[energetic upbeat music] - [Kelly] The State House and Senate continue negotiations on a final budget bill.

Could permit-free concealed carry of firearms soon be legal in North Carolina?

And the President visits Fort Bragg.

This is "State Lines."

[energetic upbeat music] - [Announcer] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.

[energetic upbeat music] ♪ - Hello again.

Welcome back to "State Lines."

I'm Kelly McCullen.

Exciting week this week.

Joining me, Billy Ball of "Cardinal & Pine."

Good to see you again, Billy.

- Good to see you.

- [Kelly] Hope Summer's treating you well.

- Oh, I'm excited about it.

- [Kelly] Representative Sarah Crawford of Wake County's here.

Representative, always good to have you back.

- Great to be here.

- [Kelly] We have a debut to your right.

Representative David Willis of Union County Debut.

Welcome to "State Lines," sir.

- Thank you.

Honored to be here with you.

- Shake off the nerves.

We've got a half hour of chat.

And Mitch Kokai on the end of the John Locke Foundation.

Always our good friend.

Years now, we've been doing this, and always good to have you.

Always something new with you.

- It seems like months.

[panel laughing] Well, let's talk about the budget.

Think about what seems like months might feel like years as well.

The budget year ends June 30th.

Negotiations on a new budget bill seem to be ongoing this week.

Pretty quiet, I would say.

House and Senate budget negotiators disagree over the speed of income tax cuts in the coming years.

Past budget bills had outlined a multi-year tax reduction schedule.

Now, House budget writers propose measuring state revenues, hit some goals before personal income tax rates drop below 3.99%, which is where they're headed, and requires those revenue goals be met before any tax drop at the personal income tax level.

And it's a contentious point, Mitch.

It is complicated.

Tax rates will go down for personal income taxes.

Whether or not that's in the deal, we're talking years from now, a couple years from now, right?

- Yeah, that's right.

It's important to note that this year, the tax rate falls to 4 1/4%, and then next year, regardless of what happens elsewhere, just under 4%, 3.99.

And then what gets complicated is what happens after that.

Under the current law, if nothing else changes, there are three potential additional tax cuts based on the revenue.

There are revenue targets that are spelled out in state law.

If the state meets those targets, these revenue triggers are hit, and the tax rate goes down again.

So there are three potential tax cuts beyond the 3.99 already baked into the cake.

What the Senate wants to do in its budget plan is get rid of the triggers for a couple of those additional tax cuts and to actually put them in.

In 2027 and 2028, cut tax rates again, and then throw in triggers so that the tax rate could fall eventually in not too many years below 2%, so less than half of where we are now.

The House plan takes a different approach.

They basically say, "All right, these revenue triggers that we have in there now, we're not really sure that's where they should be, so we're gonna raise the revenue targets."

And in the first year, it's about 10%, and in additional years, it's double digits in each case.

So while the House is pushing this as saying, "Look, you know, we wanna make sure we don't get out beyond our skis, don't have the situation where we don't have enough money, and we have to make cuts or raise taxes later."

The Senate heard that House plan and basically said, "They wanna raise taxes."

Senators themselves and groups aligned with the Senate came out and basically said, "The House is calling for a tax increase.

This is going against everything we've done for a decade."

And once that happened, a lot of people stepped back and said, "This budget's not gonna be finished anytime soon."

And I think our House colleagues might be able to tell us whether they think it's gonna happen anytime soon.

- Representative Willis, you've heard from Professor Kokai, do we send tuition his way?

How accurately did he frame what's going on here?

Triggers of revenue, meet revenue goals before tax cuts take effect versus just cut taxes and let the, was it trickle down economics, take effect.

- That's right.

- You know, I think Mitch nailed it.

I mean it's really just about kitchen table economics and every taxpayer in North Carolina has to sit down and look at their budget, what their expenses are and live within their means.

And that's what we're trying to do.

We're trying to continue these tax cuts and let me focus on that again.

'Cause these are tax cuts.

No one is in more favor of these tax cuts than us, but we've got revenue numbers that we have to meet to be able to pay for the services for education, for infrastructure, for law enforcement, for our courts.

I mean, everything that we're responsible for across the state, we wanna be able to pay for responsibly and fiscally responsibly, but also meet those tax cuts at the same time.

And so that's the goal of what we're trying to do.

And we would love to see those tax cuts get hit tomorrow to where we can reduce them for every North Carolina citizen.

We think they do better with the money than we do, but at the same time, we've got responsibilities that we have to meet and we have to pay for.

- Representative Crawford from the Democratic side.

Watching these Republicans fight back and forth.

And some of the Senate Republicans think that Governor Stein's in there just kind of poking both sides, starting a fight between two dogs, not his own.

- Well, look, I have offered, I just want everybody to know, I have offered every single year that I've been in the General Assembly to come in and help work on these budget negotiations.

Nobody's taken me up on it yet, so I'm still waiting for that invitation.

But look, I think what the House did, what we did in the House, and I voted for the House version of the budget, I think is a step in the right direction towards fiscal responsibility.

We have 350 people moving into the state of North Carolina every day, and they are going to need to rely on all of the infrastructure that you heard from Representative Willis.

They're going to need to rely on services that the state provides, and we've gotta figure out how to pay for it somehow.

And so I think taking a deep knee bend on these tax cuts, delaying them a little bit, making sure that we have what we need.

It's the same thing you would do in your own household.

- Billy, Senate Republicans do have a point.

They've been cutting taxes with the House all these years, and every year, even through some rough times, revenues are higher and taxes are lower and more business is flowing in.

So which side of the gamble are you taking on this?

- I think the House side, what is interesting to me is that there is some acknowledgement of the, we aren't as bullish about the economy perhaps as we were some years ago.

And there's some realism in this.

And I think, I also find it very interesting that you've got right here a House Democrat and a House Republican who are voting for the same budget, which I haven't seen a whole lot of over the years.

I think it's interesting that we're, Speaker Hall talked about finishing this budget up in June.

I don't know how realistic that is, but we've talked about this in years where the main question was, does this happen before Thanksgiving?

Not any time in the summer.

So I think it's interesting, some people, they sort of glaze over when we talk about budgets.

But I tell our readers all the time that budgets are the clearest possible indicator of how your leaders prioritize various things.

And I think you see in this budget, one big thing is the things that are in there for teacher pay and master's pay for educators in this state.

And this has been a real crisis in our education system for some time keeping educators in here.

I see the House acknowledging that in this budget.

- Very quickly Representative Crawford, what was it about the Republican bill that at least got one vote I from so many, from over half the Democratic-- Yeah, I think-- - And there's no flack coming your way.

They're not attacking you at the party level over this, are they?

- No, there's about 27 Democrats I think voted for the House budget.

27 outta 49.

And I think it was really us wanting to show that we appreciated the fiscal responsibility.

Look, it's not the budget I would've written.

It still has a taxpayer funded private school vouchers, which I don't agree with.

It eliminates the Medicaid contingency fund, but it does a lot of other good things.

You heard about the teacher pay increases, that's important.

It's got a lot of money in there for childcare.

We both serve on the Early Childhood Task Force.

And so some really important priorities in there as well as fiscal responsibility.

- All right, let's get a little more partisan on this next topic.

State House and Senate have approved legislation to allow legal concealed carry of firearms in North Carolina.

29 other US states currently allowed citizens permit free possession of concealed firearms unless a person has committed crimes that disqualify them from gun ownership.

Democrats have unanimously opposed this bill in North Carolina.

So Billy, let's just say veto override battle looms.

I would think Mr. Stein would step in here, but I'm not here to make the news.

Just articulate it.

- I think that's a safe assumption.

America is so unique on guns.

If I can go big picture for just a second.

We respond differently on gun stories than so many other countries do.

And as we're talking about North Carolina becoming the 30th state here with this elimination of the concealed carry permit, I think a lot of people are not in the general public looking to loosen gun laws, but you see leaders who are doing that.

One of the things that I keep hearing from the readers at Cardinal & Pine, and I think this bears out, and I saw the polling that Meredith did earlier about concealed carry, was a lot of concern about this legislation allowing teenagers to have concealed weapons, and elimination of the training requirement.

I don't think there are a lot of people in this country who are asking for those things.

Other, these are very ideological steps that some people don't view as very practical.

- Mitch, following this over the years, I mean, people in North Carolina will make this seem like it's both a radical idea and the most common sense idea, both at the same time, depending on which outlet you choose.

However, I was caught by 29 other states have already done this, and the world hasn't ended.

So what gives with concealed carry without a permit?

- Well, one of the interesting things that sort of clouds this debate is some of the language that's used.

And it's sometimes you hear this described as constitutional carry because it's your constitutional right.

Sometimes it's described as permitless carry.

And I think that confuses some people about it because there's some people who might otherwise think, okay, that you should be able to carry the gun.

But they think, but you have to be able to go through some sort of process to get the gun.

So if it's permitless carry, that doesn't mean just anyone goes and buys a gun.

You still go through all of the federal background checks that would take place.

It's just you don't get that permit from that county sheriff and have to go through that process.

And so I think that helps cloud the debate.

But as you say it, people who are wary about guns don't like loosening the gun rules.

People who think the Second Amendment is the most important right, think that you should be able to carry a gun unless there are certain reasons why you shouldn't, but otherwise you should be free to do it.

And so that's why you see a pretty good partisan split on this.

- And there were a fair number of Republicans who didn't vote.

Some were not in this chamber.

So we've not had a full chamber vote on concealed carry, I do not believe statistically.

But on this issue to the point, a lot of people like Second Amendment rights, including Democrats.

But they'll say, well, what about teenagers?

So how do we thread through this issue to find that right balance of protecting the Constitution and our rights versus safety?

- Well, I think as you said it, 29 other states already have this law enacted and it hasn't been the end of the world for those states.

And looking at the Constitution, I don't see any line in there that says based on government approval for gun ownership.

And so I think if we're gonna ask our 18 Year-olds, they go off and fight in wars and do other things and give them the right to vote and that they shouldn't have the same rights for their ability to bear arms.

And so, I don't think, the government should be able to step in and limit that constitutional right.

- Representative Crawford, this is gun issue.

If I go back to my home county, which is rural Eastern North Carolina, even the Democrats gonna have a different opinion of gun ownership, be much more gun-friendly.

But you move to the city in Raleigh and all that, it's a little bit different philosophy and I've never seen that bridge gap.

Will it ever happen, or you just give up on this one and move forward?

- Well, first of all, I don't think we can give up on this issue and making sure that our community stays safe.

I'm a concealed carry permit holder, I'm a gun owner and I used to be a competitive shooter.

So, I don't have any interest in trying to take people's guns away.

I can fully appreciate the right to bear arms and folks really deeply rooted belief in the Second Amendment.

But what that doesn't mean, is making our communities less safe.

And the states where we have less strict gun laws, have more deaths, like by double digits.

And permitless equals perilous in this case.

So, states that have done this, have seen a 29% increase in violent crimes.

And this just isn't a good idea.

Background checks matter, training matters and we have to keep all that intact.

The system we've had, has been working just fine.

- And if I can add one thing, this idea of whether the world has ended, because these laws are in place in other states.

Guns are a leading cause of death for children in America.

And that's not normal when you look at the world.

When you want to talk about American exceptionalism, we are exceptional in a way we don't want to be, in a stat, we don't want to be on this.

So, I'm not sure who's asking that we put more of them in the hands of, in this case, potentially teenagers.

- Mitch, if Republicans take a walk on this bill on a veto override in the coming weeks, particularly in the House, are there enough rural Democrats out there that might flip?

- Well, I think that would be an interesting question.

It's also something we haven't yet seen, is how do the Democratic Caucuses and the House and Senate respond to a new governor?

We know that Governor Cooper was pretty good about saying, "Don't vote against me on a veto override," and getting the House and Senate Democrats to stick with him.

It'll be interesting to see whether that holds true also with Governor Stein.

We know he has some of the same muscle behind him in case they do wanna say, "We're gonna get you if you don't back us."

- In a case where federal policies are coming home to us here in North Carolina, President Donald Trump says, "Governors are best positioned to lead disaster recovery efforts for their respective states, maybe not FEMA."

The Trump administration expects to phase out FEMA following the 2025 hurricane season and then, start dispersing disaster recovery funds through the president's office.

President Trump suggests, future disaster recovery funding payouts, might actually be less.

But that states would directly receive funding.

FEMA staffing is reportedly down an estimated 10% already in 2025 and could be 30% smaller by years in Representative Crawford.

Well, let's set the table.

It's easy to go anti-Trump and pro-Trump.

But I've seen our governor talk about he's the chief executive, he's arguing that in court.

He's gonna be the chief executive over disaster recovery if President Trump gets his way.

And that's a lot of money and responsibility on Mr. Stein.

- Well, look, what I think is interesting here, is that President Trump says, "Governor should be in charge of natural disasters, but not in charge of the National Guard."

And that's what's really interesting as about what's happened this week.

So, getting rid of FEMA is a really irresponsible idea.

FEMA provides scale.

We saw that in North Carolina.

Disasters don't know state line.

They come and they hit multiple states, some across the coast.

Certainly, we've seen that here in North Carolina.

We saw it with Hurricane Helene last fall.

And FEMA provides the kind of scale that states just aren't set up to do.

Most states don't have that kind of infrastructure.

FEMA provides an infusion of money.

They provide coordination of all of those different actors that come in and provide the help and they play a really vital role in helping communities recover.

I mean, we have $59 billion of damage in the western part of North Carolina.

We had 12,000 residents displaced and over a hundred deaths and as governors are handling the disasters, but they can't do it alone and that's where FEMA comes in, provides that expertise, provides that critical infrastructure so that states can begin recovery.

- Representative Willis, interesting point, people do like FEMA in their communities, or the concept of having FEMA experience on the ground.

However, I will say I've heard praise of state leaders, I've heard bipartisan praise of Mr. Stein's effort and then Joe Biden liked what was going on, the early steps, and then Donald Trump, of course, comes in and says it was the wrong path.

What to make a FEMA?

Even if you're a conservative voter.

- Well, I'd say if you've heard positives about FEMA in Western North Carolina, I'd challenge you to show and bring some of those folks on your show to talk about that because everything that we've heard, I mean, president Trump, our delegation from North Carolina did a fantastic job trying to get us the resources that we need and it was weeks before FEMA hit the ground in North Carolina and they came in and just disrupted the process that was already in place, recovery, you had folks that were out there doing flights and recovery flights, we had folks on mules and horses and ATVs getting across to folks that were trapped and had been cut off from access for the bridges and whatever else and, you know, all this just got shut down immediately and then they had to restart everything.

And so, it was just an entire disaster.

We saw trucks being rerouted while folks were standing in line waiting for water.

I mean, it's just, you know, it was a tremendous disaster, no pun intended, just from a recovery perspective.

I mean, you know, starting with Governor Cooper and the failed response from his office.

I will give Governor Stein some credit for having improved significantly on that.

But, you know, it was a disaster from a recovery perspective from the beginning and the number of storms that we've had in North Carolina over the years and going back several hurricanes in eastern North Carolina, there's still folks working through getting FEMA housing and other things.

I mean, the FEMA has failed North Carolina time and time again and I believe and I trust in the people in North Carolina to get it right.

- You think the state could run a $27 billion cleanup better than the Feds, offering assistance, plus the cash, get rid of the people and add the money.

- Absolutely.

- Well, Mitch, what do you think of this issue?

This is a fundamental change in how we handle disasters.

If one comes through, there could be no FEMA.

There could be billions though and does your group trust the state to handle that much cash?

I mean, Swannanoa had, like, what, a $27 million shower and a laundry facility.

- Yeah, it costs what?

$220 a load of laundry.

Yes, several key points on this.

First of all, this is something that President Trump has said, whether it's something that President Trump could actually do is another question.

I mean, I don't think a president set up FEMA.

If Congress set up FEMA, Congress is probably the organization that would decide whether it's gonna go away or not.

But when it comes to FEMA and its ultimate role moving forward, they're really two big issues.

One is both the expertise, but also the bureaucracy and the snafus.

We heard about both.

So you have some national expertise that can help, especially in states, not North Carolina, but states that don't really have disasters as much 'cause we have 'em all the time and so we have the infrastructure to deal with disasters, but you also have the bureaucratic snafus, which slow things down, you have, in a state like North Carolina, we know we gotta get this thing going, but we can't spend any money yet 'cause we're not sure what FEMA's gonna allow us to spend and how long we're gonna have to wait till they tell us.

So there's that.

There's that issue.

And then I think another issue is, if you had a change, and there's no FEMA, what is that gonna mean for the money?

Because right now the federal government will say, "Okay, we're gonna give you this money, "but you get the federal oversight."

If the federal oversight goes away, do we have a situation, as you alluded to earlier, when it's less money, and so the state might have more responsibility but getting less federal money.

So it might be an interesting trade off.

- Billy, the timing is right or wrong for this debate depending on which side of the ledger you're on.

North Carolina, by all measures, if we're talking partisan politics, that's what this show does, people like the state response.

Now there's people in the West that are furious with certain aspects of it.

I'm not going to diminish their opinion.

- Yeah.

- However, politically people are proud of what's happened so far and with the cleanup.

So that does justify getting rid of FEMA because North Carolina can do it better.

- Now is as appropriate a time as ever to be talking about this, and, you know, here in North Carolina, we have seen a lot of quote, "once-in-a-generation type disasters" from storms in recent years, and I think there's every reason to believe that we're gonna continue to see more storms like that.

The science of climate change is very clear on this point, and whether you believe in climate change or not, it doesn't matter.

Science doesn't care whether you believe it or not for it to happen.

So I think now is as good a time as any.

I will say, you know, I spoke to people in Western North Carolina who aren't happy with FEMA.

I spoke to people who were happy with FEMA.

There are different experiences with this, and no disaster recovery is perfect especially in as difficult a situation as this.

I think the most important thing here is we're talking about two separate things: responsibility over who runs the disaster, and funding, and I don't think there's any reason to believe that we've gotten a guarantee that the federal government is going to provide the money that is necessary to do this to the states.

I think there's a bigger question.

If the state has all the money they need from the federal government, and Trump's administration has already turned down North Carolina on a few funding requests for this, so I don't think you can be guaranteed that you're gonna get all the money you need out of the feds.

- Yeah, and I'll just add to some of the points that have already been made.

I think there's no doubt that there are things that could be reformed in FEMA, but completely axing it is not the right course to take here.

I think there have been some really interesting ideas over the last decade about how we can make some changes to FEMA, and that's, quite frankly, gonna take some time to do.

- Take Congressman Edwards, Chuck Edwards out of the West.

You know, he's as conservative as it gets, and he recommended changes to FEMA but not elimination, at least not yet.

We'll see what would happen on a vote.

Final topic.

Let's talk about these ICE bills.

Republicans passed two of them this week at the state level.

They're sitting on Governor Stein's desk to sign, ignore, or veto as we record this show.

Senate Bill 153 requires local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration officials, blocks public universities from obstructing federal immigration officials.

The second bill's House Bill 318 we discussed last week.

Expands an immigration bill passed in 2024 to subject more criminal suspects and alleged impaired drivers to immigration checks.

Mitch, in the bubble, they are protesting or rioting in LA over immigration.

The state's coming in with its own bills.

There's promises of a No Kings thing, activity up on the boulevard in Raleigh.

This is getting hotter by the minute it seems.

- It really is and largely because of the national perspective, Donald Trump and his immigration policies, and that has sparked a not necessarily grassroots effort to attack what's happening with the Trump administration.

But we see that trickling down to what's happening in North Carolina.

And I think you could say separately, the general assembly is also dealing with this issue 'cause these are the types of things our general assembly's been talking about, even before Donald Trump came back, making sure that sheriffs and other law enforcement officials cooperate with ICE, making sure that illegal immigrants who cause crimes beyond just the crime of being here illegally don't get to stay in North Carolina.

So they are coalescing into an issue that is in the national spotlight.

And now in the spotlight here in Raleigh and in others parts across the state.

- Representative Crawford, how is the national debate now, just in just a week, how has it affected the state level and even the local level now with these protests coming in?

- Yeah, well, I mean, I think you're seeing that response.

You're seeing your Governor Stein is certainly talking about these bills.

I, we don't know what he's gonna do in terms of signing it, letting it become law or vetoing the bill.

But we're also seeing these local protests that are, are poised to happen across the state, across the country this weekend.

But, you know, I think it's important to note, while ICE is nothing new, I mean, this agency has been around for quite some time, but President Trump is really the only president who has aggressively used ICE to come in and police immigration in our local communities in this way.

And quite frankly, that just breaks down local trust and creates fear instead of safety.

- Representative Willis, President Trump said he was elected to do this and now, but now with President Trump's actions, does it lessen the need for House and Senate Republicans at the state level to pursue further immigration bills?

Is are the feds doing what they need to do from your caucus perspective?

- I think they're doing a great job at the federal level, but you know, the end of the day it comes back to public safety for us in North Carolina.

I mean, we see what's happening in California and nobody wants that here in North Carolina.

And, and as Mitch said, I mean, we're talking about criminals, not folks who have just come over and are working or, you know, and trying to do the right thing here.

It it, these are folks who have been arrested and have taken in for some serious crimes and a lot of times we're talking about public safety, whether it's, you know, you know, violence against women, violence against children, gangs, other things and so, I mean, we're trying to keep our streets safe.

And the folks that just came over and, you know, were pouring in under President Biden, those folks need to be removed.

- Five seconds.

I would say that it's clear from immigration policing that, that ICE has not just been going after hardened criminals you've got people who are here as workers.

- Gotta go, thank you email us statelines@pbsinc.org and share your thoughts with me.

I'm Kelly McCullen.

I'll see you next time.

[upbeat music] - [Narrator] Quality public television is made possible through the financial contributions of viewers like you who invite you to join them in supporting PBS NC.