By the way, after the rally, I heard a rumor that some sort of compromise on the stimulus was in the works between the governor and lawmakers.
I asked the first lawmaker I ran into, my homeboy Doug Jennings, and he said he hadn’t heard about any such, although he had heard Sen. Hugh Leatherman had met with the governor and the governor had gotten in the senator’s face on the subject. Treating that as another rumor, I went into the State House and asked Sen. Leatherman about it.
He said he had met with the gov, all right, at 4:15 at the governor’s request. And they spoke about the stimulus. His version of the meeting: The gov told the senator that he (the senator) had the power to bring the $700 million to SC. Leatherman said, essentially, How do you figure? He said all he had to do was pay down debt with $700 million from other sources (the bizarre “compromise” you heard about yesterday).
Leatherman was agog. He said he had no such power, that it would take a majority of the Legislature to agree to such a deal, and he assured the governor that there was NO interest in the Senate in such a “deal.”
The senator said the governor then leaned toward him and said he knew that Leatherman never wanted to pay debt down; that he was only interested in “growing government.” The senator said the governor actually lost his cool a little, which is a phenomenon I’ve heard about but never witnessed.
Anyway, the senator says he told the governor it seemed passing strange to him that the governor should be telling the senator what the senator thinks.
That seems to be about where they left it. So no, there was no meeting of the minds.
The senator said someone told him that the governor had been on TV in Charleston at 5 p.m. saying that the impasse was Sen. Leatherman’s fault. The senator wondered how the governor had done that so fast…
And no, I haven’t talked to the gov about it. This being after 7 p.m., and me not getting paid to run down a story or anything, I went home. I thought y’all would be interested in the part I DID hear, though.
Related Posts
If there appear to be two options at this point 1) find a way to pay down debt and get the $700m.; and 2) get no nuthin; why not pay down the debt as the Gov seems to be holding the cards. There can be no denying that paying down debt helps the people and refusing to do anything because the Gov is exercising his power in a way with which you do not agree and seems petulant and not in the best interest of the people of the State. Unless you think there is a realistic chance of circumventing or change the Gov in the next 48 hrs., go with the debt scenario. It is certainly better than nothing.
I keep hearing that the people of SC will have to pay for the stimulus money regardless. Is this money being borrowed or is it being printed?
Since the economy is already showing signs of recovery without any of the so-callled “stimulus” money yet to be in circulation, it appears that there is no need for all this deficit spending.
This spending is about nothing but expanding government, creating new welfare programs, hiring 600,000 new federal employees, and bailing out all the cities bankrupted by Democrat mayors.
Lee is about 1% right. There are a few signs the economy has bottomed out. The DOW is up, home sales are a bit better. Consumer confidence has edged up slightly. But the vast majority of indicators suggest we are still in deep trouble. What improvement we have seen is predicated on the fact that the president has instilled a bit of confidence in consumers. Plus the stimulus money IS starting to trickle in. My paycheck was a tiny bit larger yesterday. That confidence can be quickly undercut with talk of cutting back on the stimulus package, paying down debt or other tactics from the failed conservative playbook. We should let this stimulus plan run it’s course and see if more is needed. Paul Krugman certainly thinks so. With car sales off 40% or more along with continued business bankrupcies this is not the time to worry about the value of the dollar, inflation, debt or other concerns that afflict times of prosperity.
Methinks the so-called meeting between the senator and the governor was only a face-off so both could preen themselves before the “mirrors,” i.e. cameras, claiming “he’s to blame!”… there’s been no love lost between them for many long months, why’d anybody think they could ever work something out?
What “vast majority of indicators” would that be, bud?
You bluffing about things you don’t know is tiresome.
Since before Obama took office, automobile sales bottomed out, housing starts increased, mortgage applications and loans increased, durable goods orders increased.
Economic recovery is being sabotaged by the uncertainty of what capricious stunt Obama, Pelosi and Frank are going to pull next.
Does the 45 day time limitation mean by the close of business (5pm) tomorrow or does it mean midnight? With this kind of brinksmanship that may make a difference.
Since before Obama took office, automobile sales bottomed out…
-Lee
Just read yesterdays news accounts of car sales down 40+%. You really should read more than just the Limbaugh news letter.
Sales are down from last year, but up sharply from February, +24.5%
Automakers sold new vehicles at an annual rate of 9.86 million in March, Autodata reported Wednesday, much worse than a year ago, but up from February’s 9.12 million annual pace. While more cars and trucks usually are sold in March than in February, the jump this year was 24.5%, the biggest February-to-March gain in at least seven years, Autodata noted.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2009-04-01-auto-sales_N.htm
Honda was up 9.4 % from February.
For March, Renault ( RNSDY – news – people ) reported an 8.1% increase in overall registrations in France
Peugeot Citroen ( PEUGY – news – people ) said its sales were up 12.8%.
(Source: Forbes, 4-01-2009 )
Ford and GM sales were up 8.4%
Besides being patently ridiculous, Sanford’s pay-down-debt idea is unworkable because you can’t – by law – supplant the funding. Also, the stimulus law requires that in order to get the funds, the state level of funding has to be the same as it was in 2005 (I believe, could be wrong about the year). The House budget meets that requirement to the penny and not a penny more. Any reduction – for debt or anything else – will cause all the stimulus funding to be wiped out. That’s something Sanford either knows or should know.
Lee has pointed out some good news resulting from Obama’s steady hand in leading us out of our economic malaise. Unfortunately our governor’s incredible decision to refuse much needed financial assistance from the Feds will likely blunt South Carolina’s economic comeback. With signs of life from Detroit coupled with our governor’s lunatic rejection of stimulus money could Michigan’s claim to the number 1 unemployment rate in the nation be in jeopardy? Only time will tell.
From NRO online:
As we know Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has been repeatedly attacked for refusing the stimulus education dollars. According to his detractors, his decision would penalize students and teachers in the state. Well, let’s see: The Governor’s Executive budget, released earlier this year, shows that the governor’s office did not use a single stimulus dollar to fund the education budget. The budget funds education at a Base Student Cost of $2,339.
In the House budget, lawmakers used both the stabilization funds that are the topic of all the discussion in South Carolina AND an additional $220 million in Federal Medical Assistance Percentage stimulus dollars and funded education at a Base Student Cost of $2,342.
So for all the whining and finger-pointing going on about how Sanford using the stimulus money to pay down the state debt or not taking the money at all would result in massive education cuts and layoffs of teachers, we see that the difference in education funding is $3 dollars per student.
Then why has the Senate Finance Committee supposedly created a “chaos budget” showing thousands of teacher layoffs and closed prisons if the money is turned down? As its name itself makes clear, this apocalypse budget is nothing more than a political stunt, since what we are really talking about here is $3 per student a year.
Here is the beauty about this story: It’s educational. Lawmakers in South Carolina and around the country can learn from Sanford’s example how to reject parts of stimulus money that would make their states worse off in the future while protecting education dollars by making necessary cuts in their budget. This is called fiscal responsibility.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWJkOGFiM2IwNmY4OTA5MjI0YjI3MThkYmRmZmIzOGU=
Democrats will try to spin any good economic indicators of Obama, but the recovery of housing and automobile sales began before Obama took office. Obama and most of his team have no business experience, and are incapable of fixing the economy, if they actually wanted to do so.
The stock market crash began when Obama sewed up the nomination, and accelerated with the government housing scandals.
The federal government has no authority to dictate to the states a certain level of spending. To hell with the fascist economics of Obama and Pelosi.
We don’t need the pork money, so don’t take it.
The main street economy (ie most of it) is showing more signs of worsening than recovering: unemployment is up across the board. It just passed the 10% mark in several states. The *market* economy is recovering because the markets reflect *speculation* that things are going to improve.
And in case you didn’t notice, this entire rally has been built on sand –
The very *day* after Citibank became a penny stock, their CEO issued a statement claiming they were posting a profit for the first two months of the year. (Maybe that was even true, if you include the bailout money.)
The markets rallied.
The *next* day, the CEO of the B of A issued a similar statement.
The markets rallied some more.
Geithner finally released a plan that looks like it just might work.
The markets rallied even more.
But every banker I’ve talked to thinks the markets are still shaky. Most think we’ll see another bottom that’s about as bad (or worse) as the last one. But “Fair value” or “Mark to market” accounting standards for banks just got “relaxed” today, which is big. Because now banks which hold a lot of depressed real estate get to make up “fair values” for them that reflect what they would actually be worth in a good market.
It sure would be nice if you and I could do that with our mortgage loan, eh?
Any bounce in bank stock prices based on unknown details of the mark-to-market rules is simply blind speculation. A real value for the bank stocks cannot be determined until the market sets real values for the underlying real estate, through liquidation or renegotiation of the original mortgages.
Right now, if I were making an informed guess, I would use the housing prices in 2000, before the big run up in the bubble.
Unemployment figures, by the way, are lagging indicators. Even as leading indicators are rising, people will still be laid off.
Who knows what’s driving the market today – it could be $1 trillion in loans the G-20 just announced. It might be a great time to buy stock, particularly at Citi or B of A – but it might be a terrible time: they’re that low for a reason. And right now, the stock market has predicted six out of the last zero economic recoveries. So this is probably another “sucker rally” – great for some traders, but terrible if you “buy and hold”.
By the way, Governor Sanford is on the front page of the WSJ today.
Unemployment figures are indeed lagging indicators. It’s also the single most important indicator. A rally in the stock market is really not that important to folks out of a job. So while the markets rise is a good sign, and a clear signal that folks are confident of the administration, it is hardly something to get overly excited about. In any event, Sanford’s refusal to take federal money will only make the plight of South Carolina much worse in the short run and a rally in the long run much more difficult to achieve. There is no excuse for this insane grandstanding on principal. Why don’t we have a recall process here like they do in California? We sure could use it.
Bud,
Sanford will take the money as long as he can do what he (as the elected governor of the state) feels is most prudent. He just won’t blow it all on a spending spree while we still have debts. It’s called good stewardship – i.e. taking care of something that is not yours.
I think back to when the city of Columbia awarded a contract to a company that bid $1 million more because the low bidder did not have enough minority representation. That’s the type of behavior we can expect from the Obama Powerball Jackpot. Spend it all without any oversight.
Remember – when you pay off a debt, the money you were spending on interest on that debt is available free and clear. Sanford is trying to pay off the mortgage so we can have free cash to renovate the house. The Legislature wants to add on a three car garage and refinance the mortgage to cover it all.
Doug, during prosperous or even moderately prosperous times I would agree with you 100%. Prudence and discipline are the hallmark of sound government. But not now. With unemployment at 30 year highs in our state we need to do whatever is necessary to make sure teachers and troopers continue to work. That would be true EVEN IF they were not needed. They are needed of course so there’s no need to go there, but the point is people are just not spending so the government must do so. We spent enormous amounts of money to fight WW II and no one regarded that as imprudent. At the end of the day we were able to pay that debt off while the economy grew and folks prospered. The same would be true now. If government spends everyone benefits. That’s different from a family budget.
Bud,
No teachers or state troopers need to be removed from their jobs if the legislature would get its priorities in order. All the money required is available to keep essential people on the job.
Don’t buy into the scare tactics. It’s the only way the politicians can keep funding their wasteful habits.
How come we don’t hear about postponing the new PACT test replacement instead of cutting teachers? Think there might be some political reasons for that?
Well, we had 7 years of properity under President Bush, which brought in almost $4 billion in surpluses, over the spending plans, and the legislature did not save a dime. Instead of paying of debt, they blew the surplus creating new programs.
Doug – Rep. Bob Walker suggested postponing PASS months ago, in 2008. The EOC nearly ran him out of the room.
Let’s be very clear.
We have a machine ideologue for a governor. He does not care about context. He will stand, firm and unyielding, on “principle”, oblivious, out of context, until the roof caves in. And then he will claim that the roof hasn’t caved in, and that, even if it did, it was because of “big government”.
I don’t think it’s a political stunt. He’s really this mule-headed. And hypocritical. Sanford spits rhetoric like “generational theft” and “fiscal child abuse”, then blames others for scare tactics. Nice.
In all of America, there are only four governors refusing parts of the federal stimulus funding (Perry-Texas, Palin-Alaska, Barbour-Mississippi, Sanford-SC).
Sanford is the only one refusing funds specifically targeted at education. The only one.
We got us a Rogue Governor. This doesn’t make him “fiscally responsible”. It makes him out of touch. And, excepting the wagon wheel denialist wingnuts like Lee Muller, the SC electorate is out of patience. And that includes the heart of SC’s GOP.
Oh, I see that Bush-appointed US attorney turned Sanford-appointed SLED chief Reggie Lloyd has also now come out urging Sanford to accept the funds, joining Andre Bauer, Lindsey Graham, and a lengthening list of many other SANE Republicans who aren’t interested in following Maniac Mark into the ideological wilderness.
jfx,
So if the magic $700 million wasn’t dropping out of the sky, where do you think the Legislature (you know, the ones who actually determine how the money in this state is spent) should have cut spending?
Do you think the first target should be critical services or non-essential spending? Have you seen any budget proposal from the Legislature that cut non-essential items first?
Thank you, Doug. You’ve made exactly the most important point, which is that the people who actually do need the full federal stimulus funding are not inside the executive or legislative SC beltway, and have little control over the Sanford vs. The World (or Weatherman vs. Sanford) soap opera sideshow. The people outside that beltway also have little time. Lex district 1 is getting absolutely murdered right now, and that’s pure GOP country. Lex/Rich 5 is going to lay off, regardless. That’s no scare tactic. It’s happening. Almighty Richland 2 has even served notice. Last in and first out are going to get chopped.
It’s absolutely true that our state legislative and executive branches have had their heads up their asses, while trying to stick their boots up each other’s asses, for far too long.
But that’s not the critical issue now. The critical issue is that the buck stops with Sanford, and he’s trying to pass it. The money is targeted for specific purpose, it’s available for application, every other American governor is exercising that resource, and we’ve got the dud. The governor should be agitated. He should be upset. He walked out on an ideological limb, and he’s out there all alone, flailing. “FISCAL CHILD ABUSE!”
This $700 million isn’t magic. It’s real and it’s actually going….somewhere. If we don’t take it, it’ll go to NC and GA. I see some horribly stupid comments that suggest the economy is recovering, or that we have roughly the same amount available for spending this year as last year, so everything’s fine. As if nothing significant happened recently, like….oh….say….back in September. Dolts like Lee want to have it all ways. They want to disavow all ideological responsibility for the crash last year, blame Obama for the deepening recession and poop on his current policies, and THEN, when convenient to the myopic rhetoric of the moment, claim the economy is suddenly, magically recovering and therefore no stimulus is needed. Lee wants the cake AND the pie AND the cookie. No no no.
Right now we really do need serious economic assistance. SC is in particularly wretched condition. We need to backstop public schools. The context of the historical moment demands it. And we have a strong bipartisan consensus in SC that demands it. We should not ideologically secede from the union out of angry pride.
What “7 years of properity”? Corporate profits were great, but only the upper 20% truly did well under the reign of Bush Jr. We lost damn near 6 million jobs under Bush Jr. And our population grew by 25 million. Do the math. This “iDecade” has been terrible for the poor and the middle class.
Link: http://www.bls.gov/cps/
(Look below where it says “Unemployment Level: 8,924,000 for 2008” and you can click on “Historical Data” and see it down to the monthly level.)
And lest I seem overly charitable to Obama…
We’ve lost another 2 million jobs or so already in 2009.
(Official March figures aren’t out yet, but estimates range between 663,000 and 742,000 more job losses.)
It’s ugly out there.
Maybe I am totally naive but is it impossible for Sanford to take the funds, use them strictly for educational purposes, i.e. new school construction which will stimulate the economy especially in school districts like Dillon under a separate, short term budget geared only to using the funds?
Am I being too simplistic? Someone explain to me how accepting the $700 million, setting it aside for specific purposes, not allowing it to contaminate the ongoing budget concerns which utilize our collected taxes, is a bad thing. If we don’t have enough common sense to refuse to add to an already overburdened budget that will add millions maybe billions to it each year as a consequence of accepting the money, then it is for sure we should reject it. We have enough idiocy in Columbia as it is. The Sanford-Leatherman side show is a distraction because both are publicity hounds, seeking the front page.
If Sanford is so concerned about paying down the debt in order to have funding available in the future for education, why not accept the money, set up a separate account and then as each future budget is written, allocate the amount of money used from the $700 million to build schools, etc. against the pay down of outstanding debt. This way, he can have it both ways. What in hell is wrong with that approach?
I am not in favor of mortgaging our children and grandchildren’s future but if we are intelligent in our approach and use common sense, we can make use of the funds as they are. Otherwise, we will continue to be last in almost everything including the most important of all, education.
And I do understand we spend a high amount of money per student and the returns are not there to see. On that note, unless parents become involved and leave the victimization mentality behind, stop passing it on to the children, we will remain at the end of the train, always bringing up the rear.
This is important and if both sides do not come together and exercise common sense and seek a common goal of securing a good educational future for our heirs, we are relegating them to a lifetime of unfulfilled promise and hope. They are already saddled with trillions and trillions so why deny them the use of money they are responsible for paying back?
jfx, well put – a good mix of reality, logic, reason, and compassion.
Thank you!
Mr. Fields,
My point is that the 8 years of Bush were very prosperous for state governments, and for all governments – you can measure it by the surge of tax revenues even even with reductions in tax rates ( or rather because of the reductions in tax rates).
The only people who did not do well were those who did not work.
The Bush tax cuts were too small, in that they did not abolish all the Clinton tax increases on the middle income wage earners, but the tax cuts were across the board for everyone, which is why they contributed to prosperity. The family with a median income received about a 5% tax refund.
The current administration has several tax problems, but the two primary ones destroying recover are the threats to increase taxes above the tipping point at which people will no longer work, and secondly, the whimsical and capricious edicts and spewing from Washington which create an climate of uncertainty.
One of my clients, who pays cash for all their growth, put every project on hold the day Hillary withdrew from the race. After the Democratic Convention, they froze over $1 billion of projects until they could see how Obama acted. On February 1, they cancelled all projects in the USA and moved their focus to more stable locations in South America. That speaks volumes about how radical and incompetent these Democrats are.
Jfx,
Sorry but as a parent of two kids in Richland 2 and the spouse of someone who works in the district, I find all the scare tactics about cutting teachers to be completely bogus.
There are plenty of places within the district where money could be cut without impacting teachers at all. For example, a $70 million dollar bond issue was completed in March for construction of a new elementary school, a new middle school, and a new high school and will include yet another multi-million dollar football stadium which will be used maybe 30 days out of the year. Are you saying there is no opportunity to save teachers jobs versus bricks-and-mortar?
Here’s a link to the most recent five year plan:
http://www.richland2.org/lib/files/DistrictOffice/Departments/Planning/STRATEGIC_PLAN_FOR_WORLD_CLASS_EDUCATION_UPDATE_TO_sde_04_30_2008.doc
You’ll see plenty of items on that list that could be delayed or eliminated to save teachers jobs.
How about $250K for GPS for school buses? Really?
How about $300K to “create a micro-society at Keels Elementary”? Really?
How about “Implement foreign languages in elementary schools” at 60K per teacher?
How about “develop after school programs for English as Second Language” students at a cost of $150K
Here’s a great one: “Increase ratio of Guidance Counselors to students to 1 per 300 at all grade levels, including kindergarten and pre-kindergarten” The cost: Counselors est. @ $55,000 x 20 = $1.1 m.
Based on my three kids experience with guidance counselors in Richland 2, we need fewer, not more.
“Expand and enhance the district leadership development program to prepare new administrators. 75K per year.
The list goes on and on.
Do you see my point? None of what I listed has anything to do with teaching kids.
Anyone who takes more than a minute to actually see the way our tax dollars are spent would realize there is no crisis. There is no budget shortfall. There is no need to cut a single classroom teacher.
All we have to do is find some people who are true stewards of tax dollars, not spenders.
Oh, and today we learned that Senator Leatherman left out nearly $600 million stimulus dollars from the phony scare-tactic budget the Legislature has created. Whoops…. caught red-handed again.
You Sanford haters have to face the fact sometime that you’ve been suckered. The sooner you do, the less stupid you’ll feel when the Legislature hikes your taxes to cover all the new spending they’re going to put in place.
Doug,
You’re quoting from the strategic plan, not a budget. Cutting from a strategic plan doesn’t save any money. The actual budget documents are located here.
Doug, you should probably just home-school.
Your feelings about Richland 2 are quite clear. I’ve read your posts elsewhere.
See, it’s really easy to go through that strategic planning list, and cherry-pick things that Doug Ross Thinks Don’t Really Matter.
The GPS on the bus is so the bus with your kid on it is monitored, and if it deviates from its route or some other funny business occurs, people whose job it is to worry about the safety of your kid on that bus can take action. See, that’s why it says “Expand GPS on all buses for continuous monitoring and safety evaluation.”
Now, in Doug Ross Land, maybe continuous monitoring and safety evaluation are useless. OK, let’s cut it. Chop. Gee, I wonder where my kid is? Why hasn’t the bus shown up yet? What’s going on….?
Also, you’re crazy about the guidance counselors. Sorry you’ve had a bad experience. But a good guidance counselor can make all the difference in giving that extra push that gets on-the-fence students into post-secondary education, even just trade schools, not to mention finding grants and scholarships. But it also takes a lot of time to meet with students individually, case by case, and work through each kid’s unique situation. Having a distributed, manageable caseload across more counselors could be the defining difference between whether some students fall through the cracks or whether, because of more “face time” with a counselor, they find that often-overlooked local or regional scholarship that makes college possible.
But…ALSO…the kid could really use a push from home to go in and talk to the guidance counselor! Two way street!
Now, I’m absolutely sure some of these things can be scaled back, or even cut. However, I vigorously disagree with you on the foreign language and ESOL initiatives. We should be teaching additional languages as early and often as possible. We’re talking huge life skills and work-world assets, and it makes kids smarter both culturally and intellectually. But to be fluent, you practically have to “live” the language. Which means starting young. Teach Latin in elementary school and suddenly you’ve got kids making huge inroads to actual fluency in the entire family of Romance languages. There is NO PLACE in adult life where this is not a priceless asset.
As for ESOL, diversity is reality. It is the new normal. We will not be reverting to a land of homogenous Anglo-Saxons any time soon. Students for whom English is not a first language should have just as much opportunity to be successful as any other citizen here. This is a critical life skill! The ability to communicate means everything. No, that is not an acceptable cut. Sorry.
Football stadium? OK, let’s chop it. Hell, let’s just chop all sports funding. I could make a grand argument here about the worth of student-athletics, with respect to team-building, confidence, character, fun, scholarships, experiences…and the importance of athletics facilities in empowering those experiences.
But, forget it. Chop away.
See, the thing is, many things are already being cut. I don’t know if you go to the Richland 2 board meetings, but there will be two meetings coming up where you’ll hear much more about what’s being cut. There are hiring freezes in critical departments. The big question now is, how much more will be cut, and will the district have to move to furloughs/layoffs. But this is still a district with heavy growth…portable farms everywhere and many more schools to spring up over the next ten years.
I know some people really get off on Sanford “sticking it” to public education. Some folks positively dance a jig over it. But, see, the funny thing is, when the Reaper comes down on public education, it’s not the overpaid administrators, who you love to loathe so vehemently, that get the pointy end of the stick. It’s either the new teachers with sharp skills who were heavily recruited but don’t have any tenure, and so get bumped….or it’s the teachers with the most experience who get bumped because they were close to retirement anyway. So the fat middle stays fat, and the students lose out on the best of the new and the best of the old.
And don’t even get me started on the 40% of the layoffs who aren’t teachers, but living-wage support workers like technicians, cafeteria workers, custodians, etc.
That’s what’s so particularly onerous about what Sanford’s doing right now. Federal stimulus money is tagged specifically to retain all of these sorts of teaching and education support LIVELIHOODS, and Sanford incorrectly thinks he has the right to meddle with where the money goes. He doesn’t. He’s wrong, and will be held to account.
jfx,
It all comes down to priorities. It’s not cherry picking. It’s making choices. My preference is to pay in class teachers to do their jobs as well as possible and to support them in keeping discipline under control. You apparently can justify every expense, no matter the cost or purpose — and yet in the same post express concern for the people who may be laid off. You can’t make a choice between a janitor and a GPS???
And don’t tell me about growth. The district has made no attempt to work with the county to try and influence anyone to implement policies to slow growth. The district has embraced the growth. You cannot grow at the rates Northeast Columbia has grown over the past decade and expect to maintain high standards. The district can’t even find enough science and math teachers now. They have been forced to go outside the country to find teachers — many of whom do not speak English very well
What never ceases to confuse me is that why so few people are actually willing to put their name to their opinions. If you feel so strongly about the worthiness of Richland 2’s programs, why not tell us who you are? You appear to have some connection to the district. Do you have kids in the schools? Are you a teacher? Are you an administrator?
And jfx, if you’d like to have an offline discussion about Richland 2, I’m more than willing to. We can talk about the things I can’t put on a blog.
Doug-
In our present scenario, the janitor AND the GPS will both get laid off.
And yet, Richland 2 has it worlds better than Lexington 1, where even the cockroaches are about to get pink slips.
Doug, say it with me now…..there is a “NATIONAL SHORTAGE” of science and math teachers. We are now a science- and math-deficient country. Didn’t you know? This isn’t a Richland 2 area growth thing. It’s a USA thing. Those out-of-country teachers who are willing to leave their homeland to come here for a better life, despite their broken English, and give a crack at teaching YOUR kids physics and trigonometry? God bless ’em. And you’ll find some of them in after-school ESOL, learning right along with the kids.
Actually, you CAN grow at the rates NE Columbia has, and maintain high standards. You set the standards, and then you bust your ass to try and meet them. People will disagree on the standards, for example class sizes no larger than X amount of students. Or whether people should actually monitor buses full of children. But if the standards are vigorously maintained, you have a chance at keeping up with the boom.
I wouldn’t say Richland 2 has “embraced” the growth. I’d used the word “surfed”. I’m sure there are parasites in the district who view the boom as an opportunity for exploit, but the truth is most career folks in the district were caught off-guard…what was it, 15 years ago? When all hell broke loose? Most of the administrative veterans have spent the better part of over a decade trying to catch a breath. It’s been a wild ride.
Doug, I have this rule about the internet, which I think is a very good rule for most people, especially any young people who may be reading, and would like a hot tip. If you don’t HAVE to use your real name, don’t. A reasonable opinion, proffered anonymously, is no less reasonable. Protect yourselves, kids! Use an internet condom!
How about “develop after school programs for English as Second Language” students at a cost of $150K
Do you see my point? None of what I listed has anything to do with teaching kids.
What? How is developing a program to teach English to students who don’t speak English not “teaching kids?” In fact, I would say that the common language of this country is the single most important thing we could possibly teach kids who do not already own it. What more could possibly broaden their horizons and give them the greatest chance to be successful here?
I know some people really get off on Sanford “sticking it” to public education. Some folks positively dance a jig over it.
No one wants to stick it to education here. No one dances over the classroom struggles of SC children. People only disagree on how to improve our education system. There’s no reason to vilify your opponents here. Your points are strong enough to stand on their own without the added comments. Please, have a little faith in your argument.
What “7 years of properity”? Corporate profits were great, but only the upper 20% truly did well under the reign of Bush Jr. We lost damn near 6 million jobs under Bush Jr. And our population grew by 25 million. Do the math. This “iDecade” has been terrible for the poor and the middle class.
Travis,
How is it possible under our economic system for the rich to become more wealthy and for the poor and middle class to see no benefit, let alone receive a “terrible” lot? Can you give me an example or specific to help me understand? The only thing I can think of is through government subsidies that come from all of us and are directed at one group (e.g. the corn farmers). And I think most all of us are against that.
I always thought that people got rich through expanding their businesses. Surely that would benefit all of us.
For the most part, it seems to me that we’re all in the same boat.
How is it possible under our economic system for the rich to become more wealthy and for the poor and middle class to see no benefit – Birch
Tax cuts for the wealthy (2001, 2003) while median household income for the middle class was stagnant under W. Throw in millions of jobs lost in the past several months and voila, increasing income disparity.
Now the GOP wants to offer MORE tax cuts for the wealthy – a 40% drop in their taxes – while they cuts spending on medicade. The GOP offers government for the well off and for those who succumb to hot button issues like gay marriage and right to life (and for those who believe in every man for himself). Since the early 70s, we have seen a HUGE redistribution of wealth. The top 1% now has as much wealth as the “bottom” 90%.
BTW, Sanford is caving under the weight of public outcry against his idiotology. He’s still holding education dollars hostage for one last stab at debt reduction. Decrepit school buildings will be on hold while he puts in a few more days campaigning.
Birch, the stock market
Randy and other socialists deceitfully misuse the term “redistribution of wealth” to claim that the poor have had their wealth redistributed to those who are wealthy. That is absurd. It is an impossibility, and never occurred.
The lower 50% of tax return filers pay no income tax, and most pay no FICA taxes, so they contribute nothing to the public weal, much less to any other persons.
The only “distribution” of wealth is in a mathematical sense – different people earn different amounts of money, just as there is a distribution of weights and heights among them.
The only redistribution of wealth is from the top 50% of tax filers who pay all the taxes, to the 50% who pay nothing and receive welfare in the form of Food Stamps, welfare checks, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
This is Marxist, and unAmerican. And it kills economic growth.
Clinton offset the damage of his tax increase on middle income wage earners by cutting the capital gains taxes in half, from 28% to 14%, and it worked to encourage investment in new businesses. Democrats have steadily increased the tax rates and taken away deductions for charity and other things.
Right now, the upper tax brackets, after the small tax cut under Bush in 2001, is still 11% higher than the 28% it was under Reagan, which gave us the recovery from the Carter recession and 28 years of growth.
Obama is using rhetoric of class envy as a smokescreen for his proposed national sales tax on energy, which will increase utility bills by 20% to 40%, depending upon the location. Poor people and working people will be hit the hardest.
Tax cuts for the wealthy (2001, 2003) while median household income for the middle class was stagnant under W.
There were tax cuts for the wealthy under Bush. But there were tax cuts at every tax rate. So the more apt comparison would be between median household income level and top earning household income levels. I bet all incomes have been stagnant for the last few years. Of course, this is not to defend Bush who was by all accounts a horrible president.
Throw in millions of jobs lost in the past several months and voila, increasing income disparity.
Once again, we’re all in the same boat here. Right now the middle class is struggling but the rich aren’t getting richer either.
Now the GOP wants to offer MORE tax cuts for the wealthy – a 40% drop in their taxes – while they cuts spending on medicade. The GOP offers government for the well off and for those who succumb to hot button issues like gay marriage and right to life
The GOP is a joke. I think everyone’s in agreement there.
Since the early 70s, we have seen a HUGE redistribution of wealth. The top 1% now has as much wealth as the “bottom” 90%.
Yes the rich, have gotten richer. But so has everyone. That’s not wealth redistribution, that’s wealth creation. As long as my middle class income is going up, I’m not too concerned with how much the rich are making.
Birch, the stock market
Thanks for making my point. Middle class savings have taken a beating. The rich have taken a beating. Anyone who’s in the stock market has taken a beating regardless of their income. We’re all in the same boat.
Interesting tidbit in today’s paper: The governor went to Leatherman’s office, not vice versa. I had not realized that…
“The lower 50% of tax return filers pay no income tax, and most pay no FICA taxes, so they contribute nothing to the public weal, much less to any other persons.”
Everyone pays FICA taxes, at the same rate up to the income cap. I would like to meet the people who don’t pay FICA on waged income. While its true that 40% (you really have a problem with percentages don’t you?) of taxpayers effectively don’t pay income taxes, they do, however, pay taxes in every other way (including the above FICA, property, and sales taxes). As the CBO report above points out, the effective tax rate of the bottom 20 is roughly around 4%.
“The only redistribution of wealth is from the top 50% of tax filers who pay all the taxes,”
Actually the top 50% don’t pay the majority of the taxes. Rather the top 5% do. They have the largest burden in the form of income taxes, while their burden isn’t as great in other taxes (which makes sense due to the cap on FICA contributions).
Your point about state government revenues increasing is correct – but your assertation that the only people who did not do well were those who did not work is a Plutocratic pipe dream. I don’t see much point in refuting religious beliefs with facts.
But again: for most of the 2000s, productivity and corporate profits increased dramatically, but wages did not. Productivity (and thus profit) per worker was way up, but profits were mostly kept by corporations. The average American family accrued more debt in an attempt to maintain a standard of living in the face of small wages increases being eaten up by job losses and an increasingly high cost of living.
And let’s not forget that the financial sector went from about 15% to 40%of corporate profits over the past 25 years. You can’t blame that on the Democrats, minorities, HUD, illegal aliens, or Barney Frank.
(In fact, you can’t blame it on any one President or Party.)
But when 40% of your corporate profits are in the financial sector, what you have is an economy increasingly dependent on creating speculative bubbles. That’s a dangerous way to run an economy, because bubbles inevitably burst. So what we’ve got now is an economy grown increasingly based on privatizing profits and socializing risks (bailouts). That’s not only unconscionable for the world’s greatest Democracy: it’s unsustainable.
If you really have a problem with Americans who don’t pay taxes receiving benefits (and I don’t like that one bit myself) then perhaps you should consider the possibility that Ronald Reagan allowed the Earned Income Credit because paying people a few hundred bucks worth of welfare once a year costs less than increasing wages.
The Grand Old Plutocratic Party is Hell on the minimum wage: until the Democrats took back Congress in 2006, the real minimum wage had sunk to its lowest rate since just after WWII. Pay Americans higher wages, and they’ll be able to pay higher taxes. We’re the greatest Democracy in the world because of our historically enormous middle class.
But if we allow most of the wealth to be concentrated in the hands of the upper 1%, we’re not going to remain the world’s greatest Democracy: we’re going to turn into a 3rd world country. And I don’t know about your specific project, but I’m not interested in how America stacks up against South America overall. To anyone who prefers doing business in Colombia to Columbia: Delta’s ready when you are – and try not to get shot.
I’ll make this as simple as I can:
Two thirds of our economy is the Main Street economy.
Lower Wages=Less Spending=Weaker Overall Economy.
Wall Street is an important part of our economy, but it’s not the only important part. I agree with you on one point: investors hate uncertainty.
We were State newspaper subscribers until you quit delivering in our town. I thought, oh well, I’ll just buy in from a newspaper rack. Then, I found it The State wouldn’t be delivered to newspaper racks here. Next, I figured out how to read The State online. This is cumbersome for me and much of the news I had already read in our daily Observer, so I figured out how to put a State Brad Warthen icon on my desktop. I was fairly happy just being able to read your column. Then. your address changed because The State laid you off. I worked awhile and was able to put the new address icon on my desktop. I don’t think I can take anymore changes. Please keep blogging. We need you. Get some businesses to advertise and I will buy from them. I promise. I’ll also tell them I saw their ad on here. Just please don’t quit blogging. Where else would I find this news?
Correction; I see Lee stated that the top 50% pay all the taxes, not simply the majority. But he’s still wrong. The top 60% of income earners pay the largest share of income taxes (roughly 94%). When you hit the bottom 40 (the two bottom quintiles that are highlighted in the CBO report above), the share of federal tax liability is essentially 6%.
But the important point about my highlighting the top 10% and the top 5% is that for a majority of people, including I would imagine a majority of Republicans, your tax liability is not that high. Despite rhetoric about the middle-class paying “higher taxes”, the reality is that increasingly few American’s HAVE to pay their federal income tax. Those who make the most, funny enough, STILL pay the most.
“Right now, the upper tax brackets, after the small tax cut under Bush in 2001, is still 11% higher than the 28% it was under Reagan, which gave us the recovery from the Carter recession and 28 years of growth.”
Nonsense. The marginal tax rate under Bush I WAS 28%, after the phase in of the 1986 Tax Reform Act which was passed under Reagan. Otherwise the predominant tax rate for the highest income tax bracket was 50%, after the Kemp-Roth Tax Act. Now the odd thing about the 1986 act is that is created a 33% effective tax rate bubble for those certain households who should have been in the 28% rate bracket. Why? Because a bevy of personal exemptions were phased out, which effectively raised the tax rate for certain upper-middle households to 33%, while those who were wealthier, upper-class households, had essentially a flat tax of 28%. the repeal of this bizarre situation is what became known as the Bush Tax Raise, which was nothing of the sort, but rather a re-balancing of the tax code to eliminate the bubble.
“Nonsense”, says Sean, then proceeds to agree with me that the taxes have crept up.
My points are:
1. GW Bush in 2001 gave a slight reduction of income taxes in ALL brackets.
2. The top brackets are still about 39% to 42%, depending on sources of income.
3. It was Clinton who cut taxes for investment bankers in half while everyone was watching his broken promise of “middle class tax cuts”, with the largest tax increase on them in history.
4. We know marginal rates right now are too high, because a very small reduction produces a lot of economic growth, and a very slight increase reduces growth to zero or negative.
The biggest impediment to recovery now is investor uncertainty. No one knows what the “sweeping tax changes” and “sweeping regulatory changes” threatened by Obama will look like, so no one can estimate a rate of return. Construction, even of needed facilities with long cycles, that would not come on line until Obama is gone in 2012, by firms holding the cash, have been placed on hold.
The frightening thing is the absurdity of bureaucrats and politicians with no business experience daring to dictate salaries, bonuses, makes and model and features of automobiles, even cancelling entire product lines and demanding new designs in 60 days of “green cars” which the consumers do not want to buy.
Yep, during the Reagan years, the top income tax rate was 50% – ’til 1987.
As I recall, the economy did pretty damned well from 1983-1987.
And in 1992, when Clinton raised the top bracket from 31% to 39.6% and the minimum wage got raised, neither action derailed the economy: in fact, it boomed, despite dire predictions to the contrary.
So I think that under normal circumstances, the upper 1% could handle a top rate of 40% just fine. But one of the problems with taxing the upper 1% is that most of their income doesn’t come via a paycheck.
Warren Buffett probably paid less taxes as a percentage of his income in 2007 than the average Doctor did. I like Buffett a lot, but there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
As a matter of fact, the economy went flat under Clinton in 1996, to the point that he was behind in the polls. He spent as much money as he could on social programs and used the OKC bombing to frighten enough people to win re-election.
Then there was the downturn and Dot.com crash in 1998.
In 2000, the economy went into a recession on the heels of another tax increase. Bush cured that with a slight tax cut for everyone.
The tax rates were higher than 50% when Reagan took over a flat economy with from Carter, with 19% inflation, and we had a recession as severe as this one in 1982 after the tax increases to save Social Security when it went bankrupt in 1981. Then Reagan’s tax cuts went through, took effect, and the boom began.
Warren Buffet pays very little income tax, because he does not cash out of his positions. His holding companies manage the profits and often move in and out of positions by stock swaps, which have no tax liability.
The fact is that if these investors had to pay the 40% of the middle class, who also pay 15.3% on almost all their incomes, the economy would have no money for growth.
That is one purpose of high taxes on wages – to keep wage earners from accumulating enough capital to stop being employees and start their own businesses – and it works.
It should be the goal of every smart person to move as much of their income as possible off of wages and onto rents, dividents, interest and capital gains. Stop feeding the parasites who call themselves, “The Government”.
““Nonsense”, says Sean, then proceeds to agree with me that the taxes have crept up.”
Under the vice-president of the guy you claim caused a supposed economic bonanza. More to the point taxes weren’t “raised”; there was an effective 33% tax rate that hit certain people in the donut hole between the phase out of exemptions and the flat 28%. What Bush I did was switch this around so that there wasn’t this donut hole by shifting the 33% onto the higher income earners and than shifting the 28% down to the one’s who were formerly in the donut hole. Can you read? He SWITCHED THEM AROUND. He did not “raise them”; he merely reassigned them. Clinton raised them at the higher end, Bush lowered them, and Obama has kept them effectively the same for the majority of American tax payers.
“2. The top brackets are still about 39% to 42%, depending on sources of income.”
No they’re not. The highest marginal tax rate is 35%, and no one actually ever pays that, once you minus out exemptions, deductions, and the fact that those in that tax bracket often make a good chunk of their income that are covered under capital gains which is significantly lower you could find this out by cracking open the guide to Your Federal Income Taxes for Individuals.
“We know marginal rates right now are too high, because a very small reduction produces a lot of economic growth, and a very slight increase reduces growth to zero or negative.”
Oh yes, because all the Bush tax cuts gave a huge bonanza in income that we’re all seeing everyday. If you honestly think that this line of argument is going to work with things as they are around us, then you obviously have a higher self-confidence than intelligence.
Right: Warren Buffett keeps his money in his stock.
I don’t know what you mean when you say “flatten”.
But the facts are these: we had the longest post-war expansion of the economy under Clinton. We gained more than 22 million jobs. Unemployment and Inflation dropped to their lowest levels since the early 60s. Home ownership hit a record high. You don’t have to be a Kool-Aid swilling Obamaphile to believe that: I’m sure not one. But those are facts.
Of course, Clinton didn’t operate in a vacuum. So you could always argue that the boom economy of the 90s was entirely caused by welfare reform, the Internet, or increasing international trade. You could argue that the economy did well solely due to the actions of Newt Gingrich’s Republican Congress. You could even argue it was only thanks to the coordinated actions of the Holy Illuminated Order of International Libertarian Investment Bankers that the United States of America was spared from certain doom via spontaneous Communistic Combustion.
You can argue whatever you like, but you can’t eradicate the facts.
And the fact is that the economy of the 90s was better than that of the 2000s.
By the way – if – IF – the G-20 countries actually follow through on their resolution, it’s going to be a lot harder for people – and most of our Top 100 corporations – to hide their income in tax-free places like Bermuda.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/02/g20-economy
Final post – a gloomy and possibly correct counterview from Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,617224,00.html
Travis, you need to earn more money, so you can see what it feels like to pay 40% federal, because the rates are out there, contrary to what Obama is telling you.
Wait until Obama makes good on his promise to confiscate your 401-k and IRA, and redistribute you ill-gotten gains to new retirement accounts for his ghetto dwellers.
Get ready for Carter inflation rates, too, eating up your paycheck at 21% a year or more.
Then, with the Democrats jacking a 30% tax on your electric bill, you will begin to get a taste of how “the rich” live under socialism.
Clinton rode the Reagan boom into the ground with tax increases on middle income famlies, corruption and tax breaks for IPOs, which created a bust in tech stocks in 1998.
All the numbers under GW Bush are better – employment, savings, net wealth, the stock market, job creation.
This economy came apart in 2007 when Democrats got control of both houses of Congress, and their looting the Treasury continues.
The stock market sell off began when Obama sewed up the nomination, and was threatening to seize our 401-k and IRA plans. Individuals withdrew trillions in cash as quickly as they could.
“Travis, you need to earn more money, so you can see what it feels like to pay 40% federal, because the rates are out there, contrary to what Obama is telling you.”
And contrary evidently to what the IRS actually does. Again, no one actually ever pays the highest marginal rate (which is still 35% but which will be raised again to 38%).
“It should be the goal of every smart person to move as much of their income as possible off of wages and onto rents, dividents, interest and capital gains. Stop feeding the parasites who call themselves, “The Government”.”
Why? As you yourself stated, a significant portion of individuals don’t even pay the federal income tax, and in fact because of the EITC and other refundable credits, most of their burden from FICA is wiped out as well. You can’t have it both ways; either one group is a bunch of teat sucking pariahs who are living the highlife, or everyone is getting their whole pay check wiped out by the federal government. The truth is neither.
The lower 50% of tax filers are sucking the teat of government, because they pay now taxes. The top 5% pay over 70% of the income taxes.
I repeat:
“It should be the goal of every smart person to move as much of their income as possible off of wages and onto rents, dividents, interest and capital gains. Stop feeding the parasites who call themselves, “The Government”.”
Why?
The FICA taxes are money down a rat hole, supporting the welfare Ponzi scheme of Social Security. That 15.3% is enough to build a comfortable retirement for anyone, and build a fortune for anyone earning over $120,000 a year.
The quickest road to building an investment nest egg is to not live or work in states with punitive income tax rates, like New York and South Carolina. That is why South Carolina has lost over 100,000 engineering and science jobs – the state tries to double tax engineers, construction workers and others who work out of state.
Obama and the Democrats want to double tax overseas America workers the way Jimmy Carter did, which cost us America its dominance of heavy construction.