Yearly Archives: 2009

Change the system? ‘Aw, never mind …’

48 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
JUST IN CASE you were wondering, or knew and had forgotten, this is the way the political culture pushes back against change in South Carolina: Not with a bang, but with an “Aw, never mind.”
    Remember last week’s column, in which I offered, as a rare sign of hope, the gathering consensus that the state Department of Health and Environmental Control should be made more accountable by placing it directly under the elected chief executive? Well, ever since then, there’s been some backtracking.
Actually, it started even before that. While I was writing that column, I heard from my colleague Cindi Scoppe that Manufacturers Alliance chief Lewis Gossett was sending us an op-ed clarifying his position after The State’s Sammy Fretwell had reported that he and S.C. Chamber of Commerce president Otis Rawl were supporting legislative efforts to put DHEC in the governor’s Cabinet.
    Not having received that op-ed (and we still hadn’t received it a week later, when this page was composed), I just wrote around the business leaders, and focused on another Fretwell story that reported that the chairman of the DHEC board, Bo Aughtry, was supportive of the Cabinet idea. “It is worthy of serious consideration because I believe it would take some of the political influence out of decisions that really should not be political,” he had told Sammy.
    This was important because the board Mr. Aughtry chairs would be the very entity that would be surrendering power if the governor were in charge. I thought it reflected very well upon Mr. Aughtry.
On Wednesday, however, I began to worry when someone shared with me a memo that DHEC Commissioner Earl Hunter had sent internally on Friday, Jan. 16, which said in part (you can read it all on my blog):

On another note, several stories have been reported in The State newspaper and other media outlets recently regarding our agency being placed in the Governor’s cabinet. Two business organizations, the SC Chamber of Commerce and the SC Manufacturers Alliance were reported as being supportive. Information I have received from both of those organizations contradicts those storiesæ.æ.æ.æ. In addition, an article this week reported that our board chairman was also supportive. Chairman Aughtry has e-mailed and called me to let me know and let you know that he was misquoted. His statement to the media was simply that he felt that any change that would take politics out of the equation is worthy of consideration. He also let the reporter know that he was 100% supportive of the agency and its staff. As usual, however, that statement wasnt included in the report….

    Then, on Thursday, we received the op-ed piece from Bo Aughtry that you find on the opposite page. Please read it.
    He writes that “moving the agency into the governor’s Cabinet may be appropriate,” although “this is not my current position.” He does believe that “any move that will make DHEC decisions less subject to political pressures is worthy of consideration. Is this best accomplished by a move to Cabinet status? I do not know, but the objective is sound.”
    If that’s a denial, it’s a mushy one. But he delivers another message that I hear a lot more loudly and clearly: Earl Hunter is a great guy. His staff is very fine, too. The same is true of the folks on the governing board.
    And you know what? I agree. I don’t know all of those people, but I know Earl Hunter, and he is a great guy. He goes to my church. I truly believe he is a sincere advocate for the state’s health and environmental quality.
    But you know what else? This isn’t about how I feel about Earl Hunter. It’s about the fact that we have a system of government in this state that does not allow the public will to be expressed clearly and effectively through this or any other agency that does not report to the elected chief executive.
    Too often, the need for such accountability is expressed in punitive terms: A governor could fire an agency head who isn’t getting the job done. But an agency head who has the governor and his bully pulpit behind him will have a lot more political leverage for doing his job. Which is better: having the unelected board chairman “100% supportive of the agency and its staff,” or having the same support from the governor and his bully pulpit? As things stand, Mr. Hunter has no one at his back with any juice, but he does have to keep his board and 170 legislators happy, which is not a recipe for bold reform; it’s a recipe for caution.
    What I want is a system that gives South Carolinians someone to hold accountable for the fact that we take too much of the nation’s waste and are not as healthy as folks in other states. Such a system would also give the good, dedicated people at DHEC the political leverage to change the political dynamic in this state as it affects their mission.
    We’ve been here before. When this newspaper started pushing hard for a Cabinet system back in 1991, we ran smack into the fact that the then-commissioner of DHEC was also a terrific guy, named Michael Jarrett. He was enormously respected in state government circles, and rightly so. He spoke out strongly against making DHEC a Cabinet agency. He did so as he was fighting cancer, which took his life in 1992. Lawmakers listened, and did not make DHEC a Cabinet agency.
    We don’t need another reform debate based in how lawmakers feel about those serving in the current system, because in South Carolina, the reform argument always loses such debates. Once it becomes about ol’ so-and-so who has the job now, forget about change: Aw, never mind.
    The thing is, if Mr. Hunter and Mr. Aughtry were replaced tomorrow — something I am not advocating — it would not change one bit the fact that voters have no one they can hold responsible for improving our public health and environmental quality.
    Mr. Aughtry was right the first time, and he’s still right: Reform is “worthy of consideration,” because “the objective is sound.”

For more, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

DHEC memo

3 Replies

Here's the full internal DHEC memo that I referred to in my Sunday column. Commissioner Earl Hunter sent it on Friday, Jan. 16. I got it second or third-hand, and consequently copied and sent it to DHEC spokesman Thom Berry to check its authenticity. Unfortunately, he was traveling and couldn't get to his e-mail. So I read portions of it to him on the phone, and he said he recognized it as a message Mr. Hunter had sent the previous Friday:

Good afternoon, staff.

    Let me begin by saying that I sincerely appreciate the positive way you have handled the budget balancing steps we've had to take to keep our agency afloat. And I especially appreciate the way you've continued to do your jobs with a sense of purpose and an emphasis on customer service. It's a testament to each and every one of you.
    Announcing furloughs just prior to the holidays was one of the most difficult tasks I have faced as Commissioner. I know all the members of the Executive Management Team feel the same way. I heard from many of you. The majority, very positive.  A few, very negative. Please know that I understand and can appreciate both reactions.
    Recently, however, I have learned of several unfounded rumors floating around that I am sure have caused concerns among many of you. One such rumor that I've been made aware of is that "an additional five or ten days of furloughs are forthcoming." I have also been told that some are saying that "the decision was made weeks ago" and that we are just delaying announcing this until the "right time." I ask that you pay no attention to these rumors.  They are just that…rumors…unfounded and untrue. Although allowed by law to implement up to 10 days during the year, no additional plans for furloughs have been or are being discussed.  If no additional budget cuts happen this fiscal year, it is my sincere hope and the current plan of EMT that no additional furloughs will be necessary this fiscal year
    On the budget front, the Board of Economic Advisors (BEA) met yesterday in Columbia.  According to news reports, collections for the months of October and November were actually ahead of revised projections by $30 million. Although $30 million in relation to the overall annual state budget is not a lot of money, it may be a sign that additional revisions downward of collection estimates may not be necessary. We hope that equates to no additional cuts for the remainder of this fiscal year, which ends June 30, 2009. The BEA will meet in February to review collections data for the holiday shopping season.
    On another note, several stories have been reported in The State newspaper and other media outlets recently regarding our agency being placed in the Governor's cabinet. Two business organizations, the SC Chamber of Commerce and the SC Manufacturers Alliance were reported as being supportive. Information I have received from both of those organizations contradicts those stories. Both may be coming out with formal statements of clarification soon. In addition, an article this week reported that our board chairman was also supportive. Chairman Aughtry has e-mailed and called me to let me know and let you know that he was misquoted. His statement to the media was simply that he felt that any change that would take politics out of the equation is worthy of consideration. He also let the reporter know that he was 100% supportive of the agency and its staff.  As usual, however, that statement wasnt included in the report.
    In closing, I ask that you all try to keep a positive attitude during these difficult time, and that you please not allow yourselves to be distracted by the media. We will be appearing before our House Ways and Means Budget Subcommittee next Thursday morning regarding next fiscal years budget, and plan to lay out for the members the effects of all three cuts our agency has taken thus far, as well as what further cuts would do and what our most pressing needs are — both for our agency and the people of this state  I will provide another update once that has concluded. Take care And thank you again for all that you do.

Earl

Earlier DHEC chief also opposed restructuring

2 Replies

Back when we did our "Power Failure" series about the problems with the way government is structured in South Carolina, one of the most influential opponents of going to a Cabinet system was the late Michael Jarrett, the highly respected commissioner of DHEC.

When the Legislature passed restructuring legislation that put some of the executive branch under control of the elected chief executive, DHEC was one of the larger agencies that lawmakers pointedly left out of the Cabinet.

The following is a story we ran as part of our series, in which Mr. Jarrett presented his arguments against gubernatorial control of his agency.

I had remembered this story and searched for it in our database so I could link to it in my Sunday column, in which I mentioned Mr. Jarrett's opposition to restructuring. I had forgotten the long correction that we later ran, which was in keeping with our archiving procedures attached to the file in our database:

THE STATE
DHEC CHIEF WARNS OF POLITICKING, FRAGMENTATION
Published on: 12/15/1991
Section: IMPACT
Edition: FINAL
Page: 1C
By LEVONA PAGE, Senior Writer
Memo: POWER FAILURE: The Government That Answers to No One

Sixteenth in a series

Correction: WE WERE WRONG, PUBLISHED DEC. 17, 1991, FOLLOWS:

Mike Jarrett, commissioner of the Department of Health and Environmental Control, said Monday his agency was not pressured by the office of former Gov. Dick Riley to deny a permit for the Union Camp paper mill, as he said in a story Sunday in The State. After checking with DHEC staff about his earlier comments, Jarrett said, "I think that was overstated from what I can find out now." He said that after the paper mill permit became controversial, Riley's staff called his agency to be sure that the permitting process was done properly and without haste so that it could not be challenged. "They were just calls expressing concern," Jarrett said. "The staff doesn't remember any undue pressure." Riley said Monday he and his staff strongly supported Union Camp, publicly and privately. "What we always said to DHEC was the governor supports this unless you can come up with a reason not to," Riley said. In a reference in the same story to a contact by the governor's office concerning a permit for a gold mine at Ridgeway, Jarrett said he was referring to the office of Gov. Carroll Campbell, not the Riley administration. DHEC issued the gold mine permit four months after Campbell took office. Campbell spokesman Tucker Eskew said the governor did not take sides in that controversy, but Eskew said, "There's nothing wrong with the governor's office contacting a state agency to express views. Such input at least is coming from an accountable, statewide elected official."

    Mike Jarrett knows state government as well as anybody in it, and he has some serious doubts about the proposed Cabinet.

    His opinion is likely to carry a lot of weight. He's been around since 1964, climbing to his present job as commissioner of the Department of Health and Environmental Control.

    Also, most people who know Jarrett know he's not concerned about protecting his job. A year ago, he learned he has terminal cancer.

    From his unique perspective, Jarrett speaks freely, and he faults the proposed Cabinet system mainly on two points. First, he says it would put more politics into decision making. Second, he says the particular plan being discussed in South Carolina unnecessarily splits up some agencies and diverts their functions to other agencies.

    If the governor is given more power, as a Cabinet system proposes, the chief executive will become more vulnerable to the voters' displeasure when things go wrong. That means state government will be forced to bow to every whim of popular political opinion, Jarrett said.

    "A governor has to be interested in politics and popularity, and agencies can't be run on the basis of popular decisions," he said.

    DHEC has had some experience with political pressure from the governor's office, Jarrett said. He cited two examples, both during former Gov. Dick Riley's administration.

    The first occurred when residents became upset about Union Camp's plans to build a $485 million paper mill near Eastover.

    "We had calls from the governor's staff not to permit," Jarrett said. "But what they (Union Camp) presented to us met the minimum standards of the law, and we permitted it.

    "In retrospect, it has been a good decision, but had we been driven by the governor's office . . . that decision would not have been made the way it was."

    Another example was the dispute over an $81 million gold mine at Ridgeway, which was opposed by some environmentalists.

    "First, the governor's office called. 'What can you do to get the permit through? It's big business, and we need it.' We had a hearing process. While that was taking place, the public got opposed. Then we got a call from the same staff. 'Don't permit it.' But we had no choice. It met the criteria of the law, and we permitted it."

    DHEC was able to shrug off the directives from the governor's office because the agency is governed by an independent board. Although all seven board members are governor's appointees, the terms are staggered, and the board usually is a mix of appointees by more than one governor.

    Environmental permitting actions should be insulated from politics, Jarrett said.

    Aside from the potential for political influence, Jarrett is strongly against the reorganization plan put forth by the governor's Commission on Government Restructuring.

    Under the commission's plan, the major health delivery functions of DHEC would be given to a new Department of Health and Human Services. Those functions include preventive health services, maternal and child health, home health care and migrant services.

    With the health delivery functions stripped away, the new Department of Health and Environmental Control would exist mainly as a regulatory and licensing agency. The department would monitor environmental quality and health care facilities.

    Jarrett said the separation of health and environment is contrary to a recent study of the national Institute of Medicine and would not benefit the public. He said the commission's recommendation is driven by a desire to provide one-stop environmental permitting for industry.

    DHEC is not the only agency whose functions would be split up. Others are the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism and the Department of Highways and Public Transportation.

    Jarrett said he wouldn't u
se his influence to fight a Cabinet system of government if some changes were made in the restructuring commission's plan. "I will be strongly against separating health and environment," he said. "I don't think it is for the benefit of the public. It is for the benefit of industry at the expense of the public."

It’s not a scientific fact that peas and carrots go well together

28 Replies

For some time, I've gotten these regular e-mails called "Peas and Carrots Reports" from a South Carolina-oriented group called "Citizens for Sound Conservation." (Get it? Citizens for S.C.? I assume that's intentional.)

I've never had time really to look into what sort of group this is, or even read these reports, but I gather that it's one of those groups whose philosophy can be summed up as "Protecting the environment is great and all, but let's not get carried away." You know — we can have all the growth we want without really seriously hurting the environment. Which I don't necessarily disagree with, although I find that folks who start from that proposition generally drift more and more toward the growth, and farther and farther from the environmental protection.

No, what has vaguely bothered me about these reports is the "Peas and Carrots" part. It apparently arises from what I take to be the group's motto, "Because growth and protection go together — just like peas and carrots." The irritating thing about this to me is that I always thought the line was dumb when Forrest Gump said it, and I'm pretty sure it was meant to sound dumb, Mr. Gump being, you know, the way he was. Sort of an endearingly goofy thing to say. It was sort of meant to suggest that since peas and carrots were often packaged together and (I guess) his mama served them to him that way, he thought there was some sort of inherent connection. But there isn't, not really. Root vegetable and legume, green and orange — not a whole lot of similarities that I can see. And personally, I never thought they tasted good together. At best, an odd combo.

Anyway, that's about as far as my analysis of these reports had gone until the one I got today, which said the following (the boldfaced emphasis is mine):

    Despite the near 24-7 coverage focusing on how cool President Obama is and how his wife has already become a fashion icon, there was a good bit of news on the environmental front.  First, it’s becoming more and more apparent that Americans are skeptical of global warming – which means any state and federal policies being based upon that theory must be re-evaluated.  Second, while the causes of climate change continue to be debated our dependence on fossil fuels remains strong.  As such, support for more offshore exploration for oil and natural gas continues to grow.  And last, the private sector continues to embrace and transition into a more green economy – but government doesn’t need to overstep its bounds.  That’s the big question for 2009.

Come again? You say polls show that the propaganda campaign to cast doubt on global warming has gained some traction, so since more Americans doubt the science on this, we should change our policies?

Say what? Does that mean that if a majority of Americans comes to believe that the Earth is flat and you'll fall off if you go too far, the U.S. Navy should stay in the Western Hemisphere. (Yeah, some of our isolationists would love that, but it would still be nuts.)

I tend to get impatient with liberals who rant about how policies should be based in sound science and nothing else. Not that I've got anything against science, but because their real point is that our policies in no way should be based in deeply held values (specifically, religion-based values). Take that far enough, and you get eugenics or something equally horrible and "scientific." So when Obama said "We will restore science to its rightful place," I winced, because I know among Democrats that's code for "We'll do stem cell research whether you think it's morally right or not." That made it my second least-favorite part of a speech that on the whole I liked a lot.

But the idea that we should reverse policies meant to protect the Earth (not that we have many such policies to any serious extent) because a poll shows the average person doubts the science (never mind what the doubt is based in) is crazy.

Our republic is based in the notion that our elected representatives study issues and become more knowledgable about them than the average poll respondent. It too seldom works that way as things stand, with the ubiquity of polling and other pressures on elected officials to do the popular thing whether it's the right thing or not. This takes it to an absurd degree.

As to the larger point: Doubt is cast on global warming by people who simply do not want to do what it would take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I have gathered that they would not want to do it whatever the science is, and therefore they have resolved not to believe the science, and to cling to anything that might cast doubt on it.

I have a very different attitude: The way I look at it, even if there were only a 10 percent chance that our emissions were causing global warming, and that that was a bad thing, I say why the hell not reduce our emissions — especially since there are so many other good reasons (such as our strategic position in the world) to burn less gasoline, and to move past coal to nuclear, and all that other good Energy Party stuff.

And yeah, the fact that it MIGHT help the planet is an additional reason to do things that ought to be common sense.

Here's the thing — I'm pretty much open to any good argument. And I'm concerned enough about economic development that I still haven't made my mind up about that new coal-fired plant proposed for the Pee Dee.

That’s why I don’t answer the phone

20 Replies

Someone in our newsroom sent out this e-mail globally a few minutes ago:

Has anyone else  gotten a call from the woman who wants to talk about movie reivews, The State and the SC Supreme Court not displaying the American flag, Daniel Craig in "Defiance,"
China and the Germans? Among other things.

No, thank goodness — although that sounds just like a lot of calls I get.

When I became editorial page editor, I had to stop answering my publicized land line — which I felt really bad about, since my whole career I had valued accessibility. But I found that editorial page editors get a kind of call that other journalists don't get — the very nice people who, when they find out they're talking to the EPE, want to talk about every issue under the sun. And since they are nice people, I have a very hard time getting off the phone. When I DO make the mistake of answering it, it's not unusual for me to be trapped for half and hour, and sometimes more. Which I cannot do, and do all the other stuff I have to do in a day — especially if I'm going to read my e-mail, and communicate with y'all here on the blog.

Once, I had someone to answer the phone for me — and get me on the line if necessary. No more. Now I have to let the machine get it, and get back to people as I am able — something I apologize for, but I don't know how else to manage the time.

If someone really NEEDS to talk to me (not just chat) and they're not available when I call them back, I leave my cell number — which I always answer.

It's really, really imperfect, but I haven't figured a better way to get through the day. And yes, I've consulted people about time management, and you know what they always say? I try to do too much. Answering the phone is one of the few things I've given up.

What IS that heavenly body?

20 Replies

Any astronomers out there, amateur or otherwise? I feel really stupid asking this question — in earlier centuries, any educated person would have known the answer to this, but in our light-polluted modern era, we take too little note of the heavens — but I'm going to ask it anyway. After all, the valedictorian of my high school class used to ask the stupidest questions I ever heard — our physics teacher's jaw would actually drop with incredulity — but those of us who were too cool to ask dumb questions didn't get to be valedictorian. (My wife says her class valedictorian, her friend Mary, was the same way. And look at her today; she has a giant flat-screen HDTV and I don't.)

Where was I? Oh yes — what in the 'verse is that superbig, superbright, object in the sky at about 30 degrees elevation, a little south of west as of 8 p.m. Eastern? Is it Mars? Venus? Some other planet, that has just wandered closer than usual? (I'm thinking Mars, because it seems to have a bit more of an orangish cast than the other, far less bright, stars and planets.)

It's the biggest, brightest thing I can ever remember seeing in the sky aside from the sun and moon.

Who can tell me what it is?

McCain, Graham support Obama on Gitmo

45 Replies

FYI, I just got this release from Lindsey Graham's office:

JOINT STATEMENT FROM U.S. SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JOHN MCCAIN ON GUANTANAMO EXECUTIVE ORDER

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and John McCain (R-Arizona) today issued the following statement regarding the executive order put forth by President Obama calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo:  

“We support President Obama’s decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees,” said Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain.  “The executive orders issued today constitute an important step in the right direction but leave several major issues unaddressed.”
“Numerous difficult issues remain,” Senator Graham and Senator McCain continued.  “Present at Guantanamo are a number of detainees who have been cleared for release but have found no foreign country willing to accept them.  Other detainees have been deemed too dangerous for release, but the sensitive nature of the evidence makes prosecution difficult.  The military’s proper role in processing detainees held on the battlefield at Bagram, Afghanistan, and other military prisons around the world must be defended, but that is left unresolved.  Also unresolved is the type of judicial process that would replace the military commissions. We believe the military commissions should have been allowed to continue their work.  We look forward to working with the President and his administration on these issues, keeping in mind that the first priority of the U.S. government is to guarantee the security of the American people.”

            ####

… which seems to me an appropriate stance for the loyal opposition. They support their commander in chief because they share his concerns that our nation live up to its highest ideals — which is completely consistent with their advocacy during the Bush administration. (And remember, McCain said that he, too, would have closed the Gitmo facility if elected.) At the same time, they make sure they get on the record the unresolved problems inherent in this move. Smart, principled and appropriate.

Well, at least he was civil about it…

37 Replies



South Carolina's senators split — again — today on the confirmation of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Guess which one voted against? (Hint: It was NOT the guy Obama's going to be looking to for foreign policy advice.) But he managed to be quite civil about it, saying:

    The memorandum of understanding signed by the foundation leaves a lot of discretion to Senator Clinton.  During her confirmation hearing, Sen. Lugar presented a request for more acceptable disclosures, and Sen. Kerry, as chairman, supported these recommendations. Unfortunately, Sen. Clinton has not agreed to follow even these modest recommendations.    
    For these reasons, I will be voting against the nomination, but I will do so with nothing but sincere hope and goodwill toward our new Secretary of State, and pray for her success as she takes the helm of the State Department.

Meanwhile Lindsey Graham put out this statement:

Graham Supports Clinton for Secretary of State
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement after Hillary Clinton was confirmed as Secretary of State.  The vote in the Senate was 94-2.
    “Hillary Clinton will serve our nation well as Secretary of State.  She understands the enormous domestic and international challenges facing our nation.  In choosing Hillary Clinton, President Obama has selected a person of great substance, skill, and intellect. 
     “President Obama won the election and has earned the right to put his team in place.  The presidential campaign is over but the wars our nation is engaged in are not.  Our young men and women around the world in harms way need an advocate on the world stage.”
            ####

Of course, he and Hillary have always gotten along pretty cordially.

How would I have voted? Well, as you know, I didn't think this was the best call Obama has made. Some other job, yes, but I don't think secretary of state is the best place to put your chief rival. The SecState should be understood as completely subordinate to the president, and that seems a tough role for her.

But in the end, Graham says it well: This is the president's call. If this is who he wants, barring some really compelling reason to reject her, I say get her in place as soon as possible. Yeah, I think the Clinton foundation thing is a problem. But then Bill is always a problem for Hillary. No matter how much disclosure, there would be a problem. Not enough to vote "no" for me, though.

President Obama’s been a very busy bee today

24 Replies



About midafternoon yesterday, I remarked to someone that by that time, Barack Obama had to be pretty tired — and that was before he and the missus stayed out until 1 a.m. at the parties.

Who could have blamed him if he'd chosen to sleep in today? But that's not his style. Here's what he's done so far today:

{BC-Obama-Day One, 12th Ld-Writethru,1110}
{Obama's Day One: recession, war, ethics}
{Eds: UPDATES with Obama quote from open house; restores dropped} 'billion' in 23rd graf. Moving on general news and financial services. AP Video.
{With BC-Inauguration-Poll, BC-Guantanamo-Sept 11 Trial}
{AP Photo DCJH101, DCCD102, DCJH105, DCJH103, WHRE107, DCSA101,} WHRE108
{By JENNIFER LOVEN}=
{AP White House Correspondent}=
   WASHINGTON (AP) — In a first-day flurry of activity, President Barack Obama set up shop in the Oval Office, summoned advisers to begin dealing with war and recession and ordered new ethics rules for "a clean break from business as usual."
   He also froze salaries for top White House staff members, placed phone calls to Mideast leaders and had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year.
   "The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable," Obama said as he unveiled ethics rules that he portrayed as the fulfillment of a major campaign promise. He said the action was necessary "to help restore that faith in government without which we cannot deliver the changes we were sent here to make."
   Devoting swift attention to the Mideast turmoil, Obama prepared to name George Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader, a special envoy to the region.
   In his phone calls to Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, Obama emphasized that he would work to consolidate the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, said the new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs.
   Gibbs said Obama expressed "his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term."
   The enormity of Obama's challenge on the economy was evident in the mixed messages coming from Capitol Hill.
   Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, expressed doubt that the currently planned $825 billion economic stimulus package would be enough, calling the proposal "no silver bullet." At the same time, House Republicans requested a meeting with Obama to air their worries that the plan was too big.
   A multi-denominational prayer service at Washington National Cathedral and an open house at the presidential mansion were also on the schedule of the 44th president, taking office on a promise to fix the battered economy and withdraw U.S. troops from the unpopular war in Iraq on a 16-month timetable.
   At the open house, Obama and his wife, Michelle, shook hands with a line of guests streaming through the Blue Room, some of them moved to tears by the experience.
   "Enjoy yourself, roam around," a smiling Obama told one guest as he passed through the room. "Don't break anything."
   The shift in administrations — former President George W. Bush was back home in Texas — was underscored in far-off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where a judge granted Obama's request to suspend the war crimes trial of a young Canadian. The judge issued a one-sentence order for the 120-day continuance without so much as a hearing, possibly the beginning of the end for the former administration's system of trials for alleged terrorists.
   A draft executive order made clear the new president intends to go further. It called for closing the facility within a year, releasing some of the 245 detainees still there and transferring others to different sites for trial.
   Pushing back pre-emptively, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the draft order raises difficult questions.
   "The key question is where do you put these terrorists?" he said. "Do you bring them inside our borders? Do you release them back into the battlefield? … Most local communities around America don't want dangerous terrorists imported into their neighborhoods, and I can't blame them."
   Among Obama's executive orders:
   —A freeze on salaries for White House staff earning $100,000 or more — about 100 people in all.
   —New Freedom of Information Act rules, making it harder to keep the workings of government secret.
   —Tighter ethics rules governing when administration officials can work on issues on which they previously lobbied governmental agencies, and banning them from lobbying the Obama administration after leaving government service.
   Obama and first lady Michelle Obama sat in the first row for Wednesday's invitation-only prayer service. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, joined them, as did former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., awaiting confirmation as secretary of state later in the day.
   "Grant to Barack Obama, president of the United States, and to all in authority your grace and good will. Bless them with your heavenly gifts, give them wisdom and strength to know and to do your will," prayed the Rev. Andy Stanley, one of numerous clerics from several religions to speak.
   Obama's first White House meetings as president meshed with quickened efforts in Congress to add top Cabinet officials to the roster of those confirmed on Tuesday and to advance the economic stimulus measure that is a top priority of his administration.
   Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee for a confirmation hearing, said enactment of the new president's economic stimulus was essential. He also said the Senate's decision last week to permit use of the second $350 billion installment of a financial industry bailout "will enable us to take the steps necessary to help get credit flowing."
   He said Obama and he "share your belief that this program needs serious reform."
   Geithner also apologized for his failure to pay personal taxes earlier in the decade, calling the omission a mistake. The taxes were repaid in stages, some after an IRS audit and the rest after a review of his returns late last year by Obama's transition team.
   Obama and his wife arrived at the White House around 1 a.m. after attending 10 official inaugural balls.
   Several hours later he walked into the most famous office in America for the first time as president.
   The new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement that Obama spent 10 minutes alone and read a note left for him by Bush that was in an envelope marked "To: 44, From: 43."
   He was then joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and, several minutes later, the first lady.
   Wednesday's meeting with economic advisers was coming at a time when 11 million Americans are out of work and millions more feel the loss of savings and face the prospect of foreclosures on their homes.
   Last week, Congress cleared the way for use of the second installment of financial-industry bailout money, a pre-inaugural victory for Obama.
   Democratic leaders hope to have the $825 billion economic stimulus measure to his desk by mid-February.
   The war in Iraq that he has prom
ised to end featured prominently in Obama's first day as well.
   Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, were among those called in for the meeting as the new president assumed the role of commander in chief.
   In his inaugural address on Tuesday, Obama said his goal was to "responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan."

If he were a cubicle worker, the guy in the next cubicle would be saying, "Pace yourself, dude; you're making the rest of us look bad." Think Jon Lovitz in "Big."

But I guess this is one of the advantages to having a young president. Just chock full o' energy.

Grooving on that way cool Obama poster

10 Replies

The other day, looking for art appropriate to go with this Inauguration Day editorial, I settled on the 
now-famous Shepard Fairey poster.

In preparing it for publication in PhotoShop, I happened to change my view to "actual pixels," and went, Whoa! I had no idea of the depth of texture in the image, having only seen photos of it on T-shirts, etc. It put me in mind of that guy in "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test" who drove everybody nuts with his constant running comment on a mandala he was grooving on. That guy would really have gone to town over this Obama poster.

So I thought I'd show it to you this way, with some detailed blow-ups, so you can groove on it, too.

 

And should you want to get a little deeper, no need to drop any Owsley Blues. Just go to this site, which my friend Cheryl Levenbrown at The New York Times turned me on to, where you can create your very own Obama-like poster, to wit (no, it's not nearly as detailed, but it's fun):

Obama’s inaugural speech

111 Replies

This morning, I got a phone message from an acquaintance who thought my column today was great, which struck me as a little surprising since I know the caller to be of libertarian persuasion. Especially since it was about Obama's inauguration, and the WSJ reported this morning that — as I read it — his speech today will be of a communitarian bent (yes! thought I). Yes, I know libertarians claim "responsibility" as a theme as well, but they mean something very different from communitarians when they use the word. With Obama, it's more like:

"Given the crisis that we're in and the hardships that so many people
are going through, we can't allow any idle hands," Mr. Obama said,
taking a break from painting a dormitory at Sasha Bruce House, a
shelter for homeless teens. "Everybody's got to be involved.
Everybody's going to have to pitch in, and I think the American people
are ready for that."

As I said, the communitarian sense of responsibility. And to that I say, amen.

Anyway, the speech itself is beginning now, and I thought y'all might want a place to comment on it. So here you go.

Something completely different

16 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
Perhaps it would be a bit much to quote from the Book of Revelation: “Behold, I make all things new!” How about Monty Python? “And Now For Something Completely Different….”
    There is a tension in the air today between two ways of viewing the inauguration of the 44th president of the United States. On the one hand you have thousands upon thousands who have scraped and planned and arranged to be in Washington — or the millions upon millions who will be watching from a distance and with them in spirit — who are fairly vibrating, resonating with communal anticipation. This includes elderly black folk who are praising God because they never thought they’d see the day. It contains — just barely, given the magnitude of their excitement — young people of all colors who left school and jobs and suspended their lives for a year and more to work toward this day. And more conventionally, it includes Democrats who are as thrilled as any group of partisans have ever been that their guy is finally going to replace that other guy.
    On the other hand, there are those who think this is all a bit much, or more than a bit: Whoop-tee-do, they think. A guy won an election. He’s just this guy, you know. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. Nothing changes: One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
    Some of the latter, jaded, unexcited group are Republicans. Pretty much all of them are white. There’s not necessarily anything bad about them; they don’t want to rain on anybody’s parade. They just sort of want it over with. As Kathleen Parker suggests in the column on the facing page, there’s just so much earnestness and idealistic hoorah that one thinking person can possibly stand as we stride forth into this new age. That doesn’t make Ms. Parker a bad person. And I know that neither she nor the others in the “this is all a bit much” set are bad people, because, well, I’m sort of one of them.
    Or at least, I was. In the last few days, I changed my mind. The cynics are wrong, and the folks who just can’t contain themselves have it exactly right.
    I wrote the editorial above. I went into it as a chore that needed to get done and out of the way — one of those obligatory editorials you sometimes do, not because you had something you and your colleagues on the editorial board were burning to say, but because the particular moment in history demanded that you take note and say something.
    You may think that writing an editorial is about figuring out how to say what you already know you think. And often it is. But sometimes, it’s a process in which you discover what you think. That’s what happened here. The more I looked and read and reflected upon where we are as a nation and how and why we got here, the more I realized how significant this inauguration is, and how it differed from the previous 13 of my lifetime.
    No, it’s not that he’s a black guy. Yes, that’s a huge milestone for the country, and worth celebrating, but if you focus too much on that you miss just how different this moment is. As I said in the editorial, the nation chose much more than a racial first in this election: “It chose youth. It chose intellect. It chose pragmatism over the constant ideological bickering of recent years. It chose the promise of action rather than stalemate. It chose, in a word, change.”
    Yes, any new president represents change. But this change is generational, and attitudinal, and fundamental. The closest thing in my lifetime was when the generation of Dwight Eisenhower handed off to the generation of John F. Kennedy, but even that falls short. In choosing Barack Obama, the nation really took a risk and got out of its comfort zone. For Democrats, the safe and obvious choice was Hillary Clinton, or someone like Joe Biden (a point that underlines Mr. Obama’s wisdom in choosing his running mate, a move that made the risk more palatable). In the general election, even the “maverick” opponent was the safer, more comfortable, more conventional choice.
    This country decided it had had enough of the kinds of politics and government that we’ve had up to now. It chose a man who was practically a novice in politics and government — which made him untainted, but also meant he had almost no relevant experience. And yet, he possessed the eloquence and demeanor and intellect and attitude that persuaded us that he could deliver on the promised change.
    And you know what? I think he can, and will. I’ve seen proof. One example, which speaks volumes: his decision to pull South Carolina’s own Sen. Lindsey Graham — John McCain’s closest acolyte, leading advocate of our nation’s presence in Iraq — into his circle of foreign policy advisers. By sending Sen. Graham with Sen. Biden to Iraq and Afghanistan, and then appearing with both men to draw attention to the fact, explaining that he was “drafting” Sen. Graham “as one of our counselors in dealing with foreign policy,” the president-elect charted new ground. He threw out the rule book of partisan and ideological convention, and he did so in the pursuit of the very best ideas, the ones most likely to serve the nation and its interests and allies going forward.
    I’ve never seen anything like this, and neither have you. This is something completely different, and yet something that, after today, we’re going to see a lot more of. And that’s a wonderful thing for this country. It’s worth getting really excited about.

For more that’s different, go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Hope springs, even in S.C. politics

20 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
Last week’s column chronicled my rapid descent into a state of fuming impatience over the things that we simply refuse to do in South Carolina even though they would obviously, irrefutably make us healthier, wealthier and wiser. The proximate object of my frustration was our steadfast refusal to save young people’s lives by raising our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax to the national average. But I could as well have fulminated about our fragmented, unaccountable governmental structure, or the crying need for comprehensive tax reform, or… well, there’s a long list.
    And if I wanted to shake my fist at our fate a bit more today, I would have no shortage of cause. I could, for instance, dwell on the discouraging hour or so I spent Wednesday listening to our governor talk about his 2009 agenda: Yes, he’ll back a cigarette tax increase — a third of the way to the average — but only if he gets the counterbalancing tax cut he wants. Otherwise, he’ll veto it, again, without compunction. And yeah, he agrees that consolidating some of our smaller and less efficient school districts would be worthwhile, but he won’t spend energy pushing for that; he prefers to waste what little capital he has in the education arena in another debilitating ideological battle over vouchers. And so forth.
    Depressing.
    But that’s not what I want to do today. Today, I want to offer hope, and I’ve got some on hand. This past week, we saw some remarkable instances in which things that just were not ever going to change in South Carolina — not no way, not nohow, as they might say in Oz — suddenly change, and for the better.
    Let’s start with the sudden emerging consensus to place the Department of Health and Environmental Control — one of our biggest and least answerable agencies — under the authority of the governor. Set aside what I just said about this particular governor. The governor — this one or any other — is the elected chief executive, and far more likely and able to see that the agency is run the way we the people want and expect it to be than a largely autonomous, unelected board is.
    This is painfully obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how politics works, and has been ever since my colleagues and I started pushing for it with all our might back in 1991. At the time, though, we had few allies other than a few wonkish good-government types and the occasional governor who wanted the power, while almost everyone else in a position to do something about it or with a stake in the system was ready and able to resist the change.
    All sorts of people had all sorts of reasons to fight reform. Environmentalists, for instance, knew how to game the complicated system and lay roadblocks to polluters and other adversaries, and feared that a more “efficient” system — especially one run by a governor enamored of economic development at any cost — would make it harder to block permits they opposed.
    And in South Carolina, the status quo always has the upper hand in the Legislature. So I despaired of seeing reform.
    Then one day, just before Christmas I think it was, I ran into Sammy Fretwell — who along with fellow veteran reporter John Monk had been writing a hard-hitting series about DHEC’s failures to do its job well — and he told me a remarkable thing: A key environmental leader who had long opposed making DHEC a Cabinet agency had become a convert to accountability.
    That was wonderful, but it was just the beginning. Other conservationists started working for, rather than against, a bipartisan bill backed by longtime restructuring stalwart Sen. John Courson and Sen. Phil Leventis in the Senate, and a similar bill in the House. The stunner, the coup de grace to my lingering doubts, came in Thursday’s paper: Bo Aughtry, chairman of the DHEC board, the man at the very center of the status quo’s sanctum sanctorum, called for making it a Cabinet agency. And several former board chairs agreed with him.
    Folks, stuff like this doesn’t happen in South Carolina. But it did, and is continuing to happen. And if it happened on this issue, it can happen on others. Such as, say, transparency.
    Remember what happened at the end of 2008 to Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine, two young GOP lawmakers who were innocent enough — and guileless, idealistic and dumb enough — to confront the leadership openly and directly on the need to have roll-call votes on important action? They got crushed, as one would expect. They were handed their heads. Advocates of reform were appalled, but expected nothing different.
    Then, on Wednesday, the House voted, unanimously, to do pretty much what Ms. Haley wanted. And the Senate did much the same. And all of a sudden, it was touted on all hands — by the leadership as well as by the governor and the long-suffering reformers — as just what everyone had wanted all along. And Nikki Haley, rising like a phoenix, is the heroine of the hour.
    Stuff like this doesn’t happen, not like this, not out of nowhere, not out of the mere fact that it’s the right thing to do and there are no good reasons not to do it, not in South Carolina. But it did.
    So now I’m just seeing hope everywhere. Such as in a poll released Wednesday that showed that 74 percent of S.C. voters support raising our cigarette tax to the national average. Sixty percent favor it strongly.
    Here’s the thing about that: As I indicated in last week’s column, the arguments for going all the way to the national average are so strong, and the arguments not to do so are so weak, that only the most perverse sort of resistance to rational change can prevent it from happening.
    In the past, such perversity has been richly abundant in South Carolina. But last week, we seemed to suffer a sudden shortage of it on two surprising fronts.
    So take hope.

For more to be hopeful about, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Charles Austin calls it quits

9 Replies

Two days after our editorial "evaluation" of Columbia City Manager Charles Austin — in which we gave him a failing grade — and the same day as our editorial hitting his bosses, the city council, for their part in his failures, Mr. Austin announces that he will retire at the end of March. Here's what our colleagues down in the newsroom have about it:

Embattled City Manager Charles Austin announces retirement

From Staff Reports

Columbia City Manager Charles Austin announced his retirement today, effective March 31.

"Over
the past weeks, especially over the holidays, I have had the
opportunity to reflect my plans for the future," Austin said in a
statement. "After many discussions with my family and a great deal of
thought about this stage of life I now am in, I have decided to
announce my plans to retire as city manager on March 31.

"I have enjoyed my years of service with this great city and wish city council and staff my best."
Austin has been publicly criticized for more than a year for his handling of both the police department and city finances.

City
Council members would not comment but released this statement: "Today
the city manager informed us of his intention to retire at the end of
March. We appreciate his many years of service to our city as police
chief and city manager and accept his decision. We stress that it was
his decision with which city council concurred."

Austin took over as interim city manager on March 15, 2003, after City Council fired former city manager Leona Plaugh.

Plaugh
was fired for targeting certain high-ranking employees for demotion or
marginalization. She was sacked after it discovered she created a
four-page document that described employees as "hatchets," "beavers,"
"alligators" and "moats." It also listed them under categories
"destroy" and "conquer."

Plaugh lasted for 18 months.

Her predecessor, Mike Bierman, was manager for four years before walking out in frustration during his evaluation.

Miles Hadley managed the city for eight years before retiring.

And Gray Olive, Columbia's first manager, was in office for 19 years.

Steve Gantt will be the interim city manager.
More to come

That's all I know; just thought some of y'all would be interested.

The wonderful Obama-Graham connection

46 Replies



You know that I've written and said a number of things since the election about how hopeful I am that Barack Obama can do exactly what he promised to do in terms of leading us past the stupid, pointless partisan bickering of the Clinton-Bush years. As you know, that was probably my biggest motivation for endorsing him in the primary here — and for endorsing McCain as well, as the one guy on the GOP side able to transcend the partisan garbage that has so sapped our nation's ability to cope with anything — from war to peace, from foreign to domestic — constructively.

So imagine my joy upon reading that story about Obama and Lindsey Graham in today's paper, the one by James Rosen on our front page.

Naysayers and cynics will dismiss it as feel-good rhetoric. The haters on the right will cite this as another example of Lindsey Graham selling out right-thinking (pun intended) folks everywhere to his own aggrandizement and greater glory. But they'll be wrong. The story is replete with evidence as to why they are wrong.

Barack Obama has no credible reason other than the reasons he claims for asking Lindsey Graham — best pal of John McCain, staunch advocate of our nation's mission in Iraq, most articulate proponent of the Surge strategy Obama himself had dismissed (he's the one who sold ME on it) — to accompany Joe Biden on his important mission to assure our allies in the region that the new administration is not a bunch of ideological crazies who are going to abandon them. He didn't have to do this, but it was absolutely the right thing to do.

And Graham didn't have to go along. He could have been a typical loser partisan plotting how he can tear the new guy down and get some of his own back. That would have been stupid, and Lindsey Graham isn't stupid, but it would have been typical. Yes, Graham sees the opportunity to stay at the center of power even though his guy lost. But he also sees the opportunity to have a constructive impact on our nation's ongoing strategy in the war on terror.

And Obama didn't have to say the things he said quite as strongly as he did. He didn't have to publicly thank Joe Biden "for having the wisdom and foresight to invite Lindsey Graham," or declare that he was "drafting" him "drafting as one of our counselors in dealing with foreign policy." He won the election. Graham lost. Usually, that's end of story.

In addition to the encouraging fact that we have such a good bipartisan vibe going, Obama's choice of Graham as the object of his bridge-building speaks to another good thing about the president-elect: He's smart. Graham has a masterful grasp of the policies he advocates, and you can get smarter just listening to him, even if you end up disagreeing with him. If you're going to have a guy with a different perspective to bounce ideas off of — a la Lincoln and his Team of Rivals — you couldn't choose better than Lindsey.

There's the additional fact that, since Graham has been, as much as any other Republican including John McCain, the conscience of his party on some of the nastier edges of fighting terrorism — such as torture and general treatment of detainees. So it's not like he's making a deal with the devil even by his own lights. He's looking to someone whose opinions differ from his own, but whom he knows he can respect.

This budding relationship — which the two men made a point of calling attention to, and I'm glad they did — bodes well for the future.

Excuse me for getting all earnest, but how can we interact more meaningfully here?

69 Replies

And yes, I mean "earnest" and not "Ernest" like in my last post, although if you'd like you can attribute the seriousness of my message here to the influence of my serious new notebook.

Anyway, I wrote the following as a followup comment on my otherwise silly, fun post on Tina Fey, and it occurred to me I should elevate it to a separate post and see if we can get a good dialogue going on the subject here. Rather than rewrite it, I repeat myself:

Funny thing is, I used to not like Tina Fey — or Jimmy Fallon, or,
going way back before them, Dennis Miller — in their Weekend Update
days.

As y'all know, I like to have fun and kid around, but I do
take the news and the issues of the day seriously, and at some point I
get turned off by people who day in and day out sneer and make jokes of
serious issues. I mean, let's have fun and kid around, but when one's
entire diet of commentary consists of such junk food, and it's all
about mocking and never taking anything seriously, I think it has a
corrosive effect on society. Taken at it's extreme, I think it has
helped raise a generation that has trouble respecting anyone and
anything in politics. The constant drip, drip of smarmy satire adds to
all the partisan attack politics and tactics of personal destruction to
prevent us from coming together to solve the problems we have in common
— which is what representative democracy can be all about.

Needless
to say, I have NO appreciation for Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. And
while I enjoyed meeting and kidding around with Stephen Colbert (see video), I can't get into his shtick, either.

But
even though the Palin gag was pretty hard-hitting satire, it was so
enjoyable that it caused me to have a soft spot for Tina I didn't have
before.

I should also mention that I revised my opinion of Dennis Miller just from the couple of brief spots I've done on his radio show.
I had always thought of him as just too much of a wise guy, too
impressed with his own snarky cleverness, to be borne. But he's
actually deeper than that, and pleasant to talk to.

Of
course, this is just a corollary to something I've found about life —
almost anyone is a more likable, admirable person once you get past the
shorthand, bumper-sticker version of that person. To know a person is
to appreciate him or her more. Maybe this sounds trite, but in our 24/7
headline news/blog world, we increasingly go by the bumper sticker, and
don't get into people deeply enough to appreciate them.

And just
to get WAY philosophical on you…. One of my great disappointments
with this blog is that I had hoped, by having this forum for going way
beyond what I'm able to say and explore in the paper, I could forge
some avenues where I could have more meaningful exchanges with my
readers and fellow citizens about the important issues of the day —
and the people who are important players in those issues.

Unfortunately,
the resistance to that is just tremendous. So much of what passes for
dialogue here remains on the superficial, partisan, shorthand,
bumper-sticker simplistic level. I try to say something to provoke
thought, and somebody gives some standard, boilerplate ideological
response, and someone else shouts the established bumper-sticker
counter to THAT, and off we go on the kind of pointless partisan
merry-go-round that you can read or hear anywhere in the blogosphere or
on 24/7 talking head "news." And what is the point in that?

I
draw hope from the fact that occasionally, we get to the point where
some actual,  mutually respectful dialogue occurs between people who
HAVE gotten to know each other beyond the surface here. I see this
particularly with Phillip and Herb and Karen and a handful of others —
and in the past (although, unfortunately, not so much lately) from you,
Randy. I even get an encouraging word now and then from bud or Doug.

I just wish I knew how to build on that. I'm open to suggestions.

Maybe I need to make this a separate post…

… which I just did.

How about it? Do you see any way we can start having conversations here that matter?

Stepping forward into the past: My cool new Moleskine notebook

6 Replies



As you may have gathered, I'm a bit of a gadget guy. One of the reasons I blog is for the opportunities it gives me to mess around with cameras and PDAs and laptops and the various ways you can use them to produce text, sound, video, etc. This very night, in fact, I'll be trekking out to the Verizon store to get a Blackberry to replace the Treo I use for work. That Blackberry will be, as my Treo is now, a place for working with e-mail, my calendar, my contacts, as well as providing another browsing platform and a backup camera. Oh, yeah, and a phone (although I use the current one least for that).

But at the moment I am most enchanted with a piece of low-tech, retro equipment that my youngest daughter was so thoughtful as to give me for Christmas, ignoring my hint for a new insulated coffee travel mug. She gave me a Moleskine notebook — specifically, a Moleskine Reporter Ruled Notebook. You may have seen them in bookstores. They're advertised as the notebook of Hemingway and Picasso. In years past, I had thought of buying one (I was a great admirer of Hemingway in my youth, and he had something to do with my choice of career). But I couldn't justify the expense. After all, I get all the reporter's notebooks I need for free at work, right?

But I misunderestimated, to use a bit of Bushspeak, the magic of a really nice, classic, classy notebook in one's pocket. I just started carrying it yesterday, and it's already affecting how I work — for the better, I think. Since the notebook itself is special, it makes me think a little more carefully about what I choose to jot down. And it also makes me WANT to come up with stuff that's worthy to write in it. It's a motivator in the way a blank screen on a laptop or a PDA is not. It's like, I don't know, working on a painting or something — the sense that what I write here stays here, is permanent, has a life, and if this notebook is dug out of an old box in an attic by one of my great-grandchildren, they will read what I am writing today.

I find myself thinking I need to get a better pen to write in it with.

The book itself is esthetically appealing — you can see why Hemingway might have wanted to carry one around the Montparnasse or to the bullring or the front or whatever. It's a perfect size for the hand and the suitcoat pocket. It's black. The paper is of high quality. It has that cool, built-in elastic band to secure it with, giving a feeling of completeness and accomplishment when you finish a note and get ready to put it back in your pocket. Using it is just an appealing tactile, visual and interactive experience all around.

And it's making me more efficient, of all things. Y'all know how I tend to start my day with breakfast downtown, where I pore over The State and The Wall Street Journal and whatever I else I have time to look at over my coffee. Well, I get a lot of ideas while doing that, but too often, by the time I get back to the office, and have my morning meeting, and then start dealing with the e-mail that has to be read and the copy that has to be moved and talking with Robert about a cartoon and so forth and so on, next thing you know it's past lunch and my ideas of the morning are long forgotten.

This morning, I had a column idea for Sunday of the classic ephemeral sort that would be likely to evaporate long before I had time to start on it — bits and pieces from different stories I was reading in the paper. Wanting to hang onto the thread, I thought of sending myself some notes by e-mail on the Treo. But that is cumbersome at best, typing on that little thumb keyboard, and it lends itself only to the shortest of reminders. But then I remembered the notebook. So I sent myself an e-mail that simply said:

Hope springs, even in South Carolina politics

See Moleskin notebook

Then I opened my notebook and filled two pages with an outline for the column, an outline that would be just waiting for me to flesh out at my first opportunity (which, as it happens, did not arrive until mid-afternoon). Since I all too often don't write the first word of my Sunday column until midday Friday, this put me more than a day ahead on one of my must-do tasks of the week. Consequently, I might have a chance to write an extra column to run Tuesday (a page that has to be done this week because of the MLK holiday), one that occurred to me as I was doing the final editing on the Tuesday editorial (about the Obama inaugural).

A classic, simple black notebook. What an ingenious device for enhancing personal productivity. What will they think of next?

S.C. voters back increasing cigarette tax to national average — more than ever

33 Replies

The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative released its new poll today showing support for increasing the state's lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax to the national average is higher than ever:

Overwhelming
Majority of

South
Carolina

Voters

Favor Increase in
Cigarette Tax

 

New Poll
Shows Overwhelming Support for Cigarette Tax

To Reduce
Youth Smoking and Address the State’s Healthcare
Needs

 

Columbia
(January 14, 2009) – Nearly
three-quarters of South Carolinians (74 percent) favor a proposal to raise the
state cigarette tax by 93 cents per pack to help fund programs to reduce tobacco
use among kids as well as programs to increase access to health care for South
Carolinians, according to a new poll released today. A majority of voters (60
percent strongly favor the 93-cent
increase.

 

The poll found that there is no
difference in support between a 93-cent and 50-cent increase. Support for both
specific cigarette tax increases is broad-based, and cuts across party, regional
and ideological lines.

Danny
McGoldrick

, Vice President for

Research

at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids noted,
“From a political standpoint, it’s clearly
‘in for a penny; in for a pound.’ This is because opposition to the cigarette
tax is low and essentially identical at the two levels, while the revenue and
other benefits dramatically increase with the higher
tax.”

 

The survey
of 500 registered

South
Carolina

voters, who are likely to vote, was released
today by the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative in conjunction with the
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Cancer Society. In announcing its results, the
campaign declared the cigarette tax a win-win-win for

South Carolina

. An
increase in the state’s cigarette tax is a win for public health because it will
reduce smoking, particularly among kids; it’s a win for the state’s fiscal
health because it will raise more than $175 million in new annual revenue for
the state; and it’s a win for lawmakers who support it because of overwhelming
voter support.

 

Strong voter
support is evident among virtually every political and demographic subgroup of
voters in the

Palmetto

State

, as large majorities of Democrats
and Republicans, men and women, young and old, and residents of all parts of the
state support the tax. “The cigarette tax is clearly not a partisan issue,” said
McGoldrick. “The proposal has tremendous support across party lines and across
the state.”

 

Tobacco-caused
costs add more than $960 million per year to tax bills in the state – or more
than $560 for each

South
Carolina

household. “By increasing the cigarette tax,

South Carolina


will reduce smoking, save lives and help offset the health care costs caused by
smoking,” said Dr. Anthony Alberg of the Medical University of South
Carolina.

 

“Youth
smoking is an epidemic, and increasing the cigarette tax is a proven strategy to
protect thousands of

South
Carolina

kids from tobacco addiction,” said Alberg.
“

South
Carolina

has the nation’s lowest cigarette tax rate at
just 7 cents per pack and the lowest funding for prevention programs. We have
failed to take this important step to fight the epidemic. Among the options that
are on the table, increasing the cigarette tax is clearly a preferred solution
to making sure the state can balance the budget while funding important
priorities.”

 

 

In this
difficult economic environment, there is no support for any type of tax increase
in

South
Carolina

, with one exception – an increase in the state
cigarette tax. All other spending reductions or tax increases tested fall
flat.

 

Support for
a 93-cent increase in the state cigarette tax crosses party and ethnic lines,
with 73 percent of base GOPers, 86 percent of white Democrats, and 72 percent of
African Americans backing an increase in the state cigarette tax. Regionally,
support for a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is also strong across the state.
Support is stronger in the Lowcountry (80 percent favor) and Midlands (78
percent favor), but is also high in the Upstate (71 percent favor) and

Pee Dee

regions (67 percent favor). The
“weakest” subgroups – African American women and

Pee
Dee

voters, still back a cigarette tax increase by more than a 60
percent level.

 

In terms of
the specific cigarette tax increases tested by Public Opinion Strategies,
intensity is stronger for the 93-cent tax increase (60 percent strongly favor)
than for the 50-cent tax increase (54 percent strongly favor). Both proposed
increases receive strong support across party and ideological
lines.

 

The poll
found that a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is politically safe for legislators.
More than half (53 percent) of voters are more likely to support a candidate who
supports a cigarette tax increase, while just 14 percent are less likely.
Support remains high among base GOPers (50 percent more likely) as well as among
very conservative voters (51 percent more likely). Opposition among these groups
is low – just 12 percent of base GOPers are less likely, as are just 14 percent
of very conservative voters.

 

When asked
to choose, a significant majority of voters agree that revenue from a cigarette
tax increase should be used to reduce tobacco use, especially among children,
and to expand access to health care (62 percent), rather than to reduce other
state taxes (34 percent). Fully 83 percent of the electorate say they are
concerned about the problem of smoking and other tobacco use among young people
in South Carolina, with more than half (55 percent) of the electorate very
concerned about this issue.

 

Large bodies
of economic research, numerous expert panels, experience in other states, and
even reports from the tobacco industry have concluded decisively that price
increases effectively reduce smoking, especially among youth. The U.S. Surgeon
General, in the 2000 report, Reducing Tobacco Use, concluded that raising
cigarette taxes is widely regarded as one of the most effective tobacco
prevention strategies and that cigarette tax increases would lead to
“substantial long-run improvements in health.”

 

According to
the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 93-cent increase in

South Carolina

’s cigarette tax would prevent more than
63,600

South Carolina

kids alive today from
becoming smokers and prompt 33,500 adult smokers to quit, saving 29,200

South Carolinians

from a premature,
smoking-caused death. The additional revenue from 93 cents per pack would
provide the state with an immediate boost of more than $175 million in revenue
in the first year alone.

 

“The
evidence is clear that increasing the price of cigarettes is one of the most
effective ways to reduce smoking, especially among children and pregnant women,”
said Jim Bowie, Executive Director of the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative.
“Preliminary evidence confirms that every state that has significantly increased
its cigarette tax in recent years has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue,
even while reducing cigarette sales.

South Carolina

has nothing to lose and
everything to gain from raising its cigarette tax.”

 

The South
Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is a coalition of health, education, community,
business and faith organizations dedicated to raising the state excise tax on
cigarettes and other tobacco products to protect our kids. The Collaborative’s
more than 30 member groups, including the American Cancer Society, American
Heart Association, American Lung Association of South Carolina, South Carolina
Cancer

Alliance


and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, support the 93-cent increase
in the cigarette tax to help prevent kids from starting to smoke and to fund
healthcare programs.

 

The survey
was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies. The statewide poll has a random
sample of 500 registered likely

South
Carolina

voters and was conducted December 9 and 11,
2008.  The poll has a margin of error of
+/- 4.38 percentage points.

So I guess I'm not the only one getting impatient on this.

Meanwhile, we had our lunch with the governor today. This subject came up, and basically he backs the idea of going a third of the way to the national average — if it's offset with a tax cut he wants. If it's NOT offset by the tax cut, he'll veto it again. But you probably knew that without my telling you.

Lunch was nice, by the way. Joel saw to it I had a nice grilled fish fillet with salad, and that the dressing didn't do me in. I appreciate it.

S.C. Policy Council pleased, too

3 Replies

Nikki Haley isn't the only previous critic pleased by the House action today. The S.C. Policy Council, her ally on the roll-call voting issue since last session, has also praised the latest move:

For Immediate Release

Contact: Bryan Cox

January 14, 2009

HOUSE EMBRACES TRANSPARENCY, REQUIRES VOTING ON THE RECORD

    The South Carolina House unanimously voted to amend its rules today to require recorded votes on a wide variety of legislation including each section of the state budget, conference committee reports and amended legislature returned from the Senate. The comprehensive rules change passed by the House is even more stringent than the rules approved yesterday by the Senate, which did not include each section of the state budget.
     Policy Council President Ashley Landess said the new House rules show the General Assembly understands the importance of transparency in government.

     “Today’s action is exactly the type of accountability measures the citizens of South Carolina have demanded for the past six months. This is a clear example of what can happen when citizens get involved in the democratic process,” said Landess.
     “Reformers in the House, particularly Representative Nikki Haley, deserve credit for fighting political pressure and standing up for the taxpayers. Today the public won a major victory and we are especially pleased to see transparency brought to the state budget process. The House deserves credit for fixing what was broken and taking a major step toward real reform. This is just the beginning of a movement toward fully transparent and accountable government and we look forward to continue working with reform-minded lawmakers to bring about much-needed change to our state.” …

###

So let's see — Nikki's happy. The Speaker's happy. The Policy Council is happy. I guess I'm happy, too, although I haven't really studied what happened yet — I'm just passing it on to you as fast as it comes in…