantage of this proven strategy.

The estate tax was instituted by Teddy Roosevelt with the stated rationale to "break up the swollen fortunes of the rich." These days, that kind of talk might get you called a socialist. Back then - and indeed, through most of our country's history - it was understood that America works best with a strong middle class.

At a time when the deficit is ballooning and the middle class is struggling, the estate tax can ride to our fiscal rescue for three reasons: it's fair; it will help us fix the deficit; and it will provide fuel for the engine of North Carolina's economic prosperity, our state's middle class.

IT'S FAIR

No estate worth less than $7 million - or $3.5 million if it's owned by an individual, not a family — is subject to the estate tax.

That's why more than 99.7 percent of estates are exempt, and why only 379 of the North Carolinians who died in 2009 owed any estate tax at all. Yet the revenue that tiny number of estates provided sent thousands of kids to school and kept numerous corrections officers employed making our streets safer.

Those extremely rare estates that are subject to the tax are taxed at extremely low rates - on average less than 20 percent, which is far less than what most Americans pay in income tax. This isn't a soak-the-rich effort: it's a common-sense economic strategy.

IT HELPS STEM THE DEFICIT

For all the talk of spending, it's tax expenditures - rolling back fair and successful established tax policies - that represent a far greater cause of the deficit.

The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which did nothing to stimulate the economy, will add over $1 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. These types of tax expenditures are nothing if not deficit-exploding policies.

The Bush tax cuts are a wrecking ball that will devastate our nation's financial house if not allowed to expire on schedule.

The estate tax, by contrast, is an essential building block in that financial house. Eliminating the federal estate tax would add $1 trillion to the federal debt over the next 10 years.

If Congress does the right thing on both policies, we can swiftly add a $2 trillion positive swing to our nation's balance sheet.

IT CREATES OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL

Supporting the public structures that protect the middle class — public schools and college loan programs, roads and infrastructure that help business and create jobs - paves the way for economic growth and prosperity for everyone.

Without a federal estate tax, North Carolina would lose more than $85 million each year. What could we do with that money here in our state? A few examples:

• Create 2,500 jobs through a small-business job creation grant program
• Extend health insurance to almost 36,000 low-income children through NC Health Choice
• Train 5,666 students for new jobs in high-demand occupations via our community college system
• Provide more than 14,000 slots of high-quality pre-kindergarten for children from low-income households
• Employ almost 1,600 teachers

These public structures create opportunities for North Carolina's citizens - opportunities that help them create better lives for themselves, their children, and all of us.

Republican president Teddy Roosevelt said in signing the estate tax bill that there was no benefit in hoarding opportunity for the few - but great benefit in spreading prosperity. It was good policy a century ago. It's even more badly needed now.

Jeff Shaw is Director of Communications at the North Carolina Justice Center

How do we know when such a moment is upon us? First, the extreme elements in support of inequality resort to violence over rational conversation. Second, fair-minded people who once tolerated the discrimination are aroused from their slumber and start to advocate for a just solution. Finally, the last gasp is when people will abandon their principles in order to hang on to the privileges they have enjoyed and are loathe to allow others to share in them.

We have seen this pattern before in our history. When the forces of intolerance turned fire hoses on civil rights marchers, including children, the images shocked many Americans. Suddenly the lengths that the extremists were willing to go to defend segregation were no longer tolerable for many people. Those who had sat idly by while the bigotry went unchecked generation after generation finally found their voice and their conscience.

Now the pattern returns in the push for equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans. The violence and threat of violence the GLBT community lives with daily is one of the most underreported stories of our time. As a pastoral counselor whose practice is largely made up of GLBT individuals, I hear regularly the toll this violence takes. The necessity of hiding their sexuality in order to be safe, or to hold on to a job, or to keep their family or church from rejecting them is a regular thread in my clients' stories. Millions of GLBT Americans live in a state of constant alert out of fear for what they will suffer or lose if their sexuality is discovered.

Slowly, though, some straight people are realizing the pain being caused by the legal discrimination against their GLBT friends and family members. The most dramatic example of this awakening is Ted Olson.

Olson was solicitor general under President George W. Bush who successfully argued before the Supreme Court that the recount in Florida should stop after the 2000 presidential election debacle. Now Olson has teamed up with David Boies (the losing attorney in the infamous Bush v. Gore case) to try and overturn California's Proposition 8 and establish a constitutional right for same-sex marriage.

Many conservatives are surprised that this darling of the Republican Party would align himself with advocates for same-sex marriage, but Olson argues he is just being consistent in his principles. In an Op-ed piece published in Newsweek earlier this year, Olson made this case in response to the criticisms he is receiving from those in his own party:

"Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize….We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities….It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it."

Olson's conscience and his commitment to his basic political principles caused him to take this stance. Yet, for those determined to prevent marriage equality from becoming the law of the land, they are willing to abandon their principles if need be. In response to Judge Tauro's ruling, conservative commentators have argued that the states have no right to determine who can legally marry. Yes, you know you have stepped through the looking glass when ultra-conservatives are demanding that the federal government flex its power and overrule a state's attempt at self-determination.

What do these signs suggest about the future of marriage equality in the United States? Now that it is clear there are no sound constitutional arguments to deny millions of GLBT Americans the right to marry someone of the same gender, the only question is how much more violence and tortured reasoning must we endure as the forces of intolerance defend the discriminatory status quo. If Judge Tauro and Ted Olson are any indication, perhaps it may not be much.

Jack McKinney is the former Pastor at Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh and is now in private practice as a pastoral counselor.

Protecting these critical public investments is the key to a strong middle class, a high quality of life and shared prosperity. The question on all our minds: in the face of a deep economic crisis, how can we best make sure this happens?
 
We're all in this together. Both state and federal policymakers have a role to play. Now that North Carolina's budget is complete, it's time for the national government to address this national crisis. That means badly-needed fiscal relief for states.

Congress took a step in the right direction recently, finally passing an extension of unemployment benefits. Not only will this help millions of people across the country - and hundreds of thousands of jobless North Carolinians - it will push our economy closer toward recovery.

Putting money in the pockets of struggling families is a quick, effective and common-sense method to stimulate the economy. When people can pay rent and buy groceries, that creates and preserves jobs in our communities.

A study last year found that unemployment benefits helped boost the economy in every single one of North Carolina's counties, bringing billions of dollars into the state. Extending those benefits, albeit belatedly, will provide fuel for our state's economic engine.

Unfortunately, Congress chose to ignore one cost-effective way to stimulate state economies: fully supply states with Federal Medical Assistance Percentage funds. These matching funds for certain state social service, medical and medical insurance expenditures are desperately needed - and would have done immediate good in our communities.

National leaders have to find a new way to stimulate North Carolina's economy. Our state's economic crisis was not inevitable. At the national level, financial regulations that protected us for years were stripped away. This enabled casino-style Wall Street gambling to play games of chance with our economic future. We - all of us - lost those games.

At the state level, for years, we've known that reforming our outdated revenue system was necessary. The revenue crisis North Carolina has suffered hopefully serves as a wake-up call that we need fair, sustainable tax policies that support local small business and our state's middle class.

Soon, we will have to work toward sensible tax reform. For now, it's vital that we work together - on both the state and federal levels - to build a strong economic foundation. That means keeping teachers, police and firefighters employed, and keeping key public services in place.

Our state's residents have experienced the economic crisis in different ways - unemployment and underemployment, home foreclosures, and an inability to afford basic necessities. Unless we maintain public services that are the foundation for a strong economy, we will be unable to help all of those in our state have a more secure future.

These services benefit all of us, just as the national recession has hurt all of us. A national problem requires a national solution. Now is the time for our federal lawmakers to take the next step to infuse states with capital.

The federal government is in a unique position to step in to protect and support the essential public structures currently under siege. Such support will protect millions of jobs nationwide, speed up economic recovery, and secure the public systems essential to our economic future.

The country we all want to live in has strong communities with safe streets, excellent schools, and thriving businesses. If we preserve the public systems that pave the way to our economic future, we can get there together. The first step on that road is federal fiscal assistance to states.

Jeff Shaw is the Director of Communications at the North Carolina Justice Center