Apparently, flattery will get you somewhere with me. When I received an e-mail from Chester Woodward that began with the heading, "Enjoy your editorials on state gov. Would like your thoughts on following," I broke my rule against responding at length to e-mail for the second time in as many days.
As penance — since I have resolved to spend time I once spent going back-and-forth on e-mail to this blog — I share our correspondence, with Mr. Woodward’s permission.
What Mr. Woodward proposed was as follows:
Since 2002, the budget of all areas for state govenment has been cut except the legislature. The following are a few suggestions to save money and make the legislative part of state government more efficient.
1. Eliminate the Lt. Governor’s office and Staff. About the only constructive thing that the Lt. Governor does is preside over the Senate. This can be taken care of just as efficiently by the President Pro Tempore. Others duties or jobs performed the this staff can be moved to the office of the Secretay of State without adding to their staff.
2. Since we have senatoral districts now instead of at Senator from each county, We can reduce the number of senators from 46 to 41 with the President Pro Tempore presiding over the senate and voting only in case of a tie. This will eliminate 5 senators and their staff. This will only increase the size of their districts by a small amount.3. We can also reduce the House of Representatives to 99. This will eliminate 25 representatives and their staff and will only increase their districts by a small amount.
I replied as follows:
Well, unfortunately, the savings would be small — not even a drop in
the bucket compared to, say, our annual increase in Medicaid costs.For that reason, when I look at restructuring state government, I do so
with an eye to making government work better and more logically, and be more
accountable. Your suggestion for eliminating the lt. gov. position as we
now have it fits well into my criteria — not because it would save a
lot of money, but because it is a useless office. Personally, I would
keep the title and do one of two things — have the lt. gov. run on a
ticket with the governor, and therefore be an actual partner in helping
run the government instead of a useless loose cannon as the office is
currently configured; or use the Tennessee model. In Tennessee, the lt.
gov. is a senator who is elected by the rest of the Senate to preside
over them. To most SC senators today, the lt. gov. is an object of
contempt, and they just barely tolerate his presiding role. The office
would be much more meaningful and have the opportunity to make a
difference if the lt. gov. were someone the senators respected.Oh, and as to your idea about reducing the number of senators — rather
than do that, what I’d LIKE to see is a return to having senators
elected by counties, just as U.S. senators are elected by states.
Unfortunately, the courts aren’t about to do this. The irony is that the
courts won’t allow it because single-member districts are seen as
benefiting minorities, and yet one of the biggest reasons the interests
and needs of poor, rural blacks in South Carolina are given short shrift
in the Legislature is that those areas lack advocates in
the Legislature. With districts drawn by population, the power has moved
to the cities and suburbs. If each rural district had its own senator,
with just as much power as one from Richland or Greenville county, you’d
be much more likely to see the General Assembly doing something about
the gross inequities between rural and suburban schools.
Anyway, there it is. As you can see, I make dubious assertions even more hastily via e-mail than on the blog. For instance, I have no way to support my contention that "most senators" hold the lieutenant governor (whoever he may be at a given time) in contempt. But it’s my observation that there are some senators, and they tend to be ones who run the show, see being a South Carolina senator as an office of greater import than any in the state, including that of the governor. (Historically, that was true.) Anyway, anyone with such an attitude is highly unlikely to be impressed by a lieutenant governor, which is why senators have from time to time taken steps to reduce what little power that office can boast of.
Related Posts
