I wasn’t going to pay attention to Nikki Haley’s presumptuous grading of legislators, but I did. And I was going to say something about it, but what is there to say, really? I can’t blame her for giving some of the state’s very best, most dedicated and thoughtful lawmakers Ds and Fs, because she herself doesn’t pretend to be exercising any sort of judgment.
She just picked some bills — some OK bills, some not-so-OK bills — and then scored people according to whether they voted for them or not. Which, if you look at the world as simply as Nikki does, makes sense.
Mind you, this application of a very simple set of stats is nothing like Moneyball, which was based on emphasizing little-respected stats that contribute to the overall success of the team. Not if the team is South Carolina. Maybe if it’s Team Nikki. I don’t know.
So I thought I’d respond by looking at lawmakers another way. I decided to compile a list of Top Lawmakers in each chamber — but one based on no rational criteria whatsoever. I did it like somebody who won one of those prizes where you’re the millionth customer to walk through a store’s doors and you get a three-minute shopping spree, and you just run through and grab stuff.
But even when you do that, you know you’re exercising criteria. It’s sort of like the NCAA basketball tournament bracket I filled out in the early 90s. Someone talked me into doing it, and I did it as a non-sports fan who knew nothing about such things. I didn’t even know what the numbers showing how they were seeded meant. I had not followed any of the teams that season, or in any season in recent memory.
Here was my “system.” I put a team down as winning a matchup if it met one or more of the following criteria and opposing team met fewer or none of them:
- Colleges with which I had some personal connection (such as my alma mater, Memphis State).
- Colleges that had been really good in basketball when I was in college many years before, back when I paid attention to such things (Duke)
- Catholic colleges (Georgetown)
And I won. Partly because almost no one picked Duke to go all the way and they did, but I led all through the process, across the board. Which really infuriated the guy who had talked me into joining in, because he was a real sports fan.
So this is kind of like that. Here are my criteria for “Top Lawmakers.” I’m picking ones who:
- I like them. Whether I agree with them on anything or they’re good at their jobs or not, if I just went “I like him (or her),” they got leverage to make the list.
- I agree with them frequently. There’s no one I agree with all the time. If there were, I suppose I’d join a political party. But I find myself agreeing with some more often than not, and that’s a criterion.
- I respect them. I may not like them, I may almost never agree with them, but damn, they are good at this. Or… they are really dedicated representatives of their constituents and of their own concept of serving SC. And it would be self-centered and arbitrary and unfair of me to leave them off a “Top Lawmakers” list. (OK, so this is sort of two criteria, but I really wanted to limit the list to three, to parallel the basketball thing.)
Some will fit all categories. Some will fit 1 and 3 or some other combination. Some will fit 4 only. But here are the lists. Each lawmaker is followed by the grade the governor gave him or her:
SENATE
- John Courson — C
- Tom Davis — A
- Wes Hayes — B
- Hugh Leatherman — B
- Joel Lourie — F
- Gerald Malloy — F
- Glenn McConnell — D
- Greg Ryberg — A
- Nikki Setzler — D
- Vincent Sheheen — F
HOUSE
- Nathan Ballentine — A
- Kenny Bingham — A
- Joan Brady — A
- Gilda Cobb-Hunter — F
- Laurie Funderburk — B
- Jim Harrison — A
- Walt McLeod — D
- Joe Neal — F
- Rick Quinn — A
- James Smith — F
Note that they are alphabetical. Hey, this took enough time for a useless exercise. I’m not going to spend hours debating with myself how to rank them.
Ask me to do this again an hour from now, or tomorrow, and some of the names would be different. But some would stay.
What’s the value of lists like these? Search me. What’s the value of Nikki’s grading system? I actually think my lists are every bit as useful to the voters who elect these people as her grades are. So there.
Basically, the governor’s list told us what her agenda is. Which we already knew. The Democrats’ response showed us what they think of her. Which we knew.
So, nothing was added. Certainly nothing about the quality of service provided by those legislators.
Related Posts
Sophomoric.
The thing is, even if she had this dumb idea that she promised the voters that she would follow through on; wasn’t there someone in her administration who could have shaped up this nonsense into something that had at least a little intellectual heft and objectivity, even if only of a partisan nature?
Or did they all just roll their eyes and head for the door?
A quick check shows that only four of the 20 have been in office less than a decade. Many have been in office for more than 20 years. And what have they got to show for it? At least one of them collects a nice pension even though he’s “retired”. Accepting that benefit should be reason alone to bar them from any list of top lawmakers.
How about this? For each of the listed members, provide the top piece of legislation he or she has championed that has improved the state of South Carolina. Try and keep that list to things that have been done in say the past five years.
Nope. I don’t take this list that seriously; I won’t spend the time.
One thing I forgot to mention: I had trouble coming up with 10 House members, which surprised me. Because, you know, there are so many more of them. I guess I could have included Bobby Harrell, but that would have ticked off Doug SO much, after including McConnell and Leatherman.
Meanwhile, I had trouble narrowing the senators to 10. I wanted to work in Jake Knotts, just to freak everybody out, but it didn’t work.
I mean, this was a really strict system (not). You know why Walt McLeod is on there? Because I just enjoy talking with him. Here’s how Walt first came to my attention: Before he was in the House, back when he was (I think) a lawyer representing DHEC in a case against some big corporation accused of polluting or some such, he made a comment to our reporter (Charlie Pope, I think). According to my reporter, Walt indicated the big-time local attorneys representing the corporation and said, “Your oligarchy at work.” I’ve always enjoyed that vicarious memory. Very Walt.
By the way, it was because of stuff like that — little, interesting asides that maybe didn’t fit into a short, straight news story — that reporters were always telling me about that I decided to start a new feature in the paper, back in the late ’80s. It ran on Sundays and was called “Earsay.” And that’s where we put stuff like that. I’d compile it every week for the first couple of years. After that, Cindi Scoppe took over. I think there’s still something like that in the paper, only they call it something else. Or there was until recently.
It’s also why I started blogging. Just to be able to tell about the stuff that happens, or that I hear, that just doesn’t have a natural place in the limited space in the paper day to day.
And I still don’t get around to all that stuff.
Which reminds me. I need to do a separate post about something Dick Harpootlian said last week…
So as I’ve always maintained, you measure people by their words and not their deeds. That’s typical of the average South Carolina voter. It’s not a crime… just a shame.
Brad, thanks for your comment about Walt. I’ve know him for 39 years and you’ll never find a finer individual. He’s dedicated to the best in public service, the state, his district and his constituents. You ask anyone who knows him, excluding a rabid reactionary, and they’ll tell you he’s one of the most helpful and thoughtful individuals they’ve ever know.
Thanks, j.
Now explain it to Doug.
Doug, he wasn’t just saying things about the oligarchy. He was working against them in court, on that particular occasion…
Oh, and Doug, let me say it one more time… This is not a serious list. The only thing I can say in its defense is that it’s more valuable than the governor’s grades. But only just…
Not to say that if I DID spend a huge amount of time compiling a serious “best legislators list” (something I have no idea how I would do — what on earth would be the valid criteria for ranking an entire body of 170 individuals sent by 170 different districts for several million different reasons?) that Walt wouldn’t make it.
As j says, he’s a good guy.
Is it that hard to name a specific piece of legislation that, you know, someone who LEGISLATES has pushed through to the benefit of South Carolina?
Seriously, what do these people DO to justify a salary plus expenses? Most of us regular people have to DO something, not talk about it.
Give me ONE piece of legislation you can point to that Vincent Sheheen championed that made South Carolina better… I would hope they could each point to maybe a dozen specific things they did per year to move South Carolina forward.
These people spend DECADES in office… back-slapping, glad-handing, getting lobbied…
How about this – tell me what legislation has come out in the past year that sets a clear direction for positive improvement in this state?
Why can’t Vincent Sheheen push for real tax reform? what prevents that from happening by the end of the year? Imagine a real leader who actually did something specific instead of tweaking the brain-dead system we have now…
We set the bar SO low for politicians. Mostly because they have such a poor track record for getting anything done.
Doug,
You’re last paragraph is the saddest commentary.
We have let the legislature languish in the nineteenth century. Politics is most often reactionary; leadership has to develop outside of the political structure before it can effect change from within.
South Carolina’s disinterest in education continues to perpetuate the malaise. It’s nobody’s fault but our own.
Doug, in some ways I agree with some of your points relative to the “benefit of SC,” however, your comments might better represent a reaction to what really happens in the legislative process and the epicenter of political power in SC. For the most part, legislation is produced in response to corporate, social advocacy and partisan objectives of corp and other special interest groups who have bought their elected officials.
Over the last two decades, corporate taxes in SC have been reduced by over $1B annually. That corp tax reduction represents approx the deficit that SC faced in the last general fund budget. With an annual SC budget of some $21B+, SC gets back some $1.21 to $1.35 (over the past 30 years) for every dollar it pays to the Feds plus there are other fed payments to the state.
Consider the soft drink industry pushing for a repeal of the 1-cent tax on a single drink. They really didn’t pay the tax, but it was a pass thru to the consumer. These drinks undermine public health and exacerbate our obesity dilemma. How long did it take for the SC legislature to increase the tobacco tax given the impact on state expenditures for health problems caused by smoking?
Consider this last session that passed the Voter ID bill, immigration law and changing the alcohol permitting and other “significant benefits for SC.”
Please tell us what legislation you view that had no positive benefit that was passed, and who got it passed or had an impact on its passage. I’d like to know your views.
If you are an upstate or Charleston area resident, you received a lot of legislative largess. The influence of Midlands legislators has and will decrease due to demographic changes and the lack of political power. I do long for elected officials who are motivated to action to benefit the general welfare rather than their own self-interest, enhanced wealth, and personal power.
If we want better state and federal elected officials, my view is that we need public funding of elections and an impartial redistricting process not controlled by those in power. The public demonstrations in NY and other places are, in my opinion, reactions to the oligarchy of corporations controlling our economy and politics. Many don’t know the details of what has happened to the economy and their situation, but they do know that something is seriously wrong.
Personally, I know of ethical, knowledgeable and effective elective officials like Walt, Joel Lourie, Sheheen and others who make a difference for their constituents. It would be nice to say the same of our 39 yr old Gov, but what local office or service did she do before being elected to the House. How about the fella in Cong Dist 5 who cashed out in a real estate deal and cheated Lancaster County citizens of millions in bond money.
@j
I don’t disagree with any of your points.
But my take is that the government (in the form of political legislation, not in the execution of its duties) should not be a job that requires much time. The political members of the legislature have created a far too complex system of rules, procedures, committees, etc. that prevent the government from working effectively. They have created a tax system full of loopholes, exemptions, etc. This did not happen by magic. And it didn’t happen as a result of the work of newly elected legislators. It is a brain-dead system by design to protect the interests of long serving, power hungry politicians. They do not serve the public.
The job of a legislator should take no more than a few weeks out of the year. We have enough laws. Enforce them (immigration) or eliminate them (blue laws). Come up with a tax system that is based on fixed rates with no filing required. Vote on allocations to various departments (after you have eliminated all the fluff like arts, museums, etc. that are not a valid function of government). Then be done with it. We don’t need constant tweaking of tax code nor the use of tax dollars to reward lobbyists.
As for your specifics examples, yes I would agree that the Voter Id bill was good. It makes voter fraud less likely and is no way as burdensome as the opponents claim. I’m still waiting for specific examples of people who exist without id cards and yet still vote regularly but do not have the time nor ability to get an id. I’d really like to see a specific example of that voter community.
The immigration bill is fine with me also. It is an attempt to enforce existing laws and to prevent people who are not entitled to receive benefits from doing so because they have chosen to avoid the lawful process of entry into the country.
Don’t know about the liquor permitting. I don’t think there should be any laws related to liquor other than dropping the drinking age to 18 to match other legal adult rights and privileges. There are just too many laws created by too many people who feel they have to impose their beliefs on other people’s personal decisions. And look what that has got us? A bloated government enforcing those laws.
Simplicity and efficiency is the enemy of politicians.