Category Archives: Legislature

Tech system funding, by the numbers

A little more perspective on the governor’s three vetoes of Technical College operational funding, courtesy of Midlands Tech President Sonny White, who spoke to the Columbia Rotary Club this afternoon. (He only mentioned the vetoes in passing; I got the rest from him in an interview afterward.)

When the Technical College system was founded at the behest of Gov. Fritz Hollings (who got the Legislature to go along by buying Sen. Edgar Brown a bottle of bourbon and helping him drink it, which shows that in an altered state of consciousness at least, our lawmakers can be forward looking), the system was paid for thusly:

  • 70 percent of funding came from the state
  • 10 percent came from the counties served by the 16 schools — this went to physical plant and other local operating costs
  • 10 percent came from students — which made sense, since this was about providing a bright future to folks who did not already have good income
  • 10 percent came from auxiliary services such as bookstores and the like

In the 2011 fiscal year, the breakdown will be:

  • 70 percent will come from students — some of it from Pell Grants and lottery-funded scholarships, but it will still be up to the students to find the way to come up with it
  • 10 percent from the state — which is just so many different kinds of pitiful that it defies words
  • 10 percent from counties — Sonny expressed his appreciation that counties have at least kept their part of the bargain over the years.
  • 10 percent from auxiliary services.

Oh, and by the way, the technical system has seen a 20 percent increase in enrollment during this period in which unemployment has hovered around 12 percent.

So now you know.

Some background on Sanford’s tech system vetoes

You may have seen a piece in The State today by Otie Rawl regarding governor’s vetoes of funding for the S.C. Technical College system. (This may be the only place you’ve seen mention of this in the MSM).

Let me give you some numbers to add to your perspective on this particular outrage of the governor’s.

Basically, the governor was looking for $4 million. What he wanted to do initially was ReadySC. As Sonny White, Midlands Tech president, ‘splained to me this afternoon, ReadySC is the entity at the heart of South Carolina’s ability to tell industrial prospects — the example he gave was Boeing — that yes, we’ll be able to train your workforce for you. To explain to you what the governor apparently doesn’t understand, here’s what ReadySC does:

As an integral part of the SC Technical College System, The Center for Accelerated Technology Training and its readySC™ program work together with the 16 Technical Colleges to prepare South Carolina’s workforce to meet the needs of your company.
Established in 1961, readySC™ is one of the oldest and most experienced workforce training programs in the United States. We are ready to bring this experience and expertise to work for your company.
  • We are ready to quickly and successfully start up your new facility.
  • We are ready to help you seamlessly expand your existing facility.
  • We are ready to discover the skills, knowledge and abilities needed at your facility.
  • We are ready to design new and innovative training solutions customized specifically for your needs.
  • We are ready to respond to your time frames and deadlines no matter how tight.
  • We are ready to deliver world-class training and project management.
The Center’s new moniker — readySC™ — sums up perfectly our message to
companies that are considering a relocation or expansion in South Carolina.
We are ready!

As Sonny explained to me, the problem is that the governor simply doesn’t believe that the technical colleges should be involved in economic development. Let me say that again: Our governor (Nikki Haley’s guiding light) does not believe that the technical college system — which was created under Gov. Fritz Hollings as an economic development tool — should be involved in economic development.

The good news is that Sanford was talked out of this, by ecodevo types like Otie Rawl, according to Dr. White.

But the governor still wanted his $4 million. Fine. So he took it out of administration for the 16 technical colleges. He said that the three biggest colleges — Midlands Tech being one — should provide administrative services for the other 13.

Fine, says Sonny. But there’s no plan to do that, no authorizing legislation, no nothing — except the governor’s airy wish that it come into being.

Fusco says veto WOULD decimate programs

I was going to write “Fusco Says Sanford Full of It” as my headline, but it probably would have given ol’ Frank a heart attack. But that’s what this amounts to.

Remember how I wrote that, according to Kenny Bingham, the GOP leadership seemed inclined to take the governor’s word for it that his veto of the entire $29.5 million appropriation for the Budget and Control Board would NOT decimate several state programs, because, according to the gov, the board just had all this money lying around? And I asked Kenny what Frank Fusco, the head of the B&C Board, had to say about that, and Kenny told me he hadn’t talked to Frank yet? Remember?

Well, here’s what Frank has to say:

Veto Would Devastate Board, Key Programs

This week Governor Sanford vetoed the Board’s entire $29.5 million General Fund appropriation plus other line items for the S.C. Enterprise Information System.
In his veto message to the General Assembly, the Governor stated that he was taking this action because the “Board has sufficient carry-forward and other funds to maintain its operations in this fiscal year.”
The Board does not have funds to make up for this cut. If sustained, the impact of this veto would be severe and would result in very significant staff reductions in our agency.
Board programs rely on a variety of funding mechanisms. Some areas, like the Employee Insurance Program and the S.C. Retirement Systems, draw money from dedicated accounts outside the General Fund and are not impacted. But many other areas of the Board are entirely or partially dependent upon general funds.
If our General Fund budget is not restored, these areas of the Board would have to virtually cease operation:
• The State Budget Office
• The SCEIS statewide financial system
• The Board of Economic Advisors
• The Office of Human Resources
• The Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum
In addition, other areas would see very significant staff reductions:
• The State Procurement Office would lose 30 percent or more of its staff. The auditing function would be eliminated and the State Engineer’s Office will be virtually eliminated.
• The Office of Internal Operations would lose about one-third of its staff and would be severely crippled because it has already made so many reductions.
• The Office of Research and Statistics would lose funding for mapping, redistricting of Congressional and legislative seats and the Geodetic Survey. It would lose about 30 employees.
• The General Services Division would lose all funding for operation of the State House and Capitol Complex. Layoffs would be necessary.
• State funding for local water and sewer grants would be eliminated.
We wish it was the case that the Board had ample extra funds that we could simply use to make up for the shortfall. But that is not the case at all.
While some Board programs have funds in trust or other accounts, most of these dollars can be used only for purposes directed by law. For example, funds from the Retirement System could not be moved to General Services. Nor would it be right, for example, to take money we receive to provide Internet service to public schools and libraries and redirect it to a totally unrelated purpose.
And it is exactly because we do not have lots of free cash that we have reduced spending and staffing, including layoffs last year.
The S.C. House of Representatives will take up the vetoes on Tuesday. If two-thirds of the House votes to override the veto, it would then go to the Senate which would also have to override the veto with a two-thirds vote. Please know that I and the Board’s senior leadership team are working diligently to communicate all the facts to the General Assembly as they prepare to consider the vetoes. We will keep you up to date as events warrant.
– Frank Fusco

Thanks to Bob Amundson for bringing that to my attention. There it was, big as life, already up on the Web — although not anyplace I would normally look. Saved me a phone call, which I appreciate…

An exchange about the budget vetoes

A reader writes to me via e-mail to say, with regard to the governor’s budget vetoes:

After receiving an e-mail alert from ETV yesterday and reading about Medicaid cuts, I e-mailed Majority Leader Bingham and asked him to vote to override these two items.  I am attaching his response.  He does not commit to a yes or no answer, and the remainder of his response left me scratching my head.  Why would house Democrats team up with Governor Sanford against House republicans?  Am I misreading this?
I know that there is more going on than I know about, but this just does not make sense to me.
I have asked Majority Leader Bingham for clarification; I have e-mailed Senator Setzler as well.

Here is the response he says he got from Kenny Bingham:

Thank you for your email and for taking the time to write. As you can probably imagine, as a result of Governor Sanford’s budget vetoes, I have been inundated with emails and phone calls from those who are concerned about the negative impact that these vetoes will have on various agencies of state government. In past years, the General Assembly has been able to override many of the catastrophic vetoes that have been handed down from Governor Sanford. Unfortunately, this year will be different. As those who have closely followed the budget process know, we have had a very difficult time putting together a budget that a majority of members would support.
In the House of Representatives, our first try to pass the final budget conference report, failed by a vote of 47 to 69.  After several days of intense negotiations, we were finally able to pass the budget, but only by the slimmest of margins and without any help from the House Democrats. This set the stage for what we now have before us. As a result of not having the support of House Democrats throughout this years budget process, this allowed the Governor and a group of his closest allies, to hold us hostage with this year’s budget. We were faced with the dilemma of either agreeing to accept his line item vetoes, or he was going to veto the entire budget document which would have required that we start the budget process over from scratch. A process that took 5 months to complete the first time, and one that would have been next to impossible to complete prior to government having to shut down on July 1st.
Therefore, when the House Democrats informed us on the last day of session that they would not help us override the Governor’s veto of the entire budget, we were left with no other real option but to agree to sustain the Governor’s line item vetoes. While this is clearly not the kind of news that I hoped to be sending you, it is unfortunately the truth. So barring the Governor having a change of heart, or some other unforeseen circumstance, I anticipate that the Governor’s vetoes will be sustained.
As always, if I can ever be of assistance to you or your family, or answer any questions about state government, please feel free to contact me.
Take care,
Kenny Bingham
I must say, I don’t follow it either. No matter what happened with the Democrats during the budget debate (whine, bitch, moan; it’s always somebody else’s fault, preferably someone of the other party, even the completely hapless Democrats), why can’t lawmakers override the vetoes? I mean, that was then; this is now.
Maybe this will make sense to some of y’all; it doesn’t to me.

Anyone see a good rundown of what Sanford vetoed?

In the last few days, I’ve run links to a story in The State and another in the Post and Courier giving the 30,000-foot view of Gov. Sanford’s budget line-item vetoes, with all the quotes about political philosophy, descriptions of the state of the political relationship between the governor and lawmakers (somewhat better than in past years, you may be surprised to learn), and rehashes of just how much the governor hates the federal stimulus and is looking forward to saying “I told you so” when the money runs out.

What I have not seen is a good rundown of what he was cutting. And boy, am I missing having Cindi Scoppe working for me. Give her a couple of days of communing with the budget document (which might as well be written in Greek for all the good it does me), and she’d tell me everything I needed to know about it. When it comes to writing about the budget, to paraphrase Blanche Dubois,I have always depended on the kindness of… people who know how to read that stuff.

But a number of things have caused me to wonder in the last couple of days.

For instance:

  • The consternation I picked up on over at ETV studios over the massive cut to their budget. ($5.2 million — that detail was in the P&C report)
  • The call I got from someone yesterday whose girlfriend works at the State Museum, and she was worried because the governor had vetoed the museum’s entire appropriation (which would shut it down if not overridden).
  • An e-mail I got saying the same about the Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum. (I say, is nothin’ sacred?) This appears to be part of the governor’s elimination of the entire appropriation for the Budget and Control Board.

To quote from that last:

Yesterday Governor Sanford vetoed the Board’s entire $25.2 million General Fund appropriation for the Budget and Control Board for next year.  This section of the budget includes the entire General Fund operating budget for the S.C. Confederate Relic Room and Military Museum.  If this veto is not overridden, the museum will have to cease operations.
In his veto message to the General Assembly, the Governor stated that he was taking this action because the “Board has sufficient carry-forward and other funds to maintain its operations in this fiscal year.”  This is not correct.  There are not sufficient funds to make up the $25.2 General Fund cut to the Board, which includes $765,000 for the museum.
This veto represents the greatest threat the museum has faced in our 114 years of existence.  If this veto is not overridden we will no longer be able to preserve South Carolina’s proud military legacy.

Now one can have all sorts of debates as to the relative importance of the museum formerly known simply as the Confederate Relic Room (although I can tell you from having visited that it’s much more now), but what’s bugging me is that, with the vote coming up Tuesday, I just don’t have a clear idea of WHAT all is at stake.

Do any of y’all? And if so, please share.

If I were endorsing, I’d endorse Vincent Sheheen

Ignore what I wrote in that last post. It does Vincent Sheheen a great disservice, by suggesting the reason to pick a Democratic ballot and vote for him tomorrow is simply because of the mere absence of negativity in his campaign.

He deserves a much more positive endorsement than that, for the simple reason that he is far and away the best candidate running for governor in 2010, a year in which we badly need new and visionary leadership in the governor’s office.

Of course, I put myself in a bind a couple of months back, when I sorta kinda decided not to endorse candidates as a blogger. I had all sorts of good reasons not to: No one was paying me to take all that aggravation. No longer representing the voice of the state’s largest newspaper (at least, that’s what it was when I was there), I had no institutional obligation to do it. And while doing it for the newspaper was business, if I did it on my own blog it would be personal, with all the many levels of messiness that entails. Then there was the unstated reason: For the first time ever, I found myself in a situation in which there would be a personal cost of sticking my neck out. A year’s unemployment had shown me how reluctant employers can be to take on someone with as much well-documented baggage as I have (much of it from having taking a stand FOR this powerful person, and AGAINST that one). And I was about to start trying to sell advertising, with the only thing I had to sell being my own brand and how it was perceived — and there is no surer, more infallible way to infuriate close to 50 percent of the public than to choose one candidate over another. Did I not owe it to my family to try to launch this enterprise on a sound footing, and not undermine it by making arrogant (at least, that’s how a lot of people perceive endorsements) pronouncements that would inevitably alienate? After all, I could be honest about what I think about candidates without taking that formal, irrevocable step.

Lots of good, solid, self-interested reasons not to endorse, right?

Well… sometimes one must stand up and be counted, even when one is not being paid to do so. Remember how, when Grace Kelly demanded to know why Gary Cooper had to make a suicidal stand against Frank Miller and his thugs when he wasn’t the marshal any more, he explained “I’ve got to, that’s the whole thing.“? Full of nuance, that Gary Cooper. Anyway, this is an “I just gotta” moment for me, minus the gunplay (we hope).  There are things more important than my own self-interest, or the good of the blog. One of them is South Carolina’s crying need for new leadership at this point in its history.

Ours is still a poor state. On all sorts of measurements of economic and social and physical well-being, from income to health, we continue to be last where we want to be first, and first where we want to be last. We continue to have a political culture, and institutional structure, that reinforces that dynamic, and resists change more steadfastly than the government of any other state. Our government was designed by landed slaveholders to preserve the status quo, because that’s what benefited them. Those men are all gone, but the system of government designed to serve them still exists, and holds us back.

We are also held back by a lack of trust of each other, and a lack of faith in the idea that together, we can overcome the challenges that face us. This manifests itself in the phenomenon we see being played out so dramatically in the Republican primary this year, as the candidates — even candidates I would think would know better — compete to see who can be the most negative, the most rabidly anti-government. What does it mean to be anti-government, in this context? It means to deny faith in our ability to get together, people of different attitudes and philosophies, and work through our differences to build a better future to share.

The radical individualism that all of the Republican candidates embody this year — especially Nikki Haley, the front-runner — has been tried in South Carolina, over and over. Our current governor, Mark Sanford, is easily the most ideologically pure manifestation of that philosophy ever to hold that office.

It is painfully clear after eight years of Mark Sanford — whom I enthusiastically endorsed in 2002 — that such an “I, me, mine” approach to governance does not work. One cannot govern effectively when one holds governing in contempt. That should have been obvious then. It’s certainly obvious now.

Vincent Sheheen offers the positive alternative. Not the “big-government, liberal” alternative that the propagandists of the GOP will accuse him of offering (not because of anything he advocates, but because that is their reflexive, automatic reaction to everything), but a sensible, moderate South Carolina-friendly approach unencumbered by radical ideology of any kind. Before he began this campaign, he was pushing his own proposal for restructuring our government to make it effective and accountable for a change. It is a pragmatic approach that would actually have a chance of becoming law if a governor were behind it. Rather than throwing unacceptable ultimatums at the Legislature and reveling in lawmakers’ rejection, Vincent Sheheen would actually work with lawmakers of both parties (he has a proven ability to do so) to make his proposal a reality. Instead of a governor who can’t even work with his own party and doesn’t want to, imagine how wonderful it would be to have one who works amicably with both?

Now, many of these same things can also be said of Jim Rex. He, too, has a positive, teamwork approach. He’s worked across party lines in advancing his public school choice initiatives, and has formed alliances with some of the most conservative Republicans in trying to improve the way schools are funded in South Carolina. But, because it’s been his job, his policy experience in office has been limited to education. And while better education may be the thing South Carolina needs most, it’s not the only thing; Vincent Sheheen’s experience with public policy is broader, despite his youth.

And in this election, when we have such a need for new beginnings, his youth is an advantage.

That I would say that would surprise some people who have worked most closely with me. I was the grumpy eminence grise on the editorial board who would ask a young candidate, “How old ARE you, anyway?” with a tone that suggested they hadn’t lived enough to be ready for the office they were seeking.

But it’s time now for a generational change. And among the 39-year-old Sheheen’s strengths is the fact that he offers us that.

An old friend, sensing I was leaning that way — because I’ve been honest about what I think of candidates, however much I’ve resisted a formal endorsement — asked me several weeks ago why I would choose Vincent over Jim. I answered as follows, after protesting that I was not, repeat, NOT going to endorse:

Now between you and me, I’d go with Vincent. So you inferred correctly.

Several reasons:
1. You know that with me, it’s seldom about the sum of policy positions. I would be hard-pressed to tell you [off the top of my head] what their policy positions are, beyond the fact that nothing has jumped out at me as bad. Rex has a plan for spending cigarette tax money that I’m not sure about, and I know Vincent’s all about restructuring, to cite a couple of differences that jump to mind. And the restructuring is a biggie.
2. So that leaves us with character, and I think the character of both is fine. But I’ve seen Vincent grow during this campaign in terms of his ability to connect with voters, while Rex is still that trustworty elder statesman who I’d be OK with as governor, but who isn’t likely to inspire. Vincent generates a newness, a sense of a new generation taking over from all the nonsense of the past, that is appealing. And he wears it well; he has his head on straight.
3. Vincent could work with the Legislature. He’s one of them, and that helps make up for being a Democrat. He would come in with lawmakers knowing that about him. He could make a difference. Rex is the guy that they’re accustomed to thinking of as “that ONE statewide Democrat,” and they just won’t be as likely to want to engage with him.
4. Vincent could win in November. Normally I wouldn’t mention that, but this year it’s important. The Republicans are all running so hard to the right, trying so hard to convince us that, in varying ways, they will be Mark Sanfords — even Henry, who should know better — that this year I just don’t see anything good coming out of any of them becoming governor. We so desperately need a break from what we have. And that makes it vitally important that the Democratic nominee not only be someone who’d be an improvement over what we have, but who could WIN in the face of the odds, which are always against the Democrat.

Let me stress again the generational factor. South Carolina needs a fresh start, a real break with its recent past. Vincent embodies that the best. This is a decision I’ve come to gradually, in my own holistic, intuitive way, but I’ve tried to spell it out as systematically as I can for you.

To elaborate on that: Rex radiates the aura of a civic-minded retired guy who’s willing to “give back” if there’s no one else to do the job. Vincent wants to build a better South Carolina, the one that he and his young children will live in. Makes a difference.

It occurs to me that I do my readers a disservice by sharing those thoughts privately with one friend, but not openly with them. So there it is. It may seem to be high on intangibles and low on specifics, but that’s because I had already reached the conclusions that on the specifics, I’ve concluded that Vincent is sound. That makes the intangibles — the ability to inspire, the ability to be positive rather than negative — of great importance. We didn’t worry about the intangibles (such as his aloof manner, his sleep-on-the-futon quirkiness, his hermitlike aversion to the company of other Republicans) with Mark Sanford, and look where it got us.

As I’ve explained before, none of the Republicans is offering us anything positive for our future. That puts me in the unaccustomed position of not having a preferred candidate on that side. But there is no doubt that there is a Democrat who stands well above them all, as well as being a stronger candidate than any in his own party.

That candidate is Vincent Sheheen.

At least, that would be what I’d say if I were endorsing.

Anton Gunn, SC Policy Council in agreement

Just thought I should make note of this alignment of the planets.

Remember how I reported, two days ago, that the S.C. Policy Council was actually advocating for government spending? Well, actually, they were griping about the House and Senate increasing their own budgets while making cuts to worthwhile programs, but still: The Policy Council acknowledging any government spending as worthwhile? It was news.

Well, according to a release I got from him this morning, Anton Gunn is in complete agreement with the Policy Council, and NOT just about the idea that some government spending is worthwhile. He was also with them in getting on the House and Senate for spending on themselves:

The House and Senate Conference Committee has agreed on a $5 billion budget plan that drastically cuts public education, eliminates 74 state jobs and 1,700 jobs in local school districts. The budget also enacts major cuts to rural hospitals and health centers, while reducing access to prescription drugs for poor and disabled children. The budget plan makes drastic cuts to major state agencies yet the proposal also adds $3 million and $7 million to the House & Senate operating budgets.

Rep. Gunn said, “I think it’s immoral to force teachers into layoffs and deny disabled children access to medications but at the same time pad your own budget with extra money.  This budget plan is going in the wrong direction. We need to fix this mess.”

Mind you, this is the same Anton Gunn whom TEA Party fan Sheri Few decries as a socialist.

Tea Partiers onto something: Repeal the 17th!

Put this in the category of stuff that looks like I’m just trying to be provocative to get a rise out of y’all, but I thought I’d share my surprise at learning that the Tea Party has a controversial position that I share.

The  New York Times says the idea should be “unthinkable:”

A modern appreciation of democracy — not to mention a clear-eyed appraisal of today’s dysfunctional state legislatures — should make the idea unthinkable. But many Tea Party members and their political candidates are thinking it anyway, convinced that returning to the pre-17th Amendment system would reduce the power of the federal government and enhance state rights.

… which I take as a challenge. Let’s think about it anyway.

So some Tea Partiers want to do away with popular election of Senators — an idea that is doomed to go nowhere, of course, because once you let the people elect an office, even if it’s an official they can’t name (walk down the street and ask everyone you meet to name the state agriculture commissioner, or the secretary of state, and then tell me they need to be popularly elected), that privilege will never be revoked. Try, and someone will demagogue you on it, and that’s the end of that.

But that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea. The Framers constructed a system of checks and balances that was based in part in the fact that each branch — or in this case, each branch of a branch — was elected via a different process. Politicians tend to dance with the one that brung ’em, and this ensured that each one was brung by someone else.

No, wait, that analogy doesn’t work, because ultimately the source of these elections was the people. Rather, each official was chosen by a different method, which was bound to make them look upon their constituency in a different way. The House of Representatives was always to be the People’s House, in that it was the one body most directly (and most often) responsive to the public whim of the moment. The president was supposed to be somewhat insulated from those same political winds by being chosen by the Electoral College — a method that required him to get wider support, as opposed to merely winning a few population centers.

Judges were to be nominated by the executive, with advice and consent from the Senate — which is about as much as you can insulate them from politics while still having their selection rooted in the public will over time.

And the Senate — well, the purpose of the Senate was to represent states. The House represented aggregations of individuals, and to keep the more populous states from running roughshod over the less crowded ones, each state got exactly two senators. And since the idea was that they represented states, of course they were chosen by the bodies that made decisions for the states as states — the legislators who make the state’s laws.

The balance of differently formed constituencies making their decisions through different processes was a thing of beauty. Not that all the decisions thus made were beautiful, but that’s the thing: The Framers expected human beings to be fallible, and that included the almighty People themselves. So you constitute different constituencies and play them off against each other. Checks and balances.

Of course, the NYT thinks it settles the matter when it appeals to everyone’s contempt for their state legislatures. Well, if you really think the legislatures would make worse decisions than the electorate at large, you haven’t really paid attention to some of the warts who get elected by the all-knowing People. Let’s give it a try; it couldn’t get worse.

Instead of what the Framers envisioned, now we have the representatives and senators chosen in the same way (OK, it’s statewide vs. district, which is something, but not as different as the old way), going after the same money sources to finance their campaigns, and consulting the same polls, their fingers ever in the wind to make sure they’re doing the popular thing at every moment. And no tough decisions get made.

No, it’s never going to happen because no one today is about to do the unpopular thing, and this would be very unpopular. (And hey, maybe if the Tea Party endorsed more unpopular, politically counterintuitive ideas such as this, we wouldn’t hear about the Tea Party any more, so I want to encourage them in this.) But that doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea.

SC Policy Council advocates spending (in other news, a cold snap in Hades)

Did a double-take when I read this on The Nerve, the S.C. Policy Council’s online publication that exists to tell us how awful government is:

Although S.C. Senate and House members apparently think nothing of giving their respective chambers a combined $5.4 million budget hike next fiscal year, their fiscal generosity hasn’t extended to victims of domestic violence or drunken driving.

As part of their proposed state budgets for fiscal year 2010-11, which starts July 1, both chambers would eliminate all general funding for prosecution programs for first-offense criminal domestic violence (CDV) and driving-under-the-influence (DUI) cases in the state’s magistrate courts, where most of those cases are heard.

The proposed budget hikes for the House and Senate chambers would more than pay for those programs….

Yep, the S.C. Policy Council is propagating something that at least implies that not spending on a government program is a bad thing.

Even more startling, the piece implies that federal stimulus funds served a useful purpose:

No general funds were appropriated for the programs this fiscal year, though the CDV program received $1.6 million in federal stimulus money, said William Bilton, executive director of the S.C. Commission on Prosecution Coordination, which disperses program money to the state’s 16 judicial circuits. He said his office plans to apply for the same amount of stimulus money for next fiscal year.

“When that runs out, it’s back to square one,” Bilton told The Nerve last week….

I hereby put the area’s animal hospitals on notice: They’re likely to get a rash of cases of dogs coming in with man bites.

Now, to be serious: I agree with the Policy Council that these programs should be funded. Whether it was a bad thing that the House and Senate budgets were increased, I don’t know. The piece, which made the case very well for spending on CDV, didn’t actually explain what the increases in the legislative budgets were for. I assume that if I did know, I’d still agree that the CDV program was a higher priority. But I’m still curious what the case, if any, would be for the legislative spending.

Chamber goes 100% for incumbents in House races

This just in from the state Chamber of Commerce:

SOUTH CAROLINA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ENDORSES HOUSE CANDIDATES AHEAD OF PRIMARIES

Columbia, S.C.  – The South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, the state’s largest broad-based business organization, is pleased to announce the endorsements of the following House of Representative candidates who have primary challengers.

District 2 – Bill Sandifer, (Oconee)

District 10 – Dan Cooper, (Anderson)

District 17 – Harry Cato, (Greenville)

District 26 – Henry Wilson, (Pickens)

District 35 – Keith Kelly, (Spartanburg)

District 36 – Rita Allison, (Spartanburg)

District 38 – Joey Millwood, (Spartanburg)

District 39 – Marion Frye, (Saluda)

District 41 – Boyd Brown, (Fairfield)

District 55 – Jackie Hayes, (Dillon)

District 61 – Lester Branham, (Florence)

District 62 – Robert Williams, (Darlington)

District 75 – Jim Harrison, (Richland)

District 80 – Jimmy Bales, (Richland)

District 83 – Bill Hixon, (Aiken)

District 84 – Roland Smith, (Aiken)

District 86 – Jim Stewart, (Aiken)

District 87 – Todd Atwater, (Lexington)

District 98 – Chris Murphy, (Dorchester)

District 106 – Nelson Hardwick, (Horry)

District 112 – Mike Sottile, (Charleston)

District 123 – Richard Chalk, (Beaufort)

“South Carolinians who want good jobs and a strong economy should proactively support pro-business candidates,” said Otis Rawl, president and chief executive officer of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.  “Candidates endorsed by the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce have demonstrated their support for priorities that support a strong economy and a competitive Palmetto State. These House candidates are committed to representing the people in their respective districts who each need good jobs, a competitive state economy and a pro-prosperity working environment to ultimately raise their individual incomes.”

The Chamber will issue further House endorsements after the primaries on June 8. In the race for governor, the Chamber has endorsed Gresham Barrett (R) and Vincent Sheheen (D). Visit www.scchamber.net for more information.

What do all of these candidates have in common? They’re all incumbents, or running in races without an incumbent. In District 26, incumbent Rex Rice is running for Congress; in District 87, Nikki Haley is running for governor; and in District 98, Annette Young is not seeking re-election.

It’s a shame the Chamber didn’t dig a little harder to make some real discernments (or at least give us some reasoning for its choices in the cases where there was no incumbent), because endorsements such as this WOULD mean more than usual this year, if they’d only put some thought into it. That’s because we won’t be getting an such fodder for thought from The State. This year, my former paper is only endorsing for governor, attorney general and 5th circuit solicitor, near as I can tell. And that leaves a big vacuum. I wish I could fill it, but I’m only one guy. And despite what that Lois Lane keeps saying, I am NOT Superman.

Senate easily overrides on cigarette tax

While I was at a long lunch for the Azerbaijani journalists sponsored by the Columbia World Affairs Council, I got the following two e-mails in quick succession:

SC Senate GOP scsenategop

Senate overrides cig tax veto. about 3 hours ago via TweetDeck

PhilBaileySC

33 to 13. Cig Tax Veto overridden about 3 hours ago via UberTwitter

That good news was coming from the spokesman for the Republicans in the Senate and his Democratic counterpart. And while they passed it on without comment, it was an occasion for rejoicing across party barriers.

This is a rare moment when the SC Legislature actually overcomes barriers and its own inertia to do the right thing. It happens so seldom that we should celebrate it.

Sure, there are plenty of ways to denigrate this accomplishment, and I’m familiar with all of them. A few:

It took only what, a decade? In spite of the fact that we’ve known for years that three-fourths of South Carolinians favored it?

In fact, 70 percent have indicated in polls that they would have gone all the way to the national average — an increase of twice this much — but the Legislature never even seriously considered doing that at any time.

Far too much of the discussion over the years has been over how to spend the money, even though that was irrelevant to whether the tax should be raised. The point in raising it was to price cigarettes beyond the reach of teen, and experience in other states has indicated that raising the price via taxes is a very effective way of accomplishing that.

Probably more than a few legislators voted this way, in defiance of their own inclinations, just for the pleasure of stuffing it down Mark Sanford’s throat.

But let’s set all that aside. The fact is that we no longer have the shameful distinction of being the one state that does the most to make sure kids have access to cheap cigarettes. And some lawmakers understood the importance of this opportunity to do the right thing for once. For instance, I share this other Tweet from Phil Bailey:

PhilBaileySC

Sen. John Matthews just arrived. Been out with a back injury for a month. Cig Tax vote is that important to him. about 3 hours ago via TweetDeck

Let’s savor that accomplishment, and then march forward to address some of the other things we should have done years ago in South Carolina.

Cigarette tax override effort under way

This would be just a tiny glimpse into the efforts going on out there to override the governor’s veto of the measly 50-cent cigarette tax increase, but I provide it as an example:

As you are probably aware by now, Governor Sanford has vetoed the Cigarette Tax Bill which would increase South Carolina’s lowest in the Nation Cigarette Tax by 50 cents.  The House and Senate may consider the veto as early as TODAY.
If you are so inclined, I would ask you as a favor to me to call your Representative and Senator and urge them to override the Governor’s veto on this important Bill.  I am working with the American Cancer Society on this, and this increase will deter teenagers from beginning to smoke and encourage current smokers to quit.  The increase in funds prevent further cuts to much needed health care programs.
Please take a moment and call your Representative and Senator and urge them to override the Governor.  Then please forward this message to anyone else you believe may be willing to contact their Representative or Senator.
If you don’t know who you elected officials are, you can click here to find out — http://www.scstatehouse.gov/cgi-bin/zipcodesearch.exe
To find House of Representative phone number, please click here — http://www.scstatehouse.gov/html-pages/housemembers.html
To find Senate phone numbers, please click here — http://www.scstatehouse.gov/html-pages/senatemembers.html
Thanks for your help!
Mary M. Greene

Mary Green is a longtime lobbyist. I first came to know her when she worked for the S.C. Education Association.

Delleney’s approach on impeachment was most promising one

I remain unconvinced that impeachment proceedings against Mark Sanford would be worthwhile. As you know, I believe he should have resigned by now (if nothing else, thereby sparing us from Andre Bauer’s candidacy), but I hate to see the State House stroke the gov’s narcissism with another session all about him.

And I certainly thought it appropriate that lawmakers not try to wrestle the subject to the ground in a two-day special session.

All of that said, I was encouraged that Greg Delleney at least took the most promising approach in his impeachment resolution. He didn’t mess around with all of that dull stuff about airplane rides and such, but concentrated on the one most glaring instance of dereliction of duty — the week that the governor ran off to Argentina, the trip that started this whole mess rolling:

Whereas, Governor Mark Sanford was absent from the State of South Carolina and from the United States from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until Wednesday, June 24, 2009, while in or in route to and from Argentina for reasons unrelated to his gubernatorial responsibilities; and

Whereas, from Thursday, June 18, 2009, until at least on or about Monday, June 22, 2009, Governor Sanford was not in official communication with any person in the chain of command within the Office of Governor of the State of South Carolina; and

Whereas, the Lieutenant Governor was not aware of the Governor’s absence from the State and there was no established chain of command or protocol for the exercise of the executive authority of the State; and

Whereas, the Governor intentionally and clandestinely evaded South Carolina Law Enforcement Division agents assigned to secure his safety in order to effect his absence from the State; and

Whereas, the Governor directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public officials of the State of South Carolina as well as the public of the State of South Carolina as to the Governor’s whereabouts; and

Whereas, the purpose of the Governor’s absence from the State of South Carolina served no furtherance of his duties as Governor; and

Whereas, the Governor’s conduct in being absent brought extreme dishonor and shame to the Office of Governor of South Carolina and to the reputation of the State of South Carolina, and furthermore, has caused the Office of the Governor of South Carolina and the State of South Carolina to suffer ridicule resulting in extreme shame and disgrace; and

Whereas, the Governor’s conduct and actions under these circumstances constitute serious misconduct in office pursuant to and for the purposes of Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of this State. Now, therefore,

Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

That pursuant to Article XV, Section 1, of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, the Governor of South Carolina, the Honorable Marshall C. Sanford, Jr., is impeached for serious misconduct in office.

Is that enough to warrant impeachment? Maybe not. But it certainly makes the case that this guy shouldn’t be governor, which is not quite the same thing, is it?

Delleney sounds (almost) like my kind of conservative

Not really knowing Greg Delleney, I took some interest in this mini-profile John O’Connor included in his story today:

Often quiet and funny, Delleney is a member of a loose-knit – and often low-brow – lawmaker lunch group, the House Bi-Partisan Eatin’ Caucus.

Prior to this year, Delleney was not among Sanford’s chief critics. “I agreed with him more than I disagreed with him.”

Chester County GOP chairwoman Sandra Stroman said she has known Delleney, who served in the Navy for three years, for 15 years.

“He’s generally a very quiet person,” she said. “He listens a lot.”

Though many South Carolinians are tired of hearing about Sanford, Stroman thinks Chester Republicans support Delleney.

“I don’t think it’s personal,” Stroman said. “Greg Delleney is a man who believes in right and wrong, and I think he comes down on the side of right every time.”

Delleney is among the strongest right-to-life supporters in the Legislature, typically introducing a new bill each year to limit access to abortions.

This year, Delleney successfully shepherded through the House a bill that requires a 24-hour wait before a woman can receive an abortion. He also scuttled a bill that would have provided dating violence counseling for teens by adding an amendment restricting the counseling to heterosexual couples.

Delleney has critics.

“I like Greg. He is very passionate about what he believes,” said state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg. “My problem is he is foisting his moral beliefs on public policy. I’m not surprised he’s pushing this, particularly when sex is involved.”

That makes him sound, in general terms, like the kind of conservative I like — as opposed to the Sanford hyperlibertarian type, or the type that gets extremely worked up over illegal immigration. I much prefer the Brownbacks and the Huckabees to the Sanfords and the DeMints.

Not that I would do everything he does. I don’t think I would have adding the hetero clause to the violence counseling thing. That’s the kind of making-an-issue-of-something-that-isn’t-an-issue stuff where social conservatives lose me (at least, that’s the impression I remember having at the time).

So he’s not exactly the kind of conservative I’d be were I to consent to being called a conservative (or a liberal, or any of those oversimplifications). I’m still more the John McCain type.

Any thoughts about the Legislature’s return?

It occurred to me that some of y’all might want a chance to comment on some actual news, instead of TV shows from the 70s or comic strips that never were.

Well, OK, but it’s pretty boring out there today.

The Legislature did come back today, and they’re going to make up for a stupid omission (and thanks for catching that, Mr. Spratt), and maybe talk about impeaching the governor (which I’m already tired of hearing about; I just want this guy gone, without another word said), and do some stuff for an ecodevo prospect that might be Boeing.

But I don’t have anything to say about those things yet. Do y’all?

They’re coming back…

As the day has worn on, I haven’t thought of anything particularly clever to say about the news that the Legislature is coming back to town. I’ll just make these three quick points, and turn it over to y’all:

  1. I don’t know that lawmakers should try to rush into impeachment proceedings — although if they’re going to do it, I’d rather they get it out of the way so it doesn’t waste another legislative session, the way Sanford’s foolishness over the stimulus wasted the last one.
  2. Sanford’s right that the department of Employment Security should report to the governor. Of course, he’s done all he could over the past year to undermine the case. It didn’t help with the commissioners disclosed that this governor had never been interested enough in what they do to have a real meeting with them in his six years in office.
  3. In case you wondered, I don’t have a dog in this fight, in the sense that I don’t think I, as an unemployed person, derive any benefit from what lawmakers are coming back to do. Long story, which I’m not going to get into right now, but suffice to say that as of this moment, I am not claiming unemployment compensation.

That’s all for now. What do y’all think?

A point about our history

Santee offered a nice, quick review of S.C. history back on this post:

Santee says:

South Carolina always has been an interesting place. The Lords Proprietors decided we were too much of a pain in the neck to keep, for good reasons; they dumped us back on the English government. The colonial government was run by a handful of families for their own benefit. They were charming people — large planters and slave traders, pretenders to English aristocracy, living up to and beyond their considerable means by taking advantage of everyone else in sight regardless of race, creed or color. The back country didn’t get into the Revolution until late because they knew the government in Charleston was worse for them than the one in London. Eventually a similar handful of families pushed secession, to hang on to their slaves. After Reconstruction we were unique among southern states in not electing new younger politicians with a vision for the future. SC brought back those old men longing for their lost rice and cotton plantations. The state’s leaders (especially Pitchfork Ben) thought it wise to create a state government that could not fully function other than through a good old boy network, just in case an African-American might be elected Governor. They might not be sure to control who was elected, but they were sure to control the old boy network. The consequences of this history are still with us in mistrust of government, in mistrust of others, in lack of shared purpose, and in general government malfunction. Personally, I’m tired of it, but I see no end in sight.

But I had to quibble on one point, and since I went to the trouble of typing it, I thought I’d offer it here in a separate post:

Brad Warthen says:

Nice review of our history, Santee, but I will offer one amendment. We tend to blame our current form of government on Pitchfork Ben, on account of the constitution of 1895 coming along during his watch. He was a terror, and makes a convenient villain. My journalistic forebears started The State to fight his machine, and one of the newspaper’s founders was shot down by a Tillman (who got away with it).

My own ancestors despised what he represented, even though he lived next door to my great-grandparents in Kensington, Md., when he was in the Senate. (My great-grandfather was an attorney from SC who had gone to Washington to represent the Treasury and later was one of the men who started the General Accounting Office.) I wrote a column once referring to my grandmother’s memory of having sat on Tillman’s lap as a little girl, which appalled her parents, although she didn’t understand why at the time.Anyway, as neat as it is to blame it all on him, the form of government enshrined in the 1895 constitution merely reproduced what we had had since the time of the Lords Proprietors. John Locke devised a system for Lord Anthony Ashley-Cooper that placed diffused power in the hands of the landed, slaveholding gentry. This was maintained through colonial times to make sure the King’s governor had no real power, and the system continued up through 1865.
Keeping power scattered through the Legislature and away from the governor elected by all the people has always been the South Carolina way. This once served our oligarchy fairly well; it doesn’t serve any of us well any more.

Most of House GOP agrees with Harrell: Sanford should quit

Where the leaders go, the others follow. And now a large majority of House Republicans have joined Bobby Harrell in calling on the governor to quit, according to The State‘s John O’Connor:

At least 60 of 73 S.C. House Republicans have signed a letter asking Gov. Mark Sanford to resign.

The letter follows Tuesday’s call by House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, for the Republican governor to resign. In June, a majority of Senate Republicans signed a similar letter. Sanford has said he will not resign.

At a meeting last month in Myrtle Beach, no House GOP member spoke in Sanford’s defense. Republicans control the House.

“The direction of the caucus leaving that meeting was unmistakable,” Deputy Majority Leader Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville, said in a written statement. “Governor you have lost the support of legislators who have supported you through thick and thin.”

The letter says Sanford’s woes are a distraction that prevent other work from getting done.

This is not terribly surprising, given that not one Republican spoke up for the governor at the recent caucus meeting. Of course, the governor won’t listen to these folks, either. He doesn’t listen to anybody, but does what he wants.

Interesting that the Republicans who call on the gov to quit keep talking about his melodrama being “a distraction.” To a narcissist, being the cynosure of all eyes is a good thing. So it is that the governor’s interests fail to connect with those of other Republicans in the state.

Tom Davis appointment a case of qualification trumping connection

Here’s something you don’t see every day in South Carolina:

Columbia, SCJuly 6, 2009 – South Carolina Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler announced today that he has recommended State Senator Tom Davis (R-Beaufort) for appointment to the State Ports Authority Legislative Oversight Committee.  The 10-member legislative committee was recently created with the passage of the port-restructuring bill to help ensure stability and efficiency in state ports operations.

Tom Davis is one of Gov. Mark Sanford’s closest friends and advisers, and has said the gov should stay in office. Harvey Peeler was one of the first GOP senators to call on the governor to step down. Tom served previously on the Ports Authority, as a gubernatorial appointee. And he holds up the Jasper port deal with Georgia as a key achievement of the Sanford administration (when I suspect it is actually a key achievement of Tom Davis).

But Sen. Peeler appointed Sen. Davis anyway. We need to see more of that in South Carolina, a lot more: People being chosen for office because of their qualifications, rather than who their friends are.

Anyway, good choice there, Sen. Peeler.

Tom Davis trying to make a tough call

It’s one thing for Jake Knotts or even Hugh Leatherman, neither of whom are particularly fond of Mark Sanford, to call for the governor’s resignation — or even Glenn McConnell, for that matter.

It would be another if Tom Davis, the governor’s close friend and former chief of staff — a guy who lived in the governor’s basement during his first campaign in 2002 — issued a similar call. Which is why Tom is weighing the decision so carefully. The interesting thing is that this situation has become so extreme, the governor has gone so far outside the realm of the acceptable, that a serious, good, loyal guy like Tom Davis would even be talking about thinking about it. But he is, as evidenced by this statement he has posted:

Statement from Tom Davis July 1, 2009
Posted on July 1, 2009
FOR RELEASE ON JULY 1, 2009

Statement by Tom Davis re: Governor Mark Sanford

I came to Columbia today because I have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Beaufort County and the people of South Carolina. Obviously I have tremendous concern for my friends, Mark and Jenny Sanford and their family, but I also have a job to do as an elected official.

Before any important decision I make comes due diligence, and I owe it to my constituents to perform that due diligence before taking a public position on an issue as important as whether to call for the resignation of a duly-elected statewide official.

Accordingly, I have met today with the governor and members of his staff; I have had telephone conversations with my friend, Jenny Sanford; I have talked with the governor’s legislative supporters and opponents; and I have talked with key reform leaders who have been fighting for the issues I believe in – fiscal responsibility, limited government, market principles and individual liberty.

I am also planning on speaking today with Attorney General Henry McMaster and SLED Chief Reggie Lloyd, and am I particularly interested in learning the outcome of SLED’s review as to whether the governor has ever illegally used any state funds. I am told that review will be completed by tomorrow.

Again, this is a critical decision for the State of South Carolina and I want to rely on firsthand conversations, not media reports, rumors, political pressure or speculation.

Based on these conversations, I expect to form my official position very shortly. But I can assure you that whatever official position I ultimately reach will be one that I truly believe to be in the best interests of the people of Beaufort County in particular and the state of South Carolina in general.

In the meantime, I would encourage all South Carolinians to keep the Sanfords in their thoughts and prayers.

Things have come to such a pass, the governor has seemed so out of control, that I was actually hearing from liberal Democrats today who, when they heard Tom was coming up to see the governor, said that was a relief, because he needed someone trustworthy to be checking up on him. They were actually worried about the governor’s safety, or they said they were. I had the same thought — I was glad Tom Davis was checking up on him. If I were in trouble, I’d want a guy like Tom checking up on me. (I’ve written in the past about what a good guy he is.)

But it wasn’t until I read the above statement that I realized just how far Tom’s own thoughts had gone.