Category Archives: Legislature

The duel that wasn’t (so far as we know)

6 Replies

It looked like the sort of facetious thing that people say on Twitter and which are quickly forgotten. Yet Katrina Shealy seems to be pinning her hopes for unseating Jake Knotts on the substance of Tweet sent in 2010.

The Tweet in question is reproduced above.

Perhaps there’s more to it, but one couldn’t find it in either the story in The State this morning, or the post by Will Folks that apparently prompted it. (The story in The State seemed to be of that new variety we’re becoming accustomed to — one that the MSM would never have reported in the past without having nailed down all the facts first, but publishes now so as not to appear out of the loop. Neither Jake nor Ms. Shealy was reached before publishing the story, which speaks of a sense of hurry.)

Here are some of the questions that the story raises in my mind:

  • Did Knotts ever say anything to Haddon?
  • Did he actually challenge him to a duel? (Duels, of course, properly constituted, require that both parties be gentlemen. I don’t know Haddon, but Jake has never seemed the dueling sort to me. He’s more of the pick-you-up-and-throw-you-across-the-room kind of guy. Ask Dick Harpootlian.)
  • Is that Tweet Mr. Haddon’s response to the challenge? If so, it is both unclear, and doesn’t seem to follow the accepted forms. It takes more the form of barroom bluster than a formal reply. Perhaps if he would identify his seconds, we could ask them.
  • Has either Mr. Knotts or Mr. Haddon been “out” before (which in the age of dueling meant something different from what it means today)? Who would have the upper hand?
  • If there’s any substance to this, will Jake be barred in the future from conducting classes for those who wish to carry concealed weapons? He has taught such classes in the past. One hopes those classes have not involved standing back-to-back, or pacing off distances.
  • Does Ms. Shealy in any way have standing to be taking legal action in this matter? She thinks she does, because her aim is to bar Sen. Knotts from office. But how does that give her any more standing than any other constituent? It seems that only parties to the alleged duel would have standing. And of course, the Code would (I assume) bar a challenged gentleman from resorting to the courts in order to avoid the Field of Honor.

I, along with you, await answers to all of the above.

Of COURSE state primaries should be in August

6 Replies

Exaggerating as so many readers do, Rusty DePass (who probably agrees with editors far more often than he thinks) expressed shocked pleasure that he actually agreed with something in an editorial in The State on Sunday.

He was referring to this passage in an edit about the issue of all those candidates disqualified from running in the June primaries:

The Legislature has to fix this problem.

That won’t be easy, but it must be done. And with the primaries just five weeks away, it must be done immediately. It would be difficult to keep the elections on schedule even if every member of the Legislature agreed to a solution. That won’t happen, so part of the solution needs to be delaying the primaries, which we shouldn’t hold until August to begin with…

I assured Rusty that advocating August primaries is a long-standing position of the editorial board. It certainly is of mine.

And it is of Rusty’s. Rusty takes credit for the one time state primaries were held at a rational time in all the years since I moved home to South Carolina — 1992, when a lawsuit over reapportionment delayed the vote.

Rusty tells the story this way: As head of the state election commission (or was the past chairman at this point? I forget now), he wrote to the judge in the remap case asking that the primaries be delayed on account of the legal action. He recalls with satisfaction that all the lawyers he knew were shocked and appalled that he would so address such a view to the judge in the midst of a lawsuit. But the judge read the letter aloud from the bench and said, that’s just what we’ll do.

I had forgotten that part of the story, but I remember how gratifying it was to have the primaries thus separated from the legislative session for once.

Even back when we had loads of reporters and other resources, June primaries were extremely difficult for the newspaper — and other news organizations — to cover adequately. The people who covered legislative and other state elections were the very same people who covered the Legislature. The legislative session didn’t end until the first week in June, and didn’t really, really end until the sine die return session a couple of weeks later.

That lack of coverage, of course, benefited incumbents enormously, because there were fewer opportunities for lesser-known challengers to get their names in the paper. And name recognition is a huge part of the battle.

But the timing benefits incumbents in other, more direct, ways. The reason reporters are so extremely busy in those last weeks of the legislative session is because that’s when almost everything of consequence in the session happens. And those weeks happen to be after the filing deadline for the primaries.

So it is impossible for anyone to decide to run against an incumbent (except as that long shot of long shots, a write-in) on the basis of how that incumbent votes on the most important votes of the session. Aside from the fact that even if the challenger had already filed, he or she will get little coverage.

It’s an absolutely ridiculous problem, which would be completely fixed by always holding the primaries in August, as some other states do (including Tennessee, the “other state” whose politics I have the most experience with).

Senate may try to restore candidates to ballots

23 Replies

This just in from Wesley Donehue over at the SC Senate:

Columbia, SC – May 4, 2012 – Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin today announced that he will call an emergency meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, May 8, and 10:00 a.m. for the purpose of discussing and passing legislation aimed at allowing candidates affected by the recent Supreme Court decision back onto primary ballots.

A joint resolution introduced by Senator Kevin Bryant and others would give candidates who filed the rest of their paperwork on time to have an additional 12-hour period to provide their Statements of Economic Interest to political party officials in order to complete their filing requirements and preserve a spot on the ballot.

Martin, who supports the Bryant measure, said he will call the meeting in order to get the resolution to the Senate floor as quickly as possible.

“I don’t fault the Supreme Court for their decision, but clearly there is a deficiency in the law if so many people were adversely affected by these requirements,” Senator Martin said. “Our democratic process should not be derailed by what amounts to a technicality. People across South Carolina deserve a chance to vote for those who made a good faith effort to comply with the law, particularly when they had every reason to believe they would appear on the ballot. The General Assembly needs to step in quickly and rectify what I believe would be a real disservice to voters if allowed to stand.”

###

Don’t know what I think of that. I was just starting to warm up to the idea of a bunch of people running general election campaigns outside of the party system…

What do y’all think?

Ott calls for ‘real comprehensive tax reform’

3 Replies

Sort of following up on the subject of my last post, I share this release that came in a few minutes ago:

Ott Calls for Real Comprehensive Tax Reform

Columbia, SC – House Democrats voted against a Republican plan on Thursday that raised sales taxes by over $12 million on parks, energy efficient home products, postage, zoos, trains, and cargo vessels as well as many others. Minority Leader Harry Ott released the following statement in response to the vote:

“House Democrats have been advocating for comprehensive tax reform for over ten years. This is not even close to tax reform. These are tax increases. Raising taxes is the last thing we should be doing in this economy. This bill doesn’t even begin to address the real problems with our flawed tax code in South Carolina. This was simply a bill that was passed so that House Republicans could go home and say they voted for tax reform. It’s time to stop playing politics and pass real comprehensive tax reform.”

####

Oh, yeah, Democrats? Well, I’ve been calling for comprehensive tax reform for more than 20 years, so don’t be putting on airs. (And even though I still haven’t gotten what I’ve pushed for, my calling for it is just as meaningful as you calling for it, because Democrats in the House don’t have a snowball’s chance of affecting that body’s agenda, especially not on anything this big.)

But you’re right. In all that time, I’ve never seen anything that looked like it actually come close to passage.

In fairness to you Dems, I will say that the closest we did come was when then-Ways and Means Chair Billy Boan led a study group that came up with a pretty good report after the legislative session of 1994, making proposals that would indeed have looked like comprehensive reform.

But before lawmakers could come back in January 1995, the Republicans had taken over the House, and all they wanted to do to taxes was cut them and cut them some more, with no thought given to the overall system.

Consequently, while there have been a number of special committees charged with drafting comprehensive reform since then (but none that looked as good as what Boan’s group came up with), they have all died before getting very far in the process.

And thanks to legislative tinkering here and there (pretty much all of them cuts aimed at pandering to this or that constituency, rather than trying to come up with a smarter and fairer system), our tax system is far, FAR more out of whack than it was when I started calling for reform. Termites have chewed through two, and to a certain extent all three, of the legs of the stool.

Cindi keeps pushing that ol’ Truth Rock up the hill

34 Replies

Anyone who would like a refreshing change from the utter nonsense we hear so often from the majority over at the State House should read Cindi Scoppe’s column today.

In it she reiterates irrefutable truths that fly completely in the face of the way so many of our pols describe reality.

Over and over again, we hear the people who call themselves “conservatives” railing against all those awful people who keep wanting to raise your taxes. When of course, raising taxes is the least likely thing one could expect from the General Assembly.

Such folks, in arguing that we should adopt their latest pet plan for doing what SC lawmakers love most to do — cut taxes — frequently make like the choice is between their plan and tax increases. Which is laughable.

Excerpts:

I moved to South Carolina in the fall of 1987, a few months after the Legislature raised the gas tax by 3 cents per gallon. It didn’t raise taxes again the next year. Or the next. Or the next 17 after that.

The Legislature didn’t raise taxes again until 2006, and then only as part of a swap that reduced taxes even more, increasing the sales tax by a penny in order to eliminate homeowner property taxes for school operations. And the extra penny hasn’t generated as much money as lawmakers projected, so next year they’ll have to send an extra $118 million in general tax revenues to the schools to make up for the shortfall. That is, they’ll divert $118 million from other spending in order to pay for the tax cut that was supposed to have been offset by a tax increase.

Lawmakers also have increased various fees and raised court fines — all of which take more money out of taxpayers’ pockets but can be avoided by not breaking the law or using fee-based services.

In 2010, the Legislature increased unemployment-insurance assessments by $150 million a year, to support a program that is by law supposed to be self-sustaining. It wasn’t self-sustaining — the state had borrowed nearly $1 billion to pay out unemployment claims — in large part because the Legislature had slashed businesses’ assessments before the recession. (In 2011, the Legislature appropriated $146 million to essentially pay the businesses’ higher assessments for them; this year the House has appropriated $77 million for the same purpose.)…

Also in 2010, the Legislature increased the cigarette tax from 7 cents to 57 cents per pack. This $115 million tax increase came after a decade-long campaign by public-health advocates such as myself who wanted to decrease teen smoking. Even with the increase, the tax remains the ninth-lowest in the nation. Still, this was a real, honest-to-goodness, raise-more-money tax increase.

The only one our Legislature has passed in the past quarter century.

Over those same 25 years, the Legislature has eliminated the sales tax on groceries, a $400 million-a-year tax cut.

It has eliminated homeowners’ school property taxes. That’s worth about $970 million per year, but the sales tax brings in $550 million a year, so the net tax cut is $420 million per year.

It has increased the homestead exemption for senior citizens’ local government property taxes from $20,000 to $50,000. Another $100 million per year.

It has indexed income tax brackets to inflation, saving taxpayers $390 million per year.

It has eliminated the bottom income tax bracket, reducing individual income taxes for everyone and eliminating them for many. That’s worth $90 million per year.

It has reduced the top income tax rate for most small businesses from 7 percent to 5 percent, saving $130 million per year.

And it has handed out at least 39 more sales tax exemptions — ranging in size from $4,000 to $47 million. And more income tax breaks.

According to the Board of Economic Advisors, the tax cuts enacted just since 1991 were worth $2.3 billion in 2009. The tax increases over that same period totaled either $665 million or $815 million, depending on whether you count the unemployment-insurance increase that businesses haven’t had to pay. That’s a net tax cut of at least $1.5 billion per year.

As a result of all these changes, the portion of our income that South Carolinians pay in sales taxes has dropped from about 2.8 percent when I moved here in 1987 to 2.2 percent today. Even as the sales tax rate was increased from 5 percent to 6 percent. Going from 2.8 percent to 2.2 percent might not sound like much, but it’s a 21 percent reduction…

Actually, you should just go read the whole piece. It’s chock-full of simple, obvious facts of which the people who run our state seem to be completely unaware.

Protesters take aim at leadership

3 Replies

The other night at the 100th episode of “Pub Politics,” Corey Hutchins was brandishing a wad of bills like the one you see above. He gave me one, which I stuck in my pocket. (I didn’t need cash right then, on account of the beer being free at this shindig.)

I thought at the time that he said he’d gotten it at an Occupy Columbia event (the room was noisy, so it’s hard to tell exactly what he said). But it’s more complicated than that. Here’s an excerpt from what he later wrote about it:

John Crangle stood on a Sumter Street sidewalk in the rain and pointed at some of the most powerful people in state government as they got out of nice cars and hurried toward the entrance of a tall building where a large political action committee was holding a fundraiser on the 20th floor.

He was part of a small protest group – about six people – holding signs and questioning the politicos as they arrived for the party. At issue was the nature of the fundraising group, the Palmetto Leadership Council, a non-candidate committee tied to S.C. House Speaker Bobby Harrell.

Crangle is the director of Common Cause of South Carolina, and his government watchdog group was partnering with members of Occupy Columbia and the South Carolina Progressive Network in picketing the affair.

They accused the PAC of shaking down corporations with interests before the Legislature at the tacit behest of the House Speaker, one of South Carolina’s most powerful politicians.

The PAC has raised nearly $1 million since it was created in 2004. That money has gone to fund candidates – mostly incumbents – and it also gave the state Republican Party $100,000.

The demonstrators argued that politicians like Harrell are using PACs such as the Palmetto Leadership Council as a way to skirt campaign finance limits. A corporation or individual or entity is only allowed to donate $1,000 to a candidate running for the S.C. House or Senate because of finance rules. If they want to donate more, though, they can donate to the PAC and the PAC can turn around and donate to the candidate…

Corey told me today that we should expect to hear more about this issue in the coming days. He said it looked like the MSM was getting interested.

Memo to Harvey Peeler and Senate Republicans: ‘Conservative’ means you SUPPORT status quo

14 Replies

This artwork came with the release.

This release from Wesley and the Senate Republicans is intriguing on a couple of levels:

From today’s Associated Press:
State treasurer, House speaker oppose restructuring bill

There have been some unfortunate developments with the Senate’s bill eliminating the Budget and Control Board, with “The state treasurer and House speaker opposing the Senate’s version of a bill restructuring state government.”

“Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler shot back that the Senate’s version is more conservative than what the House passed last year. He accused the two of supporting the status quo.”

If you support conservative governance, and real restructuring, NOW is the time to stand up to the failed status quo.

Contact the Speaker’s Office and the Treasurer’s Office TODAY, and tell them to support the Senate version of the Department of Administration bill, and to support elimination of the Budget and Control Board.

First, you have the Senate Republicans attacking the Republican House and Republican Treasurer. In a nostalgic sense that’s not weird, because historically the biggest, nastiest split in SC was not between Democrats and Republicans, but between Senate and House. But that was when senators identified themselves primarily as senators, and not as R and D. Now that they think of themselves as Republican senators first and foremost (and this is being sent by the “South Carolina Senate GOP”), it comes across as odd.

Then, there are the really strange words that Harvey chooses to express his disagreement with the House and Loftis: “Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler shot back that the Senate’s version is more conservative than what the House passed last year. He accused the two of supporting the status quo.”

Senator, to the extent that language has meaning, if you are “more conservative” than someone else, that means that you support the status quo more than the other person does. By definition. Go look it up. OK, I’ll save you the trouble. When I Google the word “conservative,” the first dictionary definition that comes up is the one at Dictionary.com, and the first sense of the word is: “disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.”

(I would quibble a bit with that definition. If you want “to restore traditional ones,” you are “reactionary.” But the rest is fine.)

Cindi Scoppe’s long, lonely battle against legislator pensions

25 Replies

Having brought your attention to the Coble endorsement in the paper today, I am reminded that I meant to point out Cindi Scoppe’s column yesterday. It’s one of the many she has written over the years trying to call attention to the ridiculously generous pensions that South Carolina legislators receive:

If you assume that it’s OK for our part-time legislators to receive a pension — and I don’t, but let’s make the assumption for the sake of simplicity — there still are three problems with the way the special legislative pension system operates:

•  Taxpayers subsidize legislative pensions at more than double the rate we subsidize regular employees’ pensions. For every dollar state legislators put into their system, taxpayers contribute $3.89; for every dollar most state employees contribute, the taxpayers contribute just $1.47.

The result is that, while no one is going to get rich off of a legislative pension, our part-time legislators can draw pensions that are actually larger than the ones received by the average full-time state employee who paid into the system for the same number of years.

•  Legislators are allowed to keep purchasing credit in the system at that same super-subsidized rate even after they leave office — even if voters kicked them out of office.

This is not the same as the program that allows regular state employees to purchase credit for years they worked for other entities in the past, at high rates that will (appropriately) get higher under this legislation. That program also is open to legislators, whose rates likewise will go up — but rarely would legislators want to purchase prior credit, since they get that super deal on future credit.

•  Legislators can elect to stop receiving their salaries and instead collect their pensions while they continue to serve — a benefit that because of that super-subsidy means they can collect a pension of as much as $33,000 instead of a salary of $10,400.

Those first two provisions are unique to the legislative pension system, and they are by far the most generous and most difficult to justify…

Cindi’s been at this for years. Lawmakers give lip service to wanting to do something about it, but somehow that never happens.

Some last-minute filings (and one non-filing)

10 Replies

First, this is not an inclusive list. I did not go down to the election office today to see who had filed to run in state races as of today’s deadline. (I say “election office,” but I don’t know where reporters went to get those lists that they brought back to us editors. Don’t care where they went, as long as the info was right. They’re professionals, or used to be. What, you want me to hold their hands and wipe their noses?)

No, this is just a list of Midlands filings that the candidates chose to bring to my attention over the last few days — it’s an update of this list. If I see any other interesting ones in the paper tomorrow, I’ll write about those, too.

First, Boyd Summers, who had been considering running for the seat Rep. Jim Harrison is vacating, decided not to, telling me in an email, “I am not going to file for HD 75 today.  Timing not right for my family. Be happy  to speak with you.” I’ll ask him more about it at Rotary Monday. But that means that Joe McCulloch is the only Democrat I know of running, which (if that turns out to be accurate) means he will face one of two Republicans in the fall. You know about Kirkman Finlay III. Finlay has competition in the GOP primary from attorney Jim Corbett, who filed Thursday after floating the idea among acquaintances in the district. “The response was extremely positive and encouraging. Serving District 75 as a Legislator would be an honor and fit my experience and interests.”

Kara Gormley Meador says she did file today, and sent me the above photo of her doing so. She didn’t specify in her note, but I assume that means she filed to run in the June primary against Sen. Ronnie Cromer and not Jake Knotts. I’m sure if my assumption is wrong, she’ll let me know… Wait… yes, it is Cromer she’s going after. She has a website now and everything, and it mentions District 18.

Twenty-one-year-old Chris Sullivan made it official that he is challenging veteran Rep. Joe McEachern in House District 77. Chris is young, but he must be pretty savvy — as evidenced by the fact that he is the first legislative candidate this year to purchase an ad on this blog. Hint, hint.

Finally, Walid Hakim — a recurring character on this blog recently — has filed to run against Rep. Mac Toole in District 88. The release does not specify whether Walid intends to challenge him in the GOP primary or in the general — party affiliation is not mentioned in his release. But striking an “Occupy” tone, he did say, “I’ve seen our state struggling to recover from hard times that fell harder on us than most states. Representative Toole, following the lead of Governor Haley, continuously stood in the way of help for those who need it the most.”

Since Walid is back in the news, I’m responding to a request from “Silence,” who asked for a close-up of the trend-setting footwear Mr. Hakim wore to the announcement yesterday at Belinda Gergel’s house:

The big ‘one size fits all’ lie we keep hearing from school ‘choice’ advocates

62 Replies

OK, I’ve let it go about a thousand times, but this was just one time too many:

“Parents have spoken out enough to make lawmakers understand that they deserve choices,” said state Rep. Eric Bedingfield, R-Greenville, a lead sponsor of the bill. “Education is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Each child is educationally unique in how they learn.”

Of course, that paragraph is chock-full of nonsense (parents have all the choices they could ask for; this issue is about whether they should be rewarded, at the expense of  the public schools, for exercising those choices in certain ways), but I want to zero in on one point we haven’t discussed before: The laughable notion that public education constitutes a “one-size-fits-all” approach to education, while private school education does not.

In my experience, it’s the other way around.

Of course, you don’t really need personal experience to understand the obvious: Public schools take everybody, and therefore have to make teach all types of learners. While there are some private schools that are specifically set up to address different learning styles, the private schools that get the largest numbers of those fleeing public education tend to be of the “keep-up-or-fail” variety.

Our kids started out in Catholic schools — in Tennessee, then Kansas, then here. After we’d been living here for about a year — this was the late ’80s — we decided for several reasons to switch to public schools. (One factor was cost, another was travel time — we had a very good elementary school in walking distance of our home, as opposed to having to drive the kids downtown every day.)

Another factor was that my younger son, who had always been bright — we marveled at his vocabulary from the time he was a toddler — was really struggling in the first grade. He never got to go to recess, because the teacher kept him in to finish his work. He would strain to complete homework late into the night, past bedtime. He was very conscientious, and always applied himself to finish the work, but it was a struggle — and he was under way too much stress for a first-grader. Like his Dad, he had trouble focusing on a task, but there was more to it than that — we would later discover that he had a form of dyslexia.

His teacher at the Catholic school didn’t know what to do with him, except to make him finish his work however long it took.

After he started in the public school, as soon as his teachers saw how much trouble he was having, a meeting was called with us and the teachers and specialists from the district, to draft a strategy for helping him keep up and learn the material. This strategy was updated and followed all the way until he graduated from Brookland-Cayce High School.

Were the methods perfect? My son, who now has a bachelor’s degree in psychology, says no — he believes the schools still had a lot to learn. And in fact, his dyslexia wasn’t specifically diagnosed until much later than it should have been. But the point is, they did something to help him, and kept on working with him. And that gave him the space and the tools to learn how to learn, to graduate and to earn a college degree. As wonderful as Catholic education is for mainstream learners, that just wasn’t going to happen where he was before.

By definition and by necessity, public education is not one-size-fits-all. They have to educate everybody, so they have to stock all sizes. Many of the debates we have over education — such as over the impact of putting children on different tracks — result from the wide variety of learning needs different children bring to school.

(I don’t know what I would do if I had to attend school in my children’s or grandchildren’s generation. In my day, you could get by just on being smart, being good at tests, and class participation. My teachers knew that I knew the material even if I didn’t get assignments done — I aced the tests that were such a large part of my grade, even when I didn’t finish them. Since then, schools have become much more task-oriented, and place a greater emphasis on homework and daily assignments; I’m not at all sure I would have kept up.)

And for that reason, it really ticks me off when people who want to drain public resources from the public schools try to make us think it’s the other way around.

As expected, Finlay seeks Harrison’s House seat

2 Replies

This just came in over the transom a few minutes ago:

Kirkman Finlay III for SC House District 75

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  March 28, 2012

Finlay Announces State House Run

Kirkman Finlay III  to file for House Seat 75 on Thursday March 29, 2012.

Columbia, SC March 28, 2012 – Former Columbia City Councilman, Kirkman Finlay III, announces today that he will file to run for the South Carolina House of Representatives, to represent Richland County in District 75.  The seat is being vacated by Republican Representative James Harrison, who announced earlier this month that he will not seek re-election in November.

The 42 year old, a lifelong Columbia resident is married to Kathleen Finlay and is the father of three daughters:  Kay (12) Mary Fleming (9) and Hattie (8).  Finlay is the owner of local businesses, Pawleys Front Porch, Doc’s BBQ and the Millstone at Adams Pond.  He also operates a 6,000 acre soybean, corn and wheat farm.  Finlay has served as a board member of thePalmetto Health Foundation, Central Carolina Community Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, Heathwood Hall Episcopal School, and the Boy Scouts of America.

“Economic Development, job creation and educational accountability will be the focus of my campaign.  I want to create a strong South Carolina that brings opportunity to everyone”, said Finlay.

As part of his campaign, Mr. Finlay wants to be accessible and responsive to the voters, and invites them to contact him by e-mail, phone, or Facebook page.

Mr. Finlay has already garnered the support of local business people and Columbia residents:  “Kirkman has a proven track record as a fiscally-responsible leader and has provided responsive representation to his constituents in the City ofColumbia.  He will offer a common sense approach to the state budget process, which our current leadership at the State House is sorely lacking” said Joe E. Taylor, Jr., a Finlay supporter and former Secretary of the South Carolina Department of Commerce.

“Kirkman is above-board in his business dealings, and I know that he will carry that ethic to the State House in his representation of Richland County” said Jimmy Stevenson, a Finlay supporter and long-time business associate.

Mr. Finlay is running as a Republican candidate.

Anyone wishing to support the campaign should e-mail:  [email protected]

‘Gov. Transparency’ won’t waive confidentiality

36 Replies

Harry Ott puts it pretty well in this release:

Columbia, SC – House Democratic Leader Harry Ott expressed disappointment on Wednesday after Governor Nikki Haley’s office told the media she would refuse to waive her confidentiality in the event of an ethics investigation. Representative Ott released the following statement in response:

“According to Governor Haley, ‘can’t’ is not an option, but apparently ‘wont’ is. She talks a great game, but when it’s time to turn her rhetoric into action, the ‘transparency governor’ hides behind a wall of secrecy. Unfortunately, this has become a pattern. The people of South Carolina deserve an open and honest government from their leaders. If the Governor is under investigation, the public deserves to know.”

####

But then, Nikki Haley keeps going out of her way to tee the ball up for her political opponents. If there’s an opportunity to be open and aboveboard — from her legislative emails to this — she can be relied upon to hide behind any cover that SC law provides. And SC law is chock-full of such protections for those who want to keep their business from the limelight.

Here’s what the gov’s mouthpiece had to say:

“If Mr. Ott and members of the House want to change the law and waive confidentiality for all of the ethics complaints filed against them – past and future – the governor would be happy to join them,” said Rob Godfrey, Haley’s spokesman. “Otherwise, we would ask that they get back to the people’s business, fund tax relief and pass restructuring.”

Godfrey said Haley already has answered all of the questions raised in Rainey’s lawsuit, adding further investigation is not needed.

“If there is an ethics complaint (filed) about matters that took place years ago and that have already been answered again and again, the regular procedures should be followed, and we’re confident that the Ethics Committee will come to the same conclusion as every other entity that Mr. Rainey has shopped this nonsense to – that it is entirely baseless,” Godfrey said…

Young Mr. Godfrey probably thinks that’s one heckuva slam-dunk answer, and indeed it does communicate volumes. Here’s my read on it: Hell, no, we don’t want to be transparent and aboveboard on this. Do YOU want to be transparent and aboveboard? Because we’re not going to be until everyone else does it first. Far be it from US to lead on such a thing; we prefer to be last in line when it comes to openness. Now, instead of asking us to do stuff we don’t want to do, just you shut up and go do what WE want YOU to do.

Or did I miss something?

A very UnParty press release from Rep. Taylor

40 Replies

Still catching up on releases sent to me via email, I ran across this rather remarkable one from Rep. Bill Taylor, a Republican from Aiken:

Unanimous Agreement !

Passage of a

Bi-Partisan State Budget

Dear Friends:

In Washington D.C. partisan bickering seems to rule. In South Carolina elected officials know how to work together for better and more efficient government. Democrat and Republican legislators joined

Unanimous

together in the House of Representatives to unanimously pass a state budget this week.

Be assured there were disagreements and much debate on how to wisely spend your tax money, but both sides came together to pass a balanced budget that falls well within the proposed cap on spending. It focuses on the core functions of government – education, infrastructure and law enforcement – all of which are vital to our state’s growing economy.

The spending plan also provides tax relief, pays off debt and replenishes the state’s ‘rainy day’ reserve accounts.

Headlines from the $6 billion General Fund appropriations:

  • $152 million in additional funds for K-12 used in the classroom and not for educational bureaucracy.
  • $180 million set aside to pay for SC’s share of the deepening of the Charleston Port, the major economic driver for SC.
  • $77 million in tax relief to employers of all sizes to assist them with some relief from the high unemployment insurance costs caused by the recession.
  • $549 million in tax relief; 88% of which is property tax relief that must be granted annually if the relief is to remain.
  • Nearly $400 million to the Constitutional and Statutory Reserves – those funds go into our savings account for the next economic downturn – “The Rainy Day Fund’.

While the General Fund budget grows by 4.56%, this plan calls for far less spending as compared to the beginning of the recession. The increase is aimed at patching the severe cuts that have occurred in recent years in law enforcement and education. It is a fiscally conservative spending plan designed to make SC more competitive.

The Governor’s Criticism: In Governor Haley’s fly-around-the-state tour this week she promoted her idea for a one-year only tax cut benefiting major corporations. The House budget plan cuts taxes for every single SC employer, hopefully, that will stimulate hiring.

The Governor also took aim on House Republican’s 7 point comprehensive tax reform plan introduced this week. She called it “disingenuous” even though she and her staff worked with our tax reform committee over the past eight months and the legislation included everything she asked for and much more. (Read the Aiken Standard’s story on this topic.)

What’s Next for the Budget? The proposed budget heads to the Senate. If past years are any indication, senators will bloat the budget with additional spending. Please let your senator know that’s not acceptable.

Wow. First we have all the Senate Democrats voting for John Courson. Now we have a Republican — a House Republican (the most partisan kind), no less — bragging to his constituents that the budget just passed was bipartisan. Instead of the usual business of giving all the credit to the GOP and mentioning Democrats only as obstacles, if at all.

Oh never fear — the zampolits are probably rushing to censure these folks for such UnParty sentiments, denouncing them as double-plus ungood. But for now, I’m enjoying this little Prague Spring.

Partial roundup of legislative candidate filings

4 Replies

In recent posts I’ve mentioned the candidacies of Beth Bernstein, Mia Butler Garrick and Joe Wilson. While this list is by no means comprensive — I’m just sharing the ones that have been sent to me (what, you think I’ve got reporters to go out all over the state and get them or something?), but something is better than nothing.

First, there is this confirmation that Joan Brady is indeed asking for re-election to the post that Ms. Bernstein is seeking:

Columbia, S.C. (March 18, 2012) – South Carolina State Representative, Joan Brady filed today for a fifth term in the SC House of Representatives.  Rep. Brady currently represents the constituents of House District 78 in Richland County, which includes neighborhoods in the City of Forest Acres, the Town of Arcadia Lakes, the Woodlands, and Wildewood.  Northeast Columbia neighborhoods including Woodcreek Farms and Green Hill Parrish will also be part of District 78, under the newly approved re-districting plans.

“I look forward to the continued opportunity to work on issues impacting the families of District 78 including, encouraging new jobs and investment in our community; strengthening our schools in Richland One and Two; and, advocating for our most vulnerable citizens – the children of our state.”

Rep. Brady has the unique distinction of being one of only 16 women currently serving in the South Carolina General Assembly. She holds several prestigious leadership positions in the SC House of Representatives including: Chair, House Insurance Committee; Vice Chair, Jt. Citizens and Legislative Committee on Children; and Secretary, House Ethics.  Rep. Brady was recently elected to the Executive Board of Woman In Government, a national organization of female, state legislators.

During her eight years serving as a state legislator, Rep. Brady has successfully sponsored numerous pieces of legislation including: expanding notification on the SC Sex Offender Registry; limiting residency of convicted sex offenders; expediting adoptions with the Responsible Father’s Registry; curtailing illegal methamphetamine production with a pharmaceutical log; and setting new “green” building standards for state buildings.  Currently, she is working on passage of the “Angel Investment Act”, a bill that encourages investment in start-up companies.

Rep. Brady is involved in community issues, serving on the Executive Board of EngenuitySC and is a founding member or the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce Northeast Council.  Prior to serving in the SC House of Representatives, Rep. Brady served for four years on Richland County Council and is a former mayor of the Town of Arcadia Lakes.

Rep. Brady is the proud mother of three grown children.  She resides in the lovely Town of Arcadia Lakes.

For more information on the Re-elect Brady campaign, visit Joan Brady for the House District 78 on Facebook and follow @JoanBBrady on Twitter.

###

Then, somewhat more briefly, here are some other filings:

  • Rep. Tom Young of Aiken is going after the Senate District 24 seat being vacated by Greg Ryberg. Young, an attorney, was elected to the House in 2008. He cites by way of qualification: “While in the House, Young has pushed several restructuring bills which were lauded by conservative groups across the state. He also sought to impact the social and economic costs associated with high school dropouts with a bill that would encourage those between the ages of 15 and 17 to stay in school in order to keep the privilege to drive. Young has gained a reputation of being very attentive to constituent service and providing a weekly email update to voters in the district.”
  • Rep. Mike Sottile of Isle of Palms is seeking a third term in the House representing District 112. From his release: “Some of the bills Rep. Sottile has taken a lead role in advancing include point of sale tax relief for home buyers, frivolous lawsuit reform, on the record voting, voter ID and illegal immigration reform. Sottile said his goal in being reelected is to push for further reforms in our state such as charter school reform, comprehensive tax reform, state spending limit, a shorter legislative session, stronger right to work laws, and restructuring.”
  • Rep. Mike Forrester, yet another who calls himself a “conservative reformer,” is seeking re-election. Beyond that, he describes himself thusly: “Forrester, known as a strong advocate for job creation through conservative reforms, has been a consistent voice for restrained spending, lower taxes, and government restructuring.” He represents District 34 in Spartanburg.
  • Rep. Derham Cole of Spartanburg wants to be returned for District 32. “I am running to ensure a proven conservative represents the people of House District 32,” he says in his behalf. “I want to continue the progress we have made in the House on restructuring and tax reform issues. On that front, the House just passed a conservative budget that replenishes reserve funds, provides tax relief to South Carolina’s employers, and sets aside funds to deepen the Port of Charleston.”
  • Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens, who has been in the Legislature since 1979, and in the Senate since 1993, wants District 2 to return him yet again. Here’s what he has to say for himself: “Senator Martin has been at the forefront of conservative reforms during his time in the Senate, and a leading advocate for lower taxes and responsible budgeting. In recent years, he led the fights on on-the-record voting, frivolous lawsuit reform, immigration reform, and abolishing the Budget and Control Board. He has also fought hard for bringing jobs to Pickens County, working in partnership with state and local economic development officials to bring more employment opportunities to the district. In addition, this week Sen. Martin was elevated to the position of Judiciary Committee Chairman, giving Pickens County an incredible level of influence in the Senate’s legislative process.”
  • Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler of Gaffney, the best Tweeter in the upper chamber, is asking the voters of District 14 for a ninth four-year term (meaning he’s been there since 1981). The dairyman says he “has played a leading role in cutting income and property taxes, pushing for spending caps, cracking down on illegal immigration, on-the-record voting, and restructuring.” His 190-word release uses the word “conservative” no less than four times. It’s like a verbal tic or something. Tom Young tied him in this regard; the others confined themselves to two or fewer.

Meanwhile, Rep. Leon Stavrinakis is thinking about running for the Senate District 41 seat that Glenn McConnell just vacated. He says: “Anne and I are humbled by the encouragement we have received over the last week by folks all over the tri-county area. This overwhelming support has driven us to reassess where I can best serve the people of South Carolina. To even be considered as a successor to Glenn F. McConnell is quite an honor. Anne and I are currently discussing this possibility with our family and friends along with the possibility of offering to continue with the great honor of serving in the South Carolina House of Representatives. Our focus has always been on determining how I can best serve the place I’ve always called home. I want to thank everyone for their well wishes, words of encouragement, and continued prayers.”

Darrell Jackson’s right; Dick Harpootlian’s wrong. Period.

18 Replies

Have you seen this offensive nonsense?

Democratic chairman criticizes one of his own for endorsing a Republican

A Democratic state senator, who has endorsed an incumbent Republican state senator over his Democratic challenger, earned the wrath Monday of the state party’s chairman, Dick Harpootlian.

State Sen. Darrell Jackson, a Democrat, has endorsed state Sen. John Courson, a Republican, for re-election, The State newspaper reported Saturday. Jackson and Courson both represent Richland County, and Courson recently was elected the new leader of the Senate, largely on the support of Senate Democrats, including Jackson…

In an email Monday, Harpootlian urged Democrats to call Jackson’s office and “ask him to behave like the Democrat he claims to be.”

“I’m building a party here. It’s tough when, every time I put up a couple of bricks, one of my own party wants to take one down,” Harpootlian told The State…

Of course Sen. Jackson is supporting John Courson’s re-election. He and every other Democrat in the Senate just voted for him for Senate president pro tempore. You can’t be pro tem if you’re not a senator, so by implication, every Democrat just endorsed him as a senator.

They supported him over the partisan Republican option, Harvey Peeler, because Sen. Courson has served the Democrats of his Shandon district just as faithfully and ably as he has the (relatively few) Republicans. He has earned the trust of Sen. Jackson and his other Democratic colleagues.

Dick Harpootlian should butt out with his pointless partisanship. His attitude is what’s wrong with out politics today.

But I think voters should call Sen. Jackson’s office, as Dick suggests — and thank him for being a statesman.

Statement from “Lt. Governor McConnell” (might as well get used to hearing that, if you can)

2 Replies

This came in a few minutes ago:

Statement by Lt. Governor McConnell

(COLUMBIA) In response to questions that have been raised about whether Lt. Governor Glenn McConnell might offer as a candidate for re-election to the South Carolina Senate, Lt. Governor McConnell issued the following statement:

“My heart has been touched by the hundreds of citizens in the Charleston area, from all walks of life, who have urged me to launch a campaign to regain my seat in the State Senate. I have dedicated the last thirty-one years of my life to serving as a Senator. Selfishly speaking, I would love to return to that position of honor. And no mere words can express how deeply grateful I am to the good people from my District for the trust they have placed in me.

However, I cannot in good conscience offer for re-election to the Senate this year. The timing of this constitutional succession makes it impossible for me to consider any other course.

On Tuesday, I took an oath of office to discharge the duties of Lt. Governor. The task of executing an orderly transition in that office and making certain its duties and responsibilities are properly organized requires a major effort over a considerable period of time. To regain my seat in the Senate, I would have to file for re-election literally within a few days and launch a campaign immediately. I cannot do that.

It is vitally important for those of us engaged in public service to keep our promises, uphold the rule of law, and honor the oaths we take. I vacated my Senate seat because the oath I took as President Pro Tempore required me to do so, Now I believe the oath I took as Lt. Governor requires me to make a good faith effort for a reasonable period of time to fulfill the duties of that office. Therefore, I will not offer as a candidate for election for Senate District 41 this year.

I know not what the future holds. All I can say for sure is that I have loved serving the people of Senate District 41. It is an honor that has occupied most of my adult life. With all my heart, I thank my neighbors for allowing me to represent them in the South Carolina Senate. And beginning immediately, I will do all I can to serve the people of South Carolina well as their new Lt. Governor.”

###

So even though it means giving up the chance to “return” to a “position of honor,” he’s now committed to making the most of the Gov Lite post. I suppose we’ll now see what can be done with that position by someone who knows how.

But I just can’t get over seeing his name after that title…

Beth Bernstein to oppose Joan Brady in District 78

8 Replies

A Democrat has announced that she will seek the SC House District 78 seat held by Joan Brady:

(Columbia, SC) — (3/13/2012) – Local attorney and mother of two, Beth Bernstein, has decided to run for State House District 78.

“I am running because I care deeply about our district and I can’t stand by while our state moves dramatically in the wrong direction,” Bernstein said.  “The people of District 78 deserve leadership and a government responsive to their needs.”

Bernstein grew up in Columbia, the daughter of Carol and Isadore Bernstein, who were both politically and civically active in the Columbia community before their passing.  After attending the public schools in Richland School District 2, she earned her undergraduate degree from the University of Georgia and earned a law degree from the University of South Carolina School of Law. She practices law in Columbia in her family firm of Bernstein and Bernstein, LLC. She has two children, Caroline, 7 years old, and Isabel, 3 years old, and is married to Rip Sanders, also a lawyer in the firm.  They live in the same neighborhood in which she was raised.

“In difficult times, good people have a responsibility to step forward,” Bernstein said.  “I’ve never thought about running for office until I noticed how badly our state government is failing us.  It’s important to make sure we are funding our public schools, taking care of our retirees, and encouraging job growth.”

“We need to change the policies in Columbia so that District 78 and the state of South Carolina can again move in a positive direction.  And to change the policies, we need to change the people in the House who make the policies.”

For more information, go to www.beth4house.com.

– END –

Ms. Bernstein tells me she doesn’t know of any other Democrat currently seeking the nomination in that district.

Between the scramble for Jim Harrison’s seat and Chris Sullivan’s run for District 77, we’re seeing quite a bit of new blood take a shot at representing Richland County in the General Assembly. It could get interesting.

Sheheen proposes joint gov/gov lite ticket

13 Replies

This just came in from Vincent Sheheen, the most consistent and insistent advocate for government restructuring in the Senate (a body not exactly overrun with such) in recent years:

Sheheen Calls For Joint Governor-Lt. Governor Ticket

Columbia, SC  – State Senator Vincent Sheheen (D-Camden) today called for change in the way SC elects its Lieutenant Governor. Under legislation that is pending in the state Senate, Governors and Lieutenant Governors would run on a ticket.

Senator Sheheen made the following comments:

“Recent events have demonstrated the critical need to modernize our government. The instability of government during the Sanford and Haley eras has highlighted the chaos that can be caused by bad leaders under our current system. Let’s put this legislation on the fast track and get it passed this year.  The people deserve it.”

H. 3152 –  http://scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3152&session=&summary=B

###

It’s certainly been proposed many times before. Maybe, given recent events, the idea’s time has arrived.

Senate couldn’t have made a better choice for president pro tempore than John Courson

8 Replies

Here you have a very fine Southern gentleman. And Courson's OK, too. Photo by Kelly Payne

Good job, gentlemen — picking John Courson to replace Glenn McConnell as president pro tempore of the Senate.

I can think of no one I’d prefer for that honor — certainly among those who would have had a realistic chance of being elected. If you’ll recall, Sen. Courson made my official, off-the-top-of-my-head list of top ten senators. And if I had made it a Top Five list, in true Nick Hornby fashion, he’d have made that, too. Some others among my faves — such as Joel Lourie and Vincent Sheheen — wouldn’t ever have been seriously considered, being both Democrats and too junior.

Why do I like Sen. Courson so much? First, he’s a Southern gentleman — the real article. There are all sorts of people who dress themselves up and strut about impersonating gentlemen, but he’s genuine. His courtliness is unfeigned, and incorporates all the best attributes of the type (as opposed to all the negatives with which cynical postmodernists would burden it). Combine that with his distinctive booming, heavily accented voice, and he’s an original character in a time when his party tends to run more to clones. (If I want to do a Courson impression, the first thing I do is think of him saying “militerih BANnuh” the way he did so many times during the debates over the Confederate flag.)

His credentials as a conservative Republican, from back before it was cool in SC, are impeccable. He speaks of Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond (and the Marine Corps — he flies that particular military banner in front of his house) as though reciting the pantheon of his gods. And yet he has been repeatedly returned to office by his Shandon constituency, largely the same one that keeps re-electing James Smith. He accomplishes this by faithfully serving all of his constituents, and by dealing with everyone in the State House, regardless of party, with the same scrupulous fairness and courtesy.

It’s no accident, then, that the Democrats in the Senate voted for him 18-0 yesterday, while a large majority of Republican votes went to Harvey Peeler. Nothing against Harvey — he’s an awesome Tweeter — but as the head of the GOP caucus, he has come to represent the partisanship that has infected the Senate since it first started taking note of party lines about a decade ago. As evidenced by this.

Here’s what John had to say after his election:

“I feel very honored,” said Courson, who has been a member of the Senate since 1985 and is an insurance executive at Keenan Suggs Insurance in Columbia. “This position is elected by senators themselves so it is a real honor to have my fellow senators support me. But I’m also pleased that I received bipartisan support.”

When’s the last time you heard a Republican in SC say that? Or even have occasion to?

You might say that John Courson is about as close as you can get to an actual UnParty elected official. Of course, that invites attacks on him from the RINO hunters, but such people are beneath contempt. As if they would have the right to judge Courson’s suitability as a Republican. And that’s the contradictory thing about John — he’s very UnParty, and yet it’s hard to think of anybody who’s been a more loyal Republican as he has, or for as long as he has.

Finally, if McConnell does run for his old seat and vacate the job of lieutenant governor — well, I would feel better about that particular office than I have in a long time, with John Courson in it. Although he would be missed in the Senate.

Full disclosure — about three years ago, right after I got laid off at the paper, a bulky envelope arrived in the mail at my home. It was from John Courson, and it contained a new Legislative Manual. I don’t know why he sent it to me — maybe he supposed that being unemployed, I couldn’t afford my own. But I appreciated it. It was like John was going out of his way to keep me in the loop, letting me know I was someone still worth doing this for. (I am not in his district, by the way, or even close.) Each year since then, he has sent me the new manual. The ironic thing about this is that I used to assign Cindi Scoppe to supply me with up-to-date manuals, and she hated running that errand, and used to put it off, sometimes neglecting it for a full year. So I’m better-supplied with manuals than I was at the paper.

Glenn McConnell’s full statement

5 Replies

Trying to catch up with my e-mail, I see that Wesley Donehue sent me this yesterday. I quoted McConnell’s statement in part earlier (or rather, quoted The State quoting it), but here is the whole thing. Hope you can read it OK:

As I said, he’s a guy taking a bullet for principle. He’s not enjoying himself.