Did something other than sight-see in Denmark

I was lucky to spend today attending a workshop on “Health, Work and the Workplace” at the Aarhus School of Business (academic economists use an odd definition of "lucky").

Besides the opportunity to interact with lots of researchers with similar interests, there was an opportunity to hear about some fantastic data that are available to Danish researchers. In particular, social scientists are Aarhus University have access to survey data sets with personal identifiers that can be linked to social registry data on jobs, social insurance, and even health care utilization.

The conference featured several studies that linked survey data on perceptions of work conditions, such as exposure to physical and health hazards, workplace policies, work schedules, job satisfaction, supervisor practices, and the like, with more objective information on earnings and job turnover as well as long-term information on these outcomes. Several papers showed how bad work conditions and practices were associated with worse health outcomes for employees. Another paper showed how some of those policies hurt companies by increasing turnover. Although the emphasis was on how health worked through and was affected by these workplace conditions, it’s easy to imagine lots of additional research that could be done.

All of the research focused on outcomes in developed economies in Europe and the U.S. These countries all feature relatively strong protections for workers’ health. In the case of the European countries, workers also had fairly uniform access to quality health care. Despite these protections and supports, there was still consistent evidence throughout many of the papers that certain types of working conditions, such as holding a job with high physical demands, being exposed to job insecurity, and even having to work for a “toxic” boss, takes its toll on people’s physical and psychological health.

At this point, the research seems best poised to help us refine our understanding of how health and work outcomes are determined, borrowing insights from two related fields. It is also likely to help us understand the possible consequences of work intensification at jobs as employers downsize, “rightsize,” and shift more risks to workers. These policies may have immediate benefits for employers’ bottom lines, but the research at the conference suggests that they may be costly in the long run. Worse, these costs may be external to firms and may appear years after firms take certain actions, giving the firms few incentives to mitigate them.

We already know that economic outcomes for many workers have deteriorated over the last decade and especially through the Great Recession. Regrettably, the results from the workshop suggest an additional mechanism by which workers may have been made worse off by employer restructuring.

Dave's descent into Danish darkness

Fate (and an invitation to talk about some research on the health of workers in different occupations) has brought me to Denmark, a verdant land of wind turbines, excellent rail service, universal health care, tradable carbon permits, labor protections, restricted store hours, and one of the highest tax burdens on the planet -- in other words the nightmare vision of the Republicans/Tea Party.

According to their fevered prognostications, this country should be a hollowed-out, post-apocalyptic wasteland. Then again, according to some other fevered prognostications, yesterday was the day to cash in those Groupons for the Rapture.

A job-killing, death-panel-induced, government-hands-all-over-my-Medicare, theft-posing-as-taxation calamity may yet befall the Danish economy. For now, however, there's little that's rotten here. Despite the recent global recession, the country remains prosperous with an unemployment rate of 5.9 percent and a per-capita gross national income that is only slightly less than that of the US on a PPI-adjusted basis (and 25% higher than that of the US on an exchange-rate basis).

Aside from a couple of cranky infants in a coffee shop, the Danes that I have encountered have been happy and smiling. Maybe they're just getting the last laugh.

My two cents on NC Republicans' efforts to curtail early voting

Given the enormous shortfall in North Carolina's state and local government budgets, some very tough decisions need to be made. Republicans in the General Assembly are arguing that one of these decisions may involve the availability of early voting.

The Charlotte Observer reports about a contentious vote in the General Assembly to reduce early voting.

On a largely party line vote Thursday, the N.C. House tentatively passed a bill that would cut North Carolina's early voting period almost in half.

Republican supporters said cutting the 2 1/2-week period by a week would save money for local governments and for candidates.

Critics said it would reduce turnout, particularly among African-Americans.

"Whether intentional or not, the effect of this measure will be disenfranchisement," state Rep. Kelly Alexander, a Charlotte Democrat, said during the debate. "It will suppress the vote."

Calling this disenfranchisement is far too strong. However, the shorter voting period will almost certainly reduce turnout and have the largest effect on poor, and especially working poor, households.

The expected reduction in voting follows from a simple economic model of the "demand" for voting. In the economic model, people value voting but also value all the other goods that they can possibly consume. People face trade-offs between voting and the consumption of other goods, as the time and effort required to vote reduces the resources available for other things. Thus, voting has a cost, or price. The predictions from the model are the same as those from a standard demand equation. Increases in the price of the good (voting) and decreases in people's resources cause the demand for the good (voting) to fall.

A shorter early voting period makes voting less convenient, effectively raising the price of this good. Lower incomes mean that poor people would already be close to the margin of not voting, so the change in availability/price would be expected to affect them more. Inflexible work schedules and limited transportation options might also mean that the poor would also face higher initial costs voting, again putting them closer to the margin of not voting.

Republicans argue that the effects won't be large. Polls would still be open on election day; mail-in ballots could still be cast, and 11 days of early voting would still be available. Thus, it's an open question as to how much voting would be reduced--that is, how much benefit there is from early voting.

We do know, however, that the costs of offering early voting are extraordinarily low.

In 2010, North Carolina's 100 counties operated 297 one-stop early voting sites, with every county operating at least one site but with many operating multiple sites. Not every site operated through the entire early voting period. Counties tended to operate more sites closer to the election.

A review of the schedules shows that counties offered a total of 1,104 "site days" during the first week of voting in 2010. The NCGA Fiscal Research Division (FRD) estimates that each site cost $389 per day to operate. Using this figure, the average county spent just $4,295 (or $429,500 across the entire state) to accommodate the first week of early voting. Divided among the state's 9.6 million residents, the cost of operating the sites was less than a nickel per person--literally pennies.

It should be further noted that the counties themselves didn't bear all of this cost. Local boards of election can obtain reimbursement from the federal government for the costs of operating these sites. The FRD reports that 59 counties had their costs reimbursed.

Voting is a fundamental right. While it's hard to place an exact value on how much early voting contributes toward extending this right, it seems that it would be worth at least a nickel.

Callous gamesmanship from NC Republicans continues

North Carolinians old enough to remember the National Lampoon and its iconic 1973 "if you don't buy this magazine; we'll kill this dog" cover are getting a chance to watch a real-life replay, involving Republicans holding long-term jobless benefits hostage to unrelated budget demands.

The News & Record reports,

No end appears in sight for a stalemate that's held hostage extended unemployment benefits for North Carolina's long-term jobless for nearly a month, state legislative leaders said today.

Senate leader Phil Berger, an Eden Republican, said the General Assembly's Republican leaders are waiting for Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue to propose a compromise.

Perdue vetoed the GOP proposal to extend the benefits only if the governor accepts double-digit cuts before budget negotiations begin in earnest. Perdue called the linkage "extortion." Republican leaders said they wanted to ease questions about continued state funding in case a budget deal isn't reached by the time the next fiscal year starts in July.

..."What I am telling people is the Senate and the House have passed a bill that extends those benefits. We think the question is: what has the governor done other than say, 'Do it my way. That's the only way that I'll accept.'" Berger said. "I would hope that either the governor would modify her position or tell us what it would take to modify her position."

In other words, "Governor, if the budget isn't an acceptable ransom for jobless benefits, what is?"

The appropriate response is "nothing."

The extension of unemployment benefits has nothing whatsoever to do with North Carolina's budget situation. Extended benefits require a minor legislative fix so that federal dollars--approximately $11 million per week--can be spent to help 37,000 long-term unemployed.

The National Lampoon magazine cover was ridiculous but ultimately harmless satire. The Republican gamesmanship is equally ridiculous but ultimately harmful and cruel.

NC Republicans callous inaction on jobless benefits

Republicans in the NC General Assembly still have not gotten around to passing legislation necessary for 37,000 long-term out-of-work North Carolinians to collect an extra 20 weeks of federally-funded unemployment benefits.

Last month, the Republicans tried to use the extension to extort Governor Perdue into committing to double-digit percentage budget cuts for the coming fiscal year. The governor, rightly, vetoed the legislation and asked for a clean bill. The extension has subsequently languished.

Regrettably, Republicans' general callousness towards the poor isn't new or surprising. However, once upon a time, Republicans did at least try to show support for workers who lost their jobs, a group they included among "deserving poor." No more.

As the Republican Senate Leader, Phil Berger said, "We need to remember that we're talking about the extension for folks who have already received benefits" for a year and a half.

Moral and humanitarian concerns notwithstanding, Republicans should be able to grasp the practical, economic benefits of hundreds of thousands of federal dollars flowing into a state that still suffers from 9.7 percent unemployment. But again, no.

Since benefits ran out, Republicans have found the time to adopt resolutions recognizing the 100th anniversary of North Carolina Family and Consumer Sciences, a former representative, and Cinco de Mayo.

These are priorities, but legislation that would help the long-term jobless and bolster our economy, all without costing our state budget a dime is not.

Shhh, don't say 'gay'

Teaching about Oscar Wilde, discussing civil rights, and reprimanding children for anti-gay taunting could all get a lot tougher in Tennessee where a state Senate committee approved a bill that would prohibit elementary and secondary schools from providing "any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."

If we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist, right?

A follow-on bill will prohibit Will and Grace re-runs and Ted Haggard sermons from being shown on Tennessee televisions before 10 p.m.

Boehner supports Obamacare for the elderly

What a long strange trip it's been.

During the floor debate on the Affordable Care Act (which Republicans affectionately refer to as "Obamacare") in March 2010, then Republican minority leader, Rep. John Boehner, described the Democrats' reforms thusly

...today we’re standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory.

...Can you go home and tell your senior citizens that these cuts in Medicare will not limit their access to doctors or further weaken the program instead of strengthening it? No, you cannot.

...Shame on us. Shame on this body. Shame on each and every one of you who substitutes your will and your desires above those of your fellow countrymen.

In January of this year, Republicans made the repeal of the ACA their first substantive (though ultimately unsuccessful) piece of legislation.

Yesterday, however, Speaker Boehner was singing a different tune. When asked about the Republicans' plans to cut and privatize Medicare, Speaker Boehner said

It transforms Medicare into a plan that's very similar to the President's own healthcare bill.

He went on to praise the proposed program's efficiency and to state several times that he supported it.

So a short time ago, the President's proposals were shameful and unsatisfactory, but now, changes that are "very similar to the President's own healthcare bill" are laudable.

Throw Grandma from the nursing home

In yet another fine display of their "what's good for bidness, is good for the commonwealth" philosophy, North Carolina Republicans are now proposing that nursing homes should be allowed foist hard-to-care-for charges onto the county governments.

When a North Carolina assisted-living facility accepts a resident, the home has the legal responsibility to look after the person or to find a safe alternative placement.

But a bill making its way through the state House would shift that responsibility to county social services departments, which don't want the responsibility of dealing with early-morning phone calls demanding the care of a person with a disability such as dementia.

The bill also would allow facilities to escape state sanctions after making an unsuccessful attempt to find a new place for a resident.

Some advocates for older people say the bill could result in some of the most dependent residents being released to homelessness.

It's hard to come up with a more cruel and mean-spirited policy (though we shouldn't put this bunch to the challenge). The proposed change would put the most vulnerable patients at risk while also increasing responsibilities for county health agencies that the Republicans' are already targeting for cuts.

We didn't cover this in labor class

This semester's labor economics class is winding down. Somehow, I neglected to cover this novel workforce development strategy.

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's just an unemployed guy in a red cape.

A Florida unemployment agency is under investigation for spending $14,000 in public funds on red superhero capes as part or broader campaign that frames joblessness as a battle between good and evil. The agency, Workforce Central Florida, even created a fictional villain, Dr. Evil Unemployment, whose superpower is apparently handing out pink slips in a bid to somehow take over the world.

The campaign has now been withdrawn, but you have to wonder what they were thinking.

About the only positive thing that you can say about this is that it beats the agency's careereoki campaign from two years ago.

Floridians must be so glad that they contract these services out to private agencies instead of letting the government handle social services.

Houston, we have some whiners

Is there anything that Republicans won't whine about? The latest is Texas Republicans moaning and groaning over Houston not getting a space shuttle. Reps. Ted Poe and Pete Olson write

Now that the space shuttle program is ending, no other place in the world deserves a retired shuttle more than Houston, Texas. Put simply, this decision should be a no-brainer.

But Houston has been overlooked. Shuttles are going to Los Angeles, Florida, and Washington. The prototype Enterprise is headed to New York City. "We were tremendously surprised," said Susan Marenoff-Zausner, president of the Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum in New York after NASA made the announcement. No kidding.

Sadly, it seems partisan politics permeates this announcement. And we are demanding answers.

...Here's our justification for Houston: Houston is the fourth largest city in the United States, visited by nearly 7 million international visitors every year. More than 750,000 people a year visit the Johnson Space Center in Houston to glimpse the history of space exploration. Houston doesn't seek an orbiter because it wants to add a relic to a museum to highlight a marvel of modern engineering. It is more profound than that. To Houston and the men and women of Mission Control, who dedicated their careers to human space flight; it represents a life's work.

We can find no logical explanation for this mind-boggling decision.

No logical explanation?

New York, our largest city, has averaged more than 45 million visitors per year since 2006. Los Angeles, our second largest city, welcomed about 24 million per year over the same period. Washington, DC, our Nation's capital, welcomed more than 15 million per year and hosts an extraordinary Air & Space Museum. And central Florida has not only been home to the shuttle program but is a major tourist destination. Orlando welcomes more than 45 million visitors per year, and the Kennedy Space Center alone draws 1.5 million visitors per year (twice as many as the Johnson Space Center).

Under other circumstances (i.e., when it doesn't benefit them), Reps. Poe and Olson are foes of government entitlements. Consider Rep. Poe in February

We are long overdue to stop subsidizing the government’s special projects for its special people with money that doesn’t exist.

and Rep. Olson in March

We can all find a way to do more with less.

What changed in the meantime? The availability of a big fat government goody.

And when they didn't that goody, what did they do? Cast unfounded aspersions and cry politics. Talk about an entitlement mentality.

Sadly, the only "partisan politics" on display here are from these two hypocritical whiners.

Compound errors

The local conservative weekly, the Rhinoceros Times, has an article about runaway public spending in Guilford County.

Now that the 2011-2012 Guilford County budget process is in full swing, with the county manager's proposed budget on the table and the budget ball in the county commissioners' court, it's interesting, and even kind of fun and nostalgic, to look back 10 years and see how things compare.

One look at Guilford County's budget for fiscal 2000-2001 and it quickly becomes evident that, while 10 years wasn't that long ago in some respects, when it comes to county budgets it was light years ago and a galaxy far, far away.

One way the 2000-2001 budget seems very distant from today is in the number of dollars shelled out. Just a decade ago, Guilford County was being run on a much smaller budget: The 2000-2001 budget totaled $397.5 million. That compares with a proposed county budget of $582.3 for 2011-2012 – a 46 percent increase in the county's budget in just 10 years.

The population of the county only went up 16 percent from 2000 to 2010, from 421,048 to 488,406.

Joe Guarino piles on

Spending increases in these areas outpaced population growth and inflation combined.

When county commissioners wring their hands and represent that they cannot conceive of ways to achieve spending cuts sufficient to avoid a tax increase, they are not being honest with us.

The fact is that we have had solid liberal Democratic leadership of the county for a long time, with all the fiscal profligacy that entails.

The figures that the Rhino and Joe put forward look like a big increase, but they aren't when you also account general price growth.

Over the last 10 years (from March 2001 to March 2011), overall price inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index went up by 26.9 percent.

The combination more than accounts for the growth in spending.

In 2000-1, the county was spending $944 per resident. In 2011-12, it is proposing to spend the equivalent of $939 per resident, based on 2000-1 dollars.

Far from letting spending run away, the county has kept its spending slightly below the combined rates of population and price growth.

Guilford County is facing a tough budget situation. However, the crunch has been caused by falling revenues, not exploding costs. Property values have fallen, depleting the county's largest source of revenue. The state and federal governments will also be transferring less money to the county next year.

In inflation- and population-adjusted terms, Guilford County has kept its expenditures frozen.

Republican's budget rhetoric and reality

People with a memory for such things might recall that in their "Pledge to America," Republicans promised (underline added)

With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to prestimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.

To this end, Republicans passed pointless, go-nowhere legislation. They then fulminated and threatened to shut the government down if they didn't get their way. With a shut down looming, their leader, Rep. John Boehner bargained tenaciously for spending cuts.

Today, those negotiated "spending cuts" were approved by a large majority of House Republicans (and with substantial support--81 votes--from Democrats).

The effect on this year's budget?

Total spending this year will be $3.3 billion higher than last year.

The Washington Post reports

The Congressional Budget Office estimate shows that compared with current spending rates the spending bill due for a House vote Thursday would cut federal outlays from non-war accounts by just $352 million through Sept. 30. About $8 billion in immediate cuts to domestic programs and foreign aid are offset by nearly equal increases in defense spending.

When war funding is factored in the legislation would actually increase total federal outlays by $3.3 billion relative to current levels.

So, far from reducing this year's budget, the Republican House just approved a $3.3 billion spending increase for FY 2011.

To quote Sarah Palin's question to the National Tea Party Convention, "how's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?"

NCBCBS asks not to be blamed for misdirecting premium dollars

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (NCBCBS) is starting a new marketing campaign to spark a discussion on reining in health care costs. The News & Observer reports

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is tired of playing the scapegoat.

The state's largest health insurer will announce this morning that it's beginning a major marketing campaign to emphasize that many parties share the blame for rising health costs. The message is that those groups, including insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, lawyers and consumers, must work together to reduce medical costs.

The effort will include TV commercials and other advertising with goats portraying the various groups. The Chapel Hill company also is starting a website, www.letstalkcost.com to spur more discussion about how to control medical costs.

At the risk of scapegoating the state's largest insurance oligopoly, let me suggest that NCBCBS first consider the cost implications of misdirecting its hostages' customers' premium dollars toward self-serving marketing and lobbying campaigns.

Congressional taunting

A new study of the communication patterns of Congress members finds that 27 percent of Congress' time is spent taunting.

On Wednesday morning, the Senate had been in session only a few minutes before the first exchange of barbed words.

“Democrats are more concerned about the politics of the debate than keeping the government running,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a floor speech. “They can’t blame anyone but themselves if a shutdown does occur.”

A while later, Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) came out to speak. He had a few choice things to say about Republicans’ plans for cuts to the federal budget.

“The more the American people take a hard look at where [Republicans] want this country to go, the more outraged will be millions and millions of citizens,” Sanders said.

To which, McConnell later presumably replied, "The good gentleman's mother was a hamster and his father smelled of elderberries!"

Because Greensboro doesn't have enough nightclub shootings

Defying the two-thirds of North Carolinians who apparently oppose the measure, the radical Republican right has lurched forward its BYOG restaurant bill. From the local News & Record

The state House has agreed to allow people with concealed weapons permits in North Carolina to take their pistols into restaurants that serve alcohol and public parks.

Doncha feel safer already?

BTW, what's with restaurants that serve public parks?

There's an obvious pun about concessions to gun owners, but let's not go there.

Bad jobs worse than no jobs?

Gallup reports some intriguing findings about people's work and well-being:

American workers who are emotionally disconnected from their work and workplace -- known as "actively disengaged" workers -- rate their lives more poorly than do those who are unemployed. Forty-two percent of actively disengaged workers are thriving in their lives, compared with 48% of the unemployed. At the other end of the spectrum are "engaged" employees -- American workers who are involved in and enthusiastic about their work -- 71% of whom are thriving.

The results suggest that a bad job, at least bad in the sense that it doesn't engage or motivate you, is associated with lower well-being than no job at all.

If interpreted causally, the results further suggest that losing a bad job is actually good for you, which would be really good news in the current economy. However, that interpretation is a stretch.

Gallup's engagement measure is constructed from a series of questions that ask about expectations, feedback, relationships, and opportunities at work. Some of these questions ask about conditions that are (arguably) external to the worker, such as whether the worker gets "recognition or praise for doing good work" or receives performance reviews. I add the parenthetical term, arguably, because all of the reports come from the workers who may be viewing their employers' objective actions through a subjective lens.

However, many of the questions appear to be related to a person's general perceptions regarding his or her locus of control, that is, a person's belief that the person's own behavior can affect outcomes in his or her life. Thus, the answers to the questions may reveal as much about the respondent and about the power of positive thinking as they do about the respondent's job.

It's also hard to imagine that a negative external event like being fired would improve someone's perceived locus of control.

The question comes down to whether the engagement index reflects a bad job, a bad worker, or some combination of the two.

Gallup does caution that it's results "cannot definitively determine the direction of the causal relationship between engagement and wellbeing." However, it pushes the causal interpretation by describing disengaged workers as being in "bad jobs" and describing how employers can affect engagement.

Incentives matter for job growth

Some predictable things happen when you subsidize companies to buy one type of input but not another. Bloomberg reports

Even though employment tends to lag behind investment early in recoveries, BofA’s Dutta said the current gap is “unprecedented” in the postwar era: Capital expenditures are expanding at an almost 14 percent pace, while job growth stays below zero, according to calculations he based on a six-quarter annualized change from the ends of the recessions.

In addition, the “unintended consequences” of policy changes indicate the government may “undercut its own principal aim of job creation,” he said.

While the tax bill President Barack Obama signed Dec. 17 allows businesses to write off 100 percent of some purchases in 2011, there’s no similar incentive to speed up hiring. The Fed’s commitment to keep its benchmark interest rate near zero for an extended period also facilitates lower-cost financing for machines.

The administration’s goal to double overseas sales of American-made goods is another plus for investment over hiring, Dutta said, since the U.S. export sector is capital intensive rather than labor intensive.

Civitas misleads on rail

Surprise, surprise. Brian Balfour at the conservative Civitas Institute has posted a misleading and mistake-filled column, supporting North Carolina House Bill 222, which would potentially turn back the federal rail improvement funds that are coming to the state.

Some of the misleading statements

• The column begins by explaining that the proposed legislation "would prohibit North Carolina’s Department of Transportation from accepting any federal funds earmarked for high-speed rail without first getting the General Assembly’s approval."

  Earmarked? No, the North Carolina rail grant was awarded through a competitive process; no earmarks were involved.

• The column goes on,

  Refusing federal funds for light-rail boondoggle projects would follow in the footsteps of Governors in Wisconsin, Florida and New Jersey who have refused federal funds for high-speed rail.

  Light-rail boondoggle? The grant funds improvements to the primary passenger and freight rail corridor through North Carolina.

• Next,

  North Carolina doesn’t appear to be a very appropriate location for high speed rail lines. According to this analysis, Charlotte is the only NC city among the top 40 in the nation for populations within 10 to 25 miles of downtown – an indication that this area lacks population density in its urban areas sufficient to justify rail projects. The analysis further concludes that passenger rail for intercity travel would only be viable with additional regional investments (more state and local taxpayer dollars).

  Balfour has taken some selective statements and fundamentally misrepresented the actual report, which not only rates the Charlotte-to-Raleigh rail link as one of the more promising in the country but also recommends exactly the types of incremental improvements that are being proposed. The rail links in and around Greensboro actually show up in the report as scoring in the top 10 percent of most of the review criteria for high speed improvements.


• Next,

  But many will still insist that NC would be foolish to pass up 'free' federal dollars to build high-speed rail lines because it would 'create jobs.' I pointed out previously, however, that such federal funds are not 'free,' and in fact hinder a state’s economic growth prospects. A Harvard study examined the impact of federal earmark spending in states and found that federal 'fiscal spending shocks appear to significantly dampen corporate sector investment activity.'

  Again, Balfour compares the North Carolina rail project to earmark spending--it isn't.

• Finally,

  HB 422 is a good idea because accepting these federal funds would put NC taxpayers at risk for paying for the very likely cost overruns and the politically-motivated rail projects will divert scarce resources away from entrepreneurs and make the state’s economy worse off.

  Balfour continues to describe the project in earmark terms (politically-motivated rail projects). He also describes a risk of over-runs but no evidence that these characterize this project.

On the bright side, if there is any leftover funding from the rail project, it might be used to straighten out Civitas' twisted statements.

Safer, faster, more reliable train service coming PLUS 4,800 jobs

While several states have recently canceled federally-funded rail improvement projects, North Carolina is finally ready to move forward with its project to make rail service safer, faster and more reliable.

The News-Observer reports

After months of wrangling with a reluctant freight railroad, the N.C. Department of Transportation says it has won the agreement it needed to secure $461 million in federal grants that will put faster, more frequent and more reliable passenger trains on the tracks between Charlotte and Raleigh.

Gene Conti, the state transportation secretary, said DOT will start seeking bids over the next two weeks for contracts to lay tracks, build bridges and buy trains.

The construction is expected to create 4,800 jobs over the next two years and cut the train time from Raleigh to Charlotte below three hours, including seven stops on the way.

The project will improve in several ways, including laying double track and passing sidings, straightening curves, replacing crossings with bridges, and purchasing additional rail cars.

The funds come from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the original stimulus legislation.

While conservatives point to business anxiety over policy "uncertainty" as a reason for slow jobs growth, the 4,800 jobs for the North Carolina project have actually been held up by a business, Norfolk Southern Railroad, which leases the tracks from North Carolina.

UPDATE (3/22/11): In an effort to prove that the government can indeed inject some uncertainty into its infrastructure improvement and job creation efforts, Republicans in the North Carolina General Assembly have introduced the "No High-Speed Rail Money from Federal Gov't" Act (H422, a.k.a., the "Run 4,800 Jobs Out on a Rail" Act) which would prohibit the state's Department of Transportation from accepting or spending any of the railway grant money that it was awarded.

O'Keefe not so keen on being videotaped

What's sauce for the goose, apparently isn't sauce for the gander. The TPMMuckraker reports

James O'Keefe, the conservative activist who made his name with a string of undercover video sting operations, doesn't like it so much when the camera is turned on him.

Speaking to around 100 members of the Bayshore Tea Party in New Jersey Thursday night, O'Keefe reportedly had members of the group ask a photographer from the Asbury Park Press to leave the event.

Could it be that people actually have a right not to be videotaped?