Now with McDonald's, wake up to a $4 breakfast meal deal. Wake up to a sausage McMuffin or sausage biscuit to hash browns and wake up to a hot coffee. Get your $4 breakfast meal deal. Limit time only, prices in participation may vary. Prices will be higher for delivery.
It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Wednesday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM. WBT, I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you. We start off this morning in the North Carolina General Assembly, where Republican lawmakers are again pushing to overhaul how North Carolina builds its state budget, as a couple of lawmakers have filed legislation that would require agencies to justify spending from scratch on a rotating basis. Senate Bill 800, filed by Senators Jim Bergen, the Republican from Harnett County, and Tom McGinnis, the Republican from Richmond County, would implement what is called zero-based budgeting across executive branch agencies beginning later this year.
With Senator Bergen telling the Carolina Journal, it's a hard process to go through. What happens in government is that you never stop and look at things that you did before and say, do I really need to do that again? Do we need to just add 6% to what we have already done? My answer is no.
Someone has to stop and go through and look and say, This is what we did. Why did we do it? Do we need to do it again? And is this money that can be cut off? Zero-based budgeting or ZBB is a method in which government agencies or organizations build their budgets from the ground up each cycle, always starting from a well-zero base.
Instead of assuming funding will continue at existing levels, each program, activity, and expense must be justified as though it were brand new. Bergen said that he envisions a collaborative process in which agency officials and legislative staff review budgets line by line, with the goal being, he said, to distinguish between core obligations and lower priority spending, with the differentiation between what we have to do and what we need to do, and of course, what we want to do. This approach is unlike traditional incremental budgeting, and typically in that process. The prior year funding level is the baseline or the starting point, only adjusted for inflation, growth, or new initiatives. With Senator Bergen telling the Carolina Journal, we just cannot keep on saying you're going to get everything you got last year plus 5%.
We can't keep doing that. Supporters say that the approach would increase scrutiny over state spending by requiring agencies to justify every dollar rather than relying on prior year funding levels. According to Brian Balfour, who is the senior vice president of research at the John Locke Foundation, he says, quote, the main goal of this legislation is greater transparency of state spending, along with state agencies being compelled to justify their expenditures, both of which are worthy goals. Instead of budgets being on cruise control with little scrutiny, aside from debates over the size of spending increases, state agencies will disclose all of their spending and justify why such spending is necessary. Supporters of zero-based budgeting often cite examples from other states.
For example, in Texas, a zero-based budgeting effort back in 2003 helped close a projected $10 billion budget gap without raising taxes, while reducing general revenue spending for the first time in Texas in decades. Senator Bergen said that he believes that the approach could. Produce measurable savings, saying in part, I don't want to put a number on it, but I think realistically we can drive two to ten percent out of government funding through this process. He also pointed to earlier efforts by lawmakers to scrutinize spending as evidence of potential savings, telling the Carolina Journal: We scraped the surface this year because they got asked to go through looking at potential cuts. We found one pot of money that had $20 million in it that was not being used.
You won't find that if you don't spend the time to really go through and do a zero-based budgeting exercise. Beyond cost savings, Senator Bergen says the proposal is aimed at improving program oversight, saying in part, I don't think we do a good job at evaluating programs to see if they were actually successful in doing the things that we wanted them to do. Government is not good at holding itself accountable. Accountable, adding that the legislation would require more consistent reviews of existing programs throughout state government. Brian Balfour added that this legislation works by increasing accountability for government spending, noting that taxpayer dollars belong to the taxpayers.
And when the government spends our money, it should be for a very sound reason in line with the proper core functions of government, highlighting that this legislation helps ensure that that is in fact the case. Senator Bergen acknowledged that agencies have raised some concerns about the added workload of going through this process of zero-based budgeting, saying in part, nobody wants to be placed under a magnifying glass, and I understand that. They feel like it'll be a lot of work and they think they're already overworked. But I'm telling them I'm not asking anything from them that I won't sit right next to them. Them and go through myself.
I don't mind putting in the hard work because I think the results are going to be very obvious. He continued by saying, at the end of the day, if we find underutilized funds, we can reallocate them and do a better job at providing the funding for the things that they want, referring to said state agencies. The legislation would require state agencies to submit detailed zero-based budget plans to the Office of State Management and Budget on a staggered schedule beginning as early as July the 1st of this year, with state agencies then being divided into four groups. With the first group submitting their zero-based budget plans in 2026, followed by the remaining groups in 28, 2030, and 2032. Each agency would repeat the process every eight years according to its designated group.
So it's not every year. That every single state agency would be starting from zero. Each plan must include justifications for all agency activities and measurable program outcomes. It must also list the cost for minimum and current service levels, potential impacts if programs are cut, and a ranking of activities by importance. That bill has now been introduced and has been referenced to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Base Budget.
It is not immediately clear how quickly or if we will see a significant movement on this over the next couple of weeks. Of course, the discussion does remain very strong in Raleigh over the lack of a state budget. We have been watching lawmakers who have been back in the North Carolina General Assembly now for the last couple of weeks, officially kicking off the legislative short session back on April the 21st, and the discussion over a long-term budget and getting that squared away ahead of. The midterm elections, from all accounts, does remain a major priority for Republican leadership in both the North Carolina House and Senate. As we understand the details right now, there still remains some pretty significant issues between the House and the Senate over what to do with state taxes moving forward.
Questions over revenue projections do remain that main issue.
So, we, of course, will keep an eye on the potential movement of a budget or additional spending packages or deals as we continue to move through the legislative short session. Speaking of what's going on up in Raleigh, we have got a jam-packed day on the calendar. A variety of commissions and committees meeting today, a couple of different press conferences, including Representative Brandon Lofton, Representative Mike Sheetzel, Representative Carla Cunningham set to host a press conference at 12 noon at the North Carolina General Lecture. Assembly today. Not immediately clear what she is going to be discussing.
After just back a couple of weeks ago, she announced that she was officially switching her party affiliation from Democrat to unaffiliated. There are a bunch of other committee meetings, including the rules and operations of not only the House and the Senate. The full House and Senate are also expected to be in for some level of votes as veto overrides do remain on the House calendar, six of them, as we've been tracking that going back now a couple of weeks.
So a busy legislative calendar today. Not immediately clear exactly all of what activity will be going on in Raleigh.
However, we'll have Andrew Pomerance and our other members of our Carolina Journal team keeping a very close eye on everything in Raleigh today. They'll be keeping you up to date over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. And of course, we'll bring you the latest coming up tomorrow morning right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
Now with McDonald's, a McDouble is only 250.
So You can get your gym games on or just get lunch for only $2.50. Get more value on the under $3 menu. Limit time only, prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher for delivery. If you work in university maintenance, Granger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip-off.
And Granger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from HVAC and plumbing supplies to lighting and more, and all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock.
So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRANGER, visit Granger.com, or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done. It's 5:20. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. We've got an interesting article over at our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com, with the headline: Democrats aim for sweep of all 13 Mecklenburg County House Seats.
The article goes on to say that two Mecklenburg County races, Districts 98 and 105, are all that stands between Democrats and a sweep of all 13 House districts in Mecklenburg County. Whether they can win the two toss-up seats will likely determine whether Republicans retain any foothold in the county's delegation. We'll start off in House District 98, that is represented by Representative Beth Healthrich. That is a D plus one district, and House District 105, which is represented by Representative Tricia College. Hotham, she the Republican out of Mecklenburg County is an R plus zero and are two toss-up districts in an otherwise blue county according to the 2026 Civitas Partisan Index.
That is a product of the John Locke Foundation. Cotham is being challenged by Democrat Kevin McCool, and Helfrich is being challenged by Republican John Rhodes. According to Dr. Andy Jackson, the director of the Civitas Center for Public Integrity at the John Locke Foundation, he says those two districts are the Republicans' last hope of winning House districts in Mecklenburg. The 98th is a natural suburban district in the northern corner of the county, while the 105th was gerrymandered to give Tricia Cotham a Republican-leading district after she switched from the Democrat Party in 2023.
Cotham's combined tenure in the House exceeds a decade with her first stint in the North Carolina General Assembly, serving in the 100th district from 2007 to 2016 as a Democrat, then returning to the House in 2023 after switching her party affiliation. With Cotham recently telling the Carolina Journal, I do represent a toss-up district. And while I did change parties, my priority is to work hard on behalf of my district, and that has not changed. Voters see past party labels, and I'm going to keep delivering results for my district no matter what. Democrat Representative Helfrich is in her first term serving in the North Carolina House.
She has been a primary sponsor of bills such as House Bill 322, which would make General Assembly records public, and bills related to women's rights, such as House Bill 473 and House Bill 478. She's also a primary sponsor of House Bill 1066. We talked about that yesterday morning. That's the Child Care Stabilization and Affordability Act, which was filed back on April the 29th. Long story short, in that legislation, it would begin the process of completely dismantling the Opportunity Scholarship Program here in North Carolina.
It would reduce $150 million in non-recurring funds in the fiscal year 2027 year. For the opportunity scholarship program, ramping that up to reducing 240 million from the program in the next couple of years. With the potential for recurring cuts to continue indefinitely, annual appropriations from that program under this piece of legislation could fall from $700 million to less than $400 million in the years to come. Back to Dr. Andy Jackson.
He says, both districts have shifted in favor of Democrats from 2024 to 2026. In House District 98, that went from an R plus one to D plus one. And in House District 105, that has gone from an R plus two to an R plus zero. Given the political environment, Helfrich is likely to win, and Cotham is in for the potential fight of her life.
However, in 2024, a better environment for Republicans, she only won by 213 votes out of more than 54,000 cast. If Cotham loses, it may be a long time before another Republican represents Mecklenburg County in the North Carolina House. Of the 120 seats in the House, 37 are considered safely Democrat, with another six leaning likely Democrat and four leaning Democrat, according to the Civitas Partisan Index. Seven races are rated as toss-ups, and on the Republican side, 15 lean Republican, 10 are likely Republican, and 41 are considered safe Republican. As Democrats will look to try and flip the power in the North Carolina House later on this year, try to upset a couple of Republican members, including Representative Tricia Cotham, and gain a majority in the House for the first time since 2011 when those midterm elections rolled through.
On to some other statewide news this morning, former Democrat Governor Roy Cooper currently holds a nine-point lead over Republican Michael Watley in North Carolina's open U.S. Senate race, according to new polling commissioned by a Election integrity group right count and the details released just back a couple of days ago. The survey conducted by a group known as Opinion Diagnostics found that 50% of registered North Carolina voters are supporting Cooper compared to just 41% for Watley, with 8% of the voters remaining undecided. Other recent surveys have found similar results, including a High Point University poll released in late April that put Cooper ahead 50 to 42, a Carolina Journal poll that we talked about in late March, which found Cooper's support at 49 compared to 48, 41%, I should say, for Watley.
So, we have seen over the last couple of months polls swinging anywhere from between about 7 and 12 percent of an advantage for former Democrat Governor Roy Cooper. An earlier poll commissioned by Healthier United, which was conducted March 8th through the 9th, the days after both of the candidates clinched their party nominations, is the only outlier as of right now, showing an 18-point lead for Cooper.
However, that is seen looking at all of the other polls, seeing that as an outlier at this point in time. Cooper carried Democrats by 87 points while Watley led Republicans by 79 points in the new right-count poll. Cooper had a 15-point edge amongst unaffiliated voters. Watley led Cooper by 19 points among voters 65 and older. Cooper, according to this most recent survey, led in every region of the state except for the Charlotte area.
According to opinion diagnostics partner Patrick Sebastian and President Brian Wynne, in a memo accompanying the poll, they write, while Cooper begins with a clear advantage, it likely reflects the current political environment and his time in public office rather than a fully defined contest. A high-intensity campaign for and against both candidates could significantly reshape this race. The pollsters added the caveat that virtually no general election advertising has aired yet. They noted that this year's race could also be the first contest Cooperation. Cooper has faced in years where he doesn't have a substantial spending advantage.
Cooper outraised Watley $13.8 million to $5 million in the first quarter of 2026.
However, it is important to note that a Republican super PAC has committed $71 million to back Watley's campaign, giving him a significant bump in cash early on in fundraising. The poll also queried voters' attitudes on election administration, looked at a variety of other topics and issues as well, including things like voter ID, continued lengthy mail-in voting periods, and potential risks to the 2026 election. All of those details are available this morning over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. We've got a full copy of the poll by Wright Count conducted by Opinion Diagnostics. Just look for the story with the headline, Cooper holds nine-point edge over Watley in latest U.S.
Senate poll.
Now with McDonald's, wake up to a $4 breakfast meal deal. Wake up to a sausage McMuffin or sausage biscuit to hash browns and wake up to a hot coffee. Get your $4 breakfast meal deal. Limited time only, prices and participation may vary, prices may be higher for delivery. It's 5:36.
Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good Wednesday morning to you. Over the last few months here on the Carolina Journal News Hour, we have been keeping you up to date with an interesting legal challenge that is currently going through the federal court system as it deals with ballot selfies here in North Carolina. There's a litany of different state laws that do not prohibit individuals to take pictures with their ballots, aka a ballot selfie.
That has been the premise of an interesting lawsuit by a candidate and voter in Wake County to bring us through the latest information on that this morning. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Mitch, everybody's favorite pastime, taking pictures of literally everything they do. Turns out is illegal here in North Carolina. If you're doing it in the ballot box, you've walked us through this over the last few months.
What's the latest that you're tracking out of the federal court system?
Well, this case, Nick, has now moved up to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
So you might remember that this suit started in the 2024 election cycle. There was a Libertarian voter and candidate, as you alluded to, Susan Hogarth, who was running for state senate. And she got in trouble when she posted on social media a picture of her completed ballot from the 2024 primary election. She was contacted by election officials who said, hey, it's against the to post this sort of photo and to take this sort of photo and would be to take it down. Rather than taking the photo down, she enlisted the help of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, and filed a federal lawsuit challenging the ban against ballot selfies, which i is actually encompassed in five different laws.
It's not one law saying you can't take a ballot selfie. It's four different laws that deal with the the f the photographs of uh ballots in voting enclosures and then another law, so the fifth law, that gives uh election of Authority to stop someone from doing this.
So together, these laws were all challenged in this lawsuit. Initially, the judge overseeing the case, District Judge Louise Flanagan, issued rulings that were helpful to Susan Hogarth, saying that election officials could not block her from taking a ballot selfie for the general election, which she did in the fall of 2024. But then as this case was actually resolved past the injunction stage, Judge Flanagan issued a ruling earlier this year upholding all of the laws and basically saying that the states Idea of trying to prevent vote buying and coercion, and thus having these laws banning the taking of photos of completed ballots in the voting enclosure and showing them on social media, that those did pass constitutional muster because they dealt with a compelling state government interest.
So after that ruling, which upheld the laws, Susan Hogarth and Fire decided to appeal to the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
And the latest development was that Susan Hogarth and Fire filed their opening brief in the case just a few days back. And the most interesting part of this case now is that the Fourth Circuit, while not indicating at all, What it plans to do ultimately about this case has at least. Gone forward with a sort of expedited timeline, as Susan Hogarth asked for. What she's saying is she'd like to get this case resolved by the time that the general election takes place for this 2026 election cycle.
So we don't know that the Fourth Circuit is going to have a ruling that would affect the 2026 cycle, but at least they have gone forward at this point with the expedited schedule.
So we saw Susan Hogarth's brief at the beginning of May. The state board of elections will have, and the other defendants in the case will have a chance to respond by June 1st. Then Hogarth will have her final written briefing in late June. And then at some point, We may see oral arguments or the Court of Appeals deciding they can decide this case without an oral argument and perhaps having some sort of ruling. In mid-late summer or fall, so we will know what the ballot selfie rules are going into the fall election.
And, Mitch, a couple of interesting things there. You talk about, of course, the fast-tracking or the idea here that this case would be fast-tracked. And most folks might say, oh, okay, well, you'll try to get to some sort of resolution before early November rolls around. But of course, here in North Carolina, we have a very lengthy early voting period. And so that actually kicks off in, depending on what kind of ballot you're casting, middle, if not early October.
So you're talking about an even tighter time constraint and time period until we get closer to the midterm elections later on this year. That's right. And in fact, in 2024, when this lawsuit started, Susan Hogarth, who is the plaintiff in the case, cast her fall ballot during early voting. She was a Libertarian candidate, was running for state senate. And one of the things that she did was cast a ballot when the Libertarian presidential candidate was in town.
And she ended up getting her photo taken with the person, promoting the Libertarian cause, but also promoting her campaign against the ballot selfie ban. And so one suspects that that might be the case as well here, that this time around, that Susan Hogarth might want to cast a ballot during the early voting period. And if so, then you would need some sort of ruling probably in September or at the latest, early October, so she would know whether she's going to get in trouble for the ballot selfies. And remember that this is a North Carolina case, but this is a cause that is of interest. To fire the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression across the country.
They're challenging ballot selfie bans across the nation, wherever they exist. And one of the things that appears in the most recent briefing that's at the Fourth Circuit is a reminder that the First Circuit struck down New Hampshire's ballot selfie ban. And that's one of the things that the fire lawyers are relying on here, saying, look, New Hampshire had a very similar restriction. The First Circuit struck it down.
So you, Fourth Circuit judges, should look at that and help have that guide your decision about what to do about North Carolina's law. And Mitch, we're talking about ballot selfies, which in the grand scheme of, I would say, maybe election history, the idea of taking a selfie with your ballot is relatively new. We're talking about something that has taken place over the last 15 or 20 years, of course, with the popularization of cell phones and things like that that allow you to take photos without running around with a big camera system to take a photo. But what we're really talking about in many of these other states and specifically here in North Carolina are laws that were set up to stop vote buying schemes that could take place across the state where somebody would say, hey, Mitch, I'm going to give you $100 to go vote for X candidate, but you need to snap a picture of that or provide some way of verifying that you voted for said person, and then I'll give you the $100, but you need to verify it. Is that still the crux of the argument that continues to be made by the state of North Carolina?
Yes, I mean, that was the justification for having these laws. Because remember, the argument that's being made by the plaintiff and the group supporting her is that this is a violation of their First Amendment rights. And so, if you are going to deal with something that has a First Amendment implication to it, there has to be a compelling government reason why those First Amendment rights would be trumped. And so, the idea is the government is dealing with a legitimate Interest here in trying to prevent vote buying and trying to prevent coercion. And what they're saying is exactly what you were mentioning in the course of your question that As part of a vote buying scheme, one thing that the illegal vote buyer could do is say, I'm going to pay you money.
But you've got to prove that you voted the way that I wanted you to vote. And the way you prove it is you give me a photo of you with your ballot. And so that's one of the reasons why this type of thing would be banned. I think one of the other reasons why this is put in place is to ensure that photos aren't being taken of someone else's ballot. Which is a separate thing.
Ballot selfie is not taking a photo of someone else's ballot. Susan Hogarth and Fire are not challenging that law, saying that someone coming in and snapping a photo of my ballot would still be illegal. What they're saying is: look, it's your own ballot. You are choosing to let people know who you're voting for, and you are using that as part of your expression of these are the candidates I support, this is the party I support, and I want people to know that. To be able to trump that First Amendment expression, there has to be a legitimate government reason for doing so.
And the government reason that's been put forward, and that won support from District Judge Louise Flanagan in her order earlier this year was that the attempt to Contribute to election integrity by preventing vote buying and preventing coercion. That is a legitimate government interest, and these laws that prevent that the taking of the photo of the ballots fit in with that legitimate government interest, and that's why they're able to stand and they pass constitutional muster. Yeah, and for those that have voted here in North Carolina, whether we're talking about a municipal election, primary, general thing, like an election we'll have coming up later on this year, Mitch, there are very restrictive rules as to what you can and cannot do in and around voting sites. And it's not just when you walk into the door. There's, I believe it's a 25-foot buffer zone that is set up.
It's either 15 or 25 feet outside into the voting location where candidates can't cross. You can't electioneer. You can't give out free food and things of that nature. There's a lot of very burden, I guess many folks are arguing, burdensome restrictions on electioneering and election activity. The state of North Carolina, I guess from their vantage point, wants to make sure that nobody is being forced into voting for a specific candidate or a specific way once they are physically entering said voting location.
You have that concern. You also have the concern about intimidation. You don't want people as they're walking up to the ballot box and the voting enclosure, having people getting in their face and saying, you better vote for this person or you better not vote for that person. They can do that to some extent up to that buffer zone that you mentioned. And whatever the distance is, you can tell what it is when you go to the polling place because all of the people are camped out right outside the buffer zone with all of their signs and their tables.
And they go right up to the edge of that buffer zone. And generally are pretty nice to people when they're coming and saying, you know, thanks for coming out to vote. But if they wanted to get intense and tell people, you need to vote for this person or vote for that person, it has to take place outside that buffer zone and certainly cannot take place inside the voting enclosure itself. And you raise an interesting point and a valid and important one is what.
Well, and that is these laws, in addition To dealing with the issue of taking photographs are also designed to ensure that the voting place is a place where people are not feeling intimidated. They're not feeling that someone is going to get a sense of the way they vote. The secret ballot is important. It is part of our tradition that you don't have to tell people who you're voting for. I mean, you could tell them who you're voting for and then vote another way if you wanted to.
That is part of the tradition, and that is something that needs to be protected. And that's one of the reasons why, when these laws were initially put in place, they were justified: this is a place where people get to make a decision on their own without any threat of coercion, without any thought that someone is going to know how they voted. And that's why these laws have been justified. It'll be very interesting to see ultimately whether the courts decide that that. legitimate government interest outweighs the First Amendment expression of someone who wants to share this information with the world via their photos on social media.
Yeah, Mitch, great point that you ended on there, talking about a little bit about how hyper-politicized everything has become, real world, real life ramifications, depending on what your political makeup is, depending on who you voted for. We've seen that unfortunately unfold over the last 10 or 15 years. We'll be keeping a close eye on this legal challenge over the ballot selfie. We've got additional coverage this morning over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour.
Now with McDonald's, a sausage McMuffin is only $150.
So stop dreaming about breakfast sausage. and go get it. Get more value on the under $3 menu. Limit time only, prices and participation may vary, prices may be higher for delivery. Uh Good morning again.
It's 5:55. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour, Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT. We are expecting a busy day in Raleigh as the North Carolina General Assembly's 2026 short session continues. Both the North Carolina House and Senate. Are set to gavel in coming up a little bit later on this morning.
There is a plethora of meetings and special committee meetings taking place, including a couple of press conferences, one to put on your keep on your agenda. Representative Carla Cunningham, the Democrat from Mecklenburg County, that just back a couple of weeks ago officially switched her party affiliation to unaffiliated, is set to host a press conference at 12 noon today. We are also expecting committee meetings for the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Rules and Operations of the Senate, the House Rules and Calendar Committee. Higher Education is meeting today as well. Pension and Retirement, Agricultural and Environment, a couple of other press conferences as well, including Representative Mike Scheetzel and Brandon Lofton.
So we'll be keeping an eye on what is expected to be a busy day in Raleigh over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com, as the discussion still remains about what the state is going to do for a long-term budget or if it is going to move forward on a long-term budget. Term budget, we're keeping an eye on Senate Bill 800. This is a new piece of legislation filed by Senators Jim Bergen of Harnett County and Tom McGinnis of Richmond County that would implement zero-based budgeting across all executive branch agencies starting July the 1st of this year, requiring state agencies to justify every single penny that they spend within the state government and within their budgets, in which are approved almost every year, every other year, depending on whether we're looking at the biennium budget or not. Will that factor into the ongoing debate between the lawmakers in the North Carolina House and Senate over what to do with the continued tax triggers that are set up to reduce not only the corporate income tax, but personal income tax rates in the years to come as the state of North Carolina continues generating more revenue? That has been the issue going back nearly a year now as the debate over a budget continues and as lawmakers have been unable to get together on That to move forward.
We'll be keeping a close eye on that and all of the other details over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. That's going to do it for Wednesday edition. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 WBT.
Now at McDonald's, a McDouble is only $2.50.
So you can get your gym games on or just get lunch for only $2.50. Get more value on the under $3 menu. Limited time only, prices and participation may vary. Prices may be higher for delivery. Ba-ba-ba-ba-ba.
