Category Archives: Legislature

Glenn McConnell joins in

6 Replies

Glenn McConnell has joined the resignation chorus, in his own 19th century manner. Rather than come right out and demand the governor quit, he has summed up the situation, and said as a gentleman that he expects the governor to do what a gentleman ought, under the circumstances:

STATEMENT BY SENATOR GLENN McCONNELL
Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell issued the following statement today:

“The Governor’s personal failings have become widely known in the last week.  Those personal failings are his alone and we should allow him and his family to deal with them privately.  However, the Governor has offered up details about his indiscretions very publicly and they have been widely reported. Those admissions and the reaction of the public have raised in my mind whether the Governor can effectively lead the state in the days, weeks, and months to come.  The Governor does not need to be a paragon of virtue, but the people need to know that he is trustworthy and he is committed to serving them.

The Governor has admitted he lied to his staff in order to travel out of the country.  In doing that, he left the state with no leadership for five days and with no ability to handle an emergency if one arose.
Now, after his latest admissions, we must wonder has the Governor come completely clean.  Each time the press uncovers a new issue or the Governor volunteers new details, both he and our state are embarrassed.

The Governor is to the citizens of this state, the people of the United States, and those around the world the face of our state government.  For people who seek to bring new business or expand existing business in South Carolina, he represents South Carolina.  He can either be a great asset or a tremendous liability.
Neither I nor my colleagues in the General Assembly can require that the Governor resign.  That decision is his alone. I do believe, however, that the Governor has lost the support of the people that is needed to govern.  Therefore, I would ask the Governor to look in his heart and decide whether with his family situation and the public uproar over what he has done and said locally and nationally whether he can lead our state for the remainder of his term.

This is not about Mark Sanford the person.  This must be about the government of South Carolina and making sure it operates effectively for the next 18 months.  He needs to decide immediately if he is an asset or a liability for our state.

I would beseech the Governor to do the right thing for himself, his family and our state.  I believe he knows what the right thing to do is and I hope that he will do what is right.”

###

Sanford’s bizarre new admissions embolden critics

17 Replies

This morning, The State wrote about how politicians were backing away from calling for Mark Sanford’s resignation.

But that was before he, for whatever bizarre reasons (I can’t imagine what possessed him), decided to give interviews in which he:

  1. Said he met with his inamorata five times, not three, in the past year.
  2. Said she is his “soul mate.
  3. Channeling a combination of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, said he “crossed lines” with other women, but didn’t go all the way.

Well, that tears it, several GOP senators evidently decided at that point. They put out this release this evening:

SOUTH CAROLINA REPUBLICAN STATE SENATORS CALL ON
GOVERNOR MARK SANFORD TO RESIGN

Columbia, SC – June 30, 2009 – South Carolina Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman, and four other Republican State Senators released the following statement today calling on Governor Mark Sanford to resign his position as Governor of South Carolina. Earlier today Republican State Senators Kevin Bryant (Anderson) and Larry Grooms (Berkeley) also called on Governor Sanford to resign.

“Crisis requires people in leadership positions to act decisively, with as much dispassionate wisdom and judgment as possible.

Governor Sanford has imposed a crisis upon our state. As members of the Senate, we have a duty to the people of South Carolina to do what is in their best interests.

We therefore have concluded that Governor Mark Sanford must resign his office. He has lost the trust of the people and the legislature to lead our state through historically difficult times.

South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Tens of thousands of South Carolinians cannot find jobs.

Necessary budget cuts have weakened public education and other vital services.

We must have strong leadership from a Governor who is focused and trusted.

Governor Sanford is neither.

We did not reach this conclusion in haste and we did not base it on his personal failings, but events since his news conference have forced us to act.

The recent revelation that he used taxpayer money to visit Argentina demonstrates that our state crisis will not recede while he is in office.

His own Commerce Department acknowledges the Governor requested additional economic development meetings in Argentina while on a legitimate trade mission to South America.

The Governor, through his spokesmen, deceived the media and public about where he was and what he was doing for several days.

He abandoned his office and the people who elected him with a premeditated cover-up, launching a constitutional crisis that was dangerous and reckless.

These disclosures indicate a pattern of abuse of office. Most disturbing is our belief that the Governor only admitted to these transgressions after he was caught.

The Governor’s family crisis is private and tragic. But the crisis the Governor imposed by his abuse of office is the people’s business and must come to an end.

We can only put this crisis behind us if he does the honorable thing and resign immediately.

The bottom line is that the Governor’s private matters should remain private, but his deception and negligence make it impossible for us to trust him, and for him to govern in the future.”

Harvey S. Peeler
Majority Leader, South Carolina Senate

Hugh K. Leatherman
Chairman, Senate Finance Committee

Paul Campbell, Jr.
Senator, Berkeley County

John M. “Jake” Knotts, Jr
Chairman, Invitation Committee

Larry A. Martin
Chairman, Senate Rules Committee

William H. O’Dell
Senator, Abbeville County

###

Jake on the missing governor

From my files -- Jake Knotts at his endorsement interview in '08.

From my files -- Jake Knotts at his endorsement interview in '08.

Tonight I dropped by a Lexington County GOP confab at Hudson’s BBQ (last time I was there, it was to see Mike Huckabee when he still had a shot at the presidential nomination), and pretty much every member of the county delegation was there except for the two Nikkis (Haley and Setzler).

It was very hot — SO hot that even a seersucker suit was too much, so I went out and left my coat and tie in the car. Then, when it was all over, and the lawmakers had answered constituents’ questions about legislation and such, I went up and asked Jake Knotts about our missing governor.

I asked Jake because, near as I could tell from the reporting at thestate.com, he was the one who raised the hue and cry about the governor running off to who knows where in a SLED car last Thursday — leaving his security detail behind.

The senator said “when he didn’t show up the next day or the day after that, I called Chief Lloyd” at SLED. He said he raised to Reggie Lloyd the idea that it seemed improper for Jake — a former cop — to be driving around in a cop car equipped with blue lights when “he’s not a sworn officer.”

The senator also kept returning to the point that the governor was gone “on a Father’s Day weekend, and his wife says she didn’t know where he was.”

Further, Jake believes the governor was remiss in his constitutional responsibility by not notifying the lieutenant governor of his absence. And unlike the folks in the lt. gov’s office, the senator is completely unsatisfied by the governor’s chief of staff, who is not an elected official, saying he knows where the governor is.

Jake says he and the governor have had their differences — which may count as his understatement of the evening — but the gov had never done anything to concern him to this extent. “I’m really serious about his mental state,” he said, adding that he knew that the governor had had a rough time — with the stimulus battle, with seven years in office “with little to show,” with having gone 0 for 10 on his recent vetoes — and if he “wants to go on a sabbatical, I have no problem with that,” if “he turns the helm over to the lieutenant governor.”

Just FYI, folks, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, unlike the governor, is a political ally of Sen. Knotts. He kept praising Andre for not bucking his security (security which the governor believes the lt. gov. shouldn’t have, but that’s another battle he keeps losing). I said something about how I certainly feel better knowing someone other than Andre is driving. That wasn’t exactly the point Jake was trying to make, but he didn’t argue with me about it.

Jake made the point a couple of times that, if only for sake of emergency preparedness and Homeland Security issues, someone official should know where the governor is, which is one reason for him to have SLED agents with him. “The people of South Carolina’s security shouldn’t be jeopardized because the governor doesn’t want security.”

When I asked Jake to give me his updated contact numbers in case I needed to reach him later, he gave me four of them, adding, “And I guarantee you my wife knows where I’m at.”

Summing up the situation, Sen. Knotts said of the missing governor, “He’s suffering from the same thing he suffered from with the Senate — lack of communication.”

The senator added some remarks about how he’d like to see the governor turn things around and be more successful with lawmakers in his last years in office, but expressed doubt that will happen: “He’s done built that fence too high now.”

Anyway, for what it’s worth, that’s what the guy who was apparently the first official to ask, “Where’s the governor?” had to say about it tonight…

Wednesday’s top stories

So where was my virtual front page Tuesday? Hey, I’m not getting paid to do this, so get offa my back! Be grateful for what I give you.

Harrumph. You may now join me in harrumphing. Harrumph, harrumph. (I didn’t get a ‘harrumph’ outta that guy…”)

Where was I? Oh, yes, today’s virtual front page:

National/International

  1. Lede: Obama Would Take Bigger Role in Markets — OK, this is not a perfect “Buzz” lede because it didn’t quite HAPPEN, but the event was the president proposing it. And it’s more important than the gay benefits thing, and more new than the  continuing Iran story. And nothing local or state was really lede-worthy.
  2. Iran Regime Cracking Down — Continued post-election strife in Iran. Look for a sidebar to go with it. Lots to inform readers about here.
  3. U.S. to Extend Gay Benefits — Just another turn in the screw of the Kulturkampf, but a fairly significant one.

Local/State

  1. Handcuffed Tax Study Commission Created — OK, so I threw in an editorial modifier there. The thing is, you sort of need that to see why what happened is important. Two things were essential to making it possible for comprehensive tax reform to happen: There must be no sacred cows, and the Legislature must have a straight up-or-down vote on the final result — no tinkering. That’s the only way anything could pass that would really clean up the tax code. So what did they do? They passed a bill that walled off as sacred the biggest, baddest immediate problem in our tax system — the 2006 property/sales tax swap. (This demonstrates why a commission is needed, because the Legislature itself is too invested in bad policies it created.) Whether they required an up-or-down vote, I could not learn from the coverage I saw.
  2. Vetoes sidebar — The XGR (that’s wire-service jargon for “legislature,” by the way) overrode all 10 of the governor’s vetoes. But that’s pretty much a dog-bites-man story now, isn’t it?
  3. Tenenbaum Draws Bipartisan Praise — This good-news story (anytime you can document bipartisan consensus, it’s good news) is one where local and national intersect.

Monday’s top stories

Not having provided you with a “top stories” post for Sunday, here’s what I would have chosen for today:

National/International

  1. Iran Election Aftermath — This is our lede. Main story: Khameini calls for probe into fraud allegations against his boy Ahmadinejad while demonstrations continue.
  2. Iran sidebar — Lots of possibilities, but I lean toward this analysis by NYT that explains why Ahmadinejad may now be more powerful than ever.
  3. Bibi OKs Palestinian state, conditionally — This would have been in the paper yesterday, but I didn’t do one. So for me, as for the WSJ, this remains a top story. Not quite the lede, but big.
  4. Pirate Threat Grows in Gulf — Another WSJ story, which may not have been available to my theoretical newspaper. Still looking for a wire version. But it shows that the reach of piracy is getting wider.

Local/State

  1. Legislative advancer — Sets up this week’s mini-session.
  2. Girl Scout Camp Closing — Kind of soft, kind of featury. But it does a couple of things — tells us about a long-term trend, and reflects what’s going on in our community in a bit of a step-back way. See, I’m not just a hard-news guy; I’m flexible. This helps the mix, and has art to boot — although if you can find stronger art with the lede story, you might make that the focal point of your page, and run the camp art smaller.

Should lawmakers override payday veto?

Here’s one of those issues where I’d be better informed were I still at the paper: I would ask Warren Bolton what to think about the payday lending bill, and whether the governor’s veto should be overridden. Warren has kept close tabs on the legislation, and I have not.

Not that I see any merit in the veto itself; it’s standard Sanford ideology, nothing more.(For him, at bottom, it’s not that there are better ways to regulate, but that one should not regulate.) No, the issue is whether the governor’s wrongheadedness offers a chance to let an inadequate bill die.

Gerald Malloy’s suspicion about Advance America wanting the bill so badly gives me pause, too.

I’d like to talk to Joel Lourie about this. And maybe this offers a good excuse to go visit my friends at The State.

In the meantime, what do Y’ALL think?

Leave your comments on the ruling HERE

Sorry I’ve been out of pocket today — very busy, lots of meetings.

Ironically, late this afternoon I was in one with Chris Myers, and remarked to her that I was eager to see what her sister (Jean Toal) and company came up with. Neither of us knew that the ruling had been out for more than an hour at that point.

Anyway, all I had time for when I heard was a little bit of “I told ya” boasting on Twitter:

Unanimous, of course: 5-0, as I predicted. Since the outcome was so inevitable, the only thing to prognosticate about was the point spread.

And I don’t have time for much more now, even. But don’t let that stop YOU. Leave your comments about the stimulus drama right here…

Running out the clock

One more thing to share about the stimulus issue today…

This morning, I ran into Hugh Leatherman, and he pointed out something I had not thought of: I had assumed, like many others, that the reason Mark Sanford went to federal court instead of state court is that he was pretty sure a state court would rule against him.

Sen. Leatherman proposed another motive: He said that filing in federal court automatically gives the governor 30 days before anything can happen, thereby running out the clock on the Legislature’s requirement that he draw down the stimulus money within 5 days. I said, “Doesn’t he have to get an injunction or something from the court to get that delay?” The Senate Finance Chairman said no, that it was automatic.

Huh. Is that right? Maybe some of our lawyer friends can weigh in here…

Sanford, McConnell agree on one thing: It’s about power

When I read the lead story in today’s paper, I was struck by the headline, “Sanford: Stimulus suit about power, not money.”

What struck me was that that was exactly what Glenn McConnell said about the dispute, that it was all about power.

Usually, when McConnell and Sanford square off on gubernatorial power, I’m on the governor’s side. I’m speaking of his efforts to gain for the chief executive the actual executive powers that the other 49 governors in the nation wield, so that the governor’s office has a chance to be both effective and accountable. McConnell has been a champion of those resisting that since at least the Campbell administration. And of all those who resist it, he probably has the clearest notion why: He is jealous of senatorial power.

But the governor’s arguments in this case are patently ridiculous. Even if we got everything that he and I want in the way of restructuring, the legislature would still be (and should be) the entity that appropriates money, and it would still have the power to override gubernatorial vetoes with a two-thirds majority.

The line-item veto is one area where the governor has all the power he needs (more than the president of the U.S., for instance). And to have his way, all he has to do is make a sufficiently reasonable argument that a third of lawmakers go along with him. That’s really not an onerous provision for the governor — unless he’s Mark Sanford, and he has thrown away every opportunity he might have had to get as many as a third of lawmakers to listen to him.

McConnell gets way harsh on the gov

Thought you might be interested in this release from Glenn McConnell. Several points I’ll make about it:

  • First, I don’t often see dramatic political statements from McConnell. He’s generally not one for public posturing in this particular way.
  • What you see here is a particularly articulate expression of the extreme frustration that lawmakers have experienced with this governor. Sen. McConnell is fully fed up, and expresses why in no uncertain terms.
  • McConnell is one of the most ardent libertarians in the General Assembly. It’s one thing for Bobby Harrell or Hugh Leatherman to be fed up with our anti-government governor, but a libertarian really has to try to turn the Senate President Pro Tempore against him to this extent.
  • That said, Sen. McConnell is a passionate defender of legislative prerogatives and state’s rights, which makes the statement a little less remarkable. But only a little.

Anyway, here’s the statement:

SC Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell Responds to Governor’s Lawsuit
McConnell: “Governor asks federal judge to usurp states’ rights in quest for more power”

Columbia, SC – May 21, 2009 – South Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell today issued the following statement in response to Governor Mark Sanford’s lawsuit:

“Governor Sanford says this court case is about the “balance of power.” The truth is that this case is about his power. The Governor wants more of it, and he’s willing to trample over states’ rights to get it. He has run to the federal courts asking them to reinterpret our state Constitution so as to give him powers not granted to him by the people of South Carolina. While we have debated the 10th Amendment, little did we know the Governor was conspiring to ride over it in the federal courts.

For seven years Governor Mark Sanford has worked tirelessly to increase his power and the scope of South Carolina’s executive branch of government. While working to centralize power under one individual, the Governor has continuously attacked the General Assembly for what he describes as liberal tendencies.  Never before have I witnessed such hypocrisy as I did today when Governor Sanford asked a federal judge to usurp South Carolina’s rights.

Whether the stimulus money should have been appropriated by the United State Congress was a federal matter. But the question of separation of powers involves the duties of the executive and legislative branches of government as prescribed by the South Carolina Constitution. As such, the rightful arbiter is the South Carolina Supreme Court. Either he is fearful of a South Carolina court ruling or he is playing to a national audience.

I disagree with Congress’ stimulus plan, but I know that it’s fiscally irresponsible to let South Carolina tax dollars go to other states while we struggle to fund education and public safety at appropriate levels. We have received clarification from the United States Department of Education that if we do not formally apply for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program by July 1st, our stimulus funds will be allocated to other states. Governor Sanford’s move may ensure that our tax dollars will be caught up in legal proceedings for what could be up to two years. He may have finally found a way to send our tax dollars to New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Michigan. Governor Sanford’s lawsuit is an irresponsible move that tramples on the South Carolina Constitution and the future prosperity of our taxpayers.

South Carolinians need to know that Governor Sanford has already politically left this state, sometimes physically, but always mentally. This is just another press stunt to put him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and in front of Fox News cameras. Governor Sanford’s presidential aspirations and hunger for power are so strong that he is willing to put South Carolina’s future at risk. This lawsuit is a gift that keeps on giving – giving the Governor out-of-state headlines and giving South Carolinians uncertainty and discord.

As the elected voice of South Carolina’s taxpayers, the General Assembly has stated that Governor Sanford should now take all stimulus funds available for appropriation. Sadly, I believe that the end result of this lawsuit may be that on July 1, the people of South Carolina will be left with nothing but the bill. “
###
** This press release is sent on behalf of South Carolina Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell

See what I mean?

Why the good falls with the bad

Cindi Scoppe’s column today about Mark Sanford’s “good vetoes” makes an excellent point. Many of his vetoes as governor have truly been about good and smart government, and have tried to undo some of the General Assembly’s more objectionable excesses.

Unfortunately, the governor has generated so much bad blood between himself and lawmakers — and damaged his credibility outside the State House with such wrongheaded moves as trying to block the stimulus — that he’s made it much, much easier for lawmakers to brush him off, even when he’s right.

Some who still defend the governor believe this is not his fault, that it’s all the fault of those wicked, wasteful lawmakers. And indeed, legislators give such critics ammunition when they reject even the governor’s demonstrably good ideas.

But the sad truth is — and it IS  a sad truth to someone who initially was a Sanford supporter, as I was — that he has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure his own ineffectiveness in dealing with the Legislature across the board. However wasteful or foolish you may think lawmakers as a group are (and Lord knows they give plenty of opportunities for you to draw that conclusion), the fact is that the Republican leaders would love to have worked with a governor of their own party to achieve his agenda, even when it wasn’t theirs. It’s in their nature, whatever their flaws.

Cindi does a pretty decent job of explaining how that happened, although you had to be there watching closely to fully get the degree to which he has spoiled his opportunities:

Unfortunately, the Legislature dealt with his 2004 vetoes in a most irresponsible way (overriding 105 of 106 of them in 90 minutes, before most legislators even had a chance to hear his arguments), which prompted his even more-irresponsible response (carrying two squealing, defecating piglets into the State House in a made-for-TV protest), which made legislators even more angry, which made the governor even more provocative, which made legislators even more determined to ignore him, which made him even less concerned about making nice — or acting responsibly — which prompted legislators to not just ignore him but punish him, which ….

You get the point. And all of that was before he united just about the entire Legislature — Republican and Democrat and, more significantly, House and Senate — in seething opposition to his campaign to reject federal stimulus funding unless it is used to not stimulate the economy.

And let me tell you, it’s one thing to unite Democrat and Republican. Uniting the House and the Senate against you takes real talent for p0litical self-destruction, bordering on genius.

The result is that the governor’s good ideas get swept away with the bad, and that truly is a shame.

“Good tired”

This evening, I dropped by another one of those events like this one. It was a fund-raiser for Anton Gunn over at the Inn at USC.

Anyway, I did the usual thing of chatting with several folks (Bud and Julia Ferillo, Trip King, Ann Timberlake) and then ducking out. But as I was leaving something hit me. I saw Bud walking out ahead of me and I called to him and said, “Uh… did you see Anton in there?” No, he hadn’t. But he said that was because the House was still in session. This was coming up on 6:30 p.m.

I thought about that for a second and observed to Bud that overriding all those Mark Sanford vetoes can be tiring work. Bud said he supposed so, but he bet it was “a good tired.”

Indeed. If lawmakers get that done, and get us the stimulus money and so forth, it will be a good day’s work.

Thanks, Senator Courson!

Back in my newsroom days, probably the most valuable and jealously guarded thing on my desk was my Legislative Manual. As the gummint editor, I had occasion to use it often, and if you weren’t careful it had a way of walking off. So I wrote WARTHEN in heavy block letters on the edges of the pages on three sides, so that I could easily spot it wherever it went.

Anyway, even though I can now get access to most of that info via my Blackberry from the Legislature’s Web site, it’s still a handy thing to have on your desk or in your pocket. And I’d been missing the fact that I didn’t have an up-to-date one. In fact, I was thinking about how I’d like to have one just yesterday.

Sen. John Courson must have been reading my mind, because I got a small-but-bulky package in the mail from him today at my home address, and lo and behold, he had sent me a new 2009 Legislative Manual! He’s never done that before, and what possessed him to do it now, I don’t know. But I was certainly glad to get it.

So now, I’m going to start concentrating real hard on how much I want a permanent, full-time job with benefits, and see if the good senator can send me one of those in the mail. It would probably take a pretty big envelope… But in case he can’t swing that, in the meantime I truly appreciate the Manual.

Little-noticed stimulus development

harpo

Yesterday, I stopped by the Starbucks on Gervais for some afternoon coffee. There are sometimes closer places to get coffee, but I’ll go out of my way to go to this one. In this case, I even walked several blocks in coat and tie in the 83-degree sunshine, which caused me to make a note to myself to tell Mayor Bob that there are portions of our city streets that could use more shade trees.

Where was I? Oh, yes. The reason I go there for coffee even if it’s slightly out of my way is that I always run into somebody I haven’t seen in a while, and frequently learn something interesting. In this case, I ran into Dick Harpootlian (shown above at the Stephen Colbert event back in October 2007). Dick, as you will recall, was last seen in the company of Dwight Drake filing the lawsuit for that high school girl about the stimulus. You know, the suit that was thrown out, but with wording that sort of provided a road map for how to make sure South Carolina gets the stimulus money in spite of He Who Must Not Be Named (I say that because some of y’all say I write critical things about him too often).

Anyway, Dick says that he had a hand in the resolution that the Senate passed Wednesday. Dick says merely passing the budget that spends the stimulus money wasn’t enough. He said this resolution was needed to actually request the money, going around the governor, thereby putting the governor in the position of having to sue to get his way, instead of the other way around.

Dick said he called his old buddy Jake Knotts — at which point he paused to let me say, Your old buddy who once threw you over a counter at the solicitor’s office, to which Dick says he merely TRIED to throw him over the counter. Actually, they are friends now, though. Anyway, Jake said Hold on, and put Glenn McConnell on the line. McConnell apparently liked the resolution idea, and then so did Hugh Leatherman, so it was quickly drawn up and passed by both Houses. The speed and ease with which that happened is sort of remarkable in itself.

Anyway, I nodded sagaciously through all this, but the fact is, I was thinking, “What resolution?” I had not heard or read about it. If it was in the paper, I missed it. I did find this reference to it at thestate.com:

SC Legislature approves stimulus resolution

The Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. — South Carolina legislators have approved a resolution that might help them deal with legal challenges that could arise in forcing Gov. Mark Sanford to request $700 million in federal stimulus cash.

The House adopted the measure on a voice vote with no debate Thursday. The Senate had approved the measure Wednesday after sending Sanford a $5.6 billion budget that requires him to request the money.

The resolution says the Legislature accepts the money under provisions in the $787 billion federal stimulus legislation.

Legislators say the measure would help them defend taking the money if a lawsuit is filed.

I don’t know whether this development will prove significant as this unfolds or not, but I thought I’d mention it.

Does Sanford really want us to be counted?

Had a number of thoughts when I read this story this morning, which among other things said:

Gov. Mark Sanford urged state residents opposed to using federal aid in the state budget to call lawmakers as they work out a final budget compromise this week.

The $5.7 billion draft budget, Sanford said, puts off needed cuts and reforms by tapping $350 million in federal stimulus money. Sanford has said he will not accept the stimulus money unless lawmakers pay off an equal amount of state debt.

“This is the time to stand and be counted with regard to the stimulus money,” Sanford said. “We’re going to paper over all of those changes that might be made and simply spend the money.”

Here are my questions:

  1. Does the governor actually think that if the people of South Carolina stood up and were counted on this issue, more of them would agree with him on the stimulus? (From everything I’ve heard, that seems extremely doubtful.)
  2. Is he making a cynical calculation that — in keeping with the human-nature phenomenon that only people who are against something bother to call (something I have experienced in the news biz, my favorite extreme example being all those letters we got against the U.S. taking military action in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, a view which you knew wasn’t representative of South Carolina, yet which dominated among the letters we received for a time)?
  3. Does he or his allies at SCRG or ReformSC have an organized calling campaign ready, designed to look like a “spontaneous” response to his call to the public?
  4. Will the far greater number of South Carolinians who oppose the governor on the stimulus make an effort to be heard by lawmakers, or since they’re satisfied the General Assembly is on their side, will they decide not to bother them?
  5. Whether they hear more from the governor’s side or the other, would lawmakers be swayed by lots of calls and e-mails?
  6. Should they be swayed by such input, given that they’ve had months to think about this and should have made up their minds by now?
  7. What do you think about “call your legislator” campaigns in general?
  8. Which is tackier? The governor asking citizens to drive lawmakers nuts at the State House while they’re trying to finish the budget, or pro-stimulus lawmakers urging folks last month to call the governor at the mansion?
  9. And finally, are these examples of excessive spending he cites the best he can do? $500,000 for State House security (which is really a spitting match over who will control security, Sanford or McConnell)? $750,000 for hydrogen research (note that S.C. investment in such research resulted in a $12.5 million grant just two weeks ago)? A million for football traffic control? Where’s the $350 million he says we don’t need?

Here are my answers, to which I invite you to add your own:

  1. Possibly. One gets the impression that his personal feedback loop is fairly limited. He’s not the most social guy, and he seems to have a selective memory for those who tell him “attaboy.”
  2. I don’t think so. I think he actually believes there’s a “silent majority” that agrees with him. At least, he seems to believe, most of the people who matter agree with him. (If a “silent majority” does call lawmakers, does that mean it should be called something else? Of course, the convenient thing for Sanford is that when it doesn’t call, he can explain it away by saying, “That’s because it’s silent.”)
  3. Maybe, but frankly (and yeah I know that this is inconsistent with my answer on “2,” but who cares?), I don’t think he’s thought that far. The more I think about it, the more I suspect he’s thinking that he’s won the day merely by asserting that if the people of S.C. “stand up to be counted,” they will agree with him. He’s struck this pose so many times that he mistakes the rhetoric for reality. Let me explain: By saying the people of SC agree with him, he believes that makes it so, and is satisfied. (And who’s to say him nay, in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Even if nobody calls legislators, nothing is proved either way.) And then, when lawmakers ignore him, he claims they were ignoring the people of SC, when in reality they were only ignoring him. You know, because those lawmakers are so wicked and all. And thus the world according to Mark Sanford stays intact, with none of his assumptions challenged. Actually, the more I think about this theory, the more I think it is, in the immortal words of Marisa Tomei, “dead-on balls accurate.” And if I’m wrong, nobody can prove I’m wrong — hey! So this is what it’s like to be Mark Sanford! Yeah — I’m right because I’m right, and no actual facts in the world can persuade me otherwise. This could get to be a habit.
  4. Almost certainly not. Why call and bug your lawmaker if he’s doing what you want?
  5. Yes. Particularly if they’re hearing from people they know, back in their districts. Otherwise, probably not.
  6. No, and you can tell which way I was leaning by the way I worded that one. This will offend “small-d” democrats, but I’m a “small-r” republican. I believe in representative democracy. We elect people to go study issues and take time arriving at conclusions through a deliberative process. And however messy or slapdash that process is in reality, a representative should NOT throw away his conclusions based on a few phone calls (which are, 99 percent of the time, orchestrated), either way.
  7. On this point, I’m ambivalent. Yeah, when I was with the newspaper we used to do empowering things like tell people how to contact their lawmakers and even, occasionally, urging them to do so. And I think getting public input should be part of the decision-making process. But only part. Once again, it is the duty of an elected representative to study and issue and become more knowledgeable about it than he would be if he were back in his district busy earning a living doing something else. Elected representatives, in a republic, are delegated to spend more time on an issue than the average voter can devote to it, and thereby make a better decision than they would have from the gut. Yep, the system’s far, extremely far, from perfect. But I believe more bad decisions result from lawmakers voting from the gut than from deliberation.
  8. Asking people to call the gov at the mansion is tackier, no question — even though the house does belong to us.
  9. Apparently, that is the best he can do, which is pathetic. But then, he never really has had a case on this.

On that last point — the governor does this all the time. The thing is, he is very often right about the things he criticizes the General Assembly for. The “Competitive Grants” program is a wasteful boondoggle. The thing is, it’s such a tiny fraction of the state budget. And he uses such minor figures as his entire argument that government spending is billions out of control, which is ridiculous. Of course, you know that what he really wants is to stop the state from spending on public education and other substantial things. But that doesn’t sound so good, unless your audience is Howard Rich. So he cites a penny’s worth of pork and extrapolates a fortune wasted, which fools some of the people, but my no means all.

But you know what I’m noticing now? Government has been cut SO much that the governor even has trouble coming up with convincing anecdotal evidence. Instead of something clearly wasteful (or at least, that sounds clearly wasteful) for the state to be spending on, like a Green Bean Museum, he’s reduced to citing things that can easily be characterized as petty and self-concerned. Rather than arguing that the state shouldn’t have airplanes, he complains about control of those planes shifting from his Commerce Department to Budget and Control. Or McConnell taking State House security from the agency that Sanford semi-controls.

You know me — I think the governor should control all of the executive branch. But I also know that this would not in and of itself save large amounts of money. I favor it because I want government to be more effective and accountable. To argue that, because a minor function is being taken away from him, it proves that SC doesn’t need the $700 million in stimulus, just doesn’t follow any kind of logic.

Don’t do it, Nikki!

haleynikki-038

Someone just brought this to my attention:

In the latest bombshell to drop in the 2010 race for the GOP nomination for governor, Rep. Nikki Haley is running, according to multiple sources close to WR.

Haley, who would be the “Sanford candidate” that S.C. political observers have been waiting for, has allegedly been telling friends that she is running and is starting to build a campaign staff. Earlier, it was rumored that she might have been a possible candidate for state treasurer.

As of right now, it is unknown who she is going to, to run her campaign. She is also in a bit of a hole, with U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett and Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster both sporting about $1 million in their respective war chests. As of her last disclosure report, Haley has only a little over $36,000 in the bank.

Candidates are already lining up to run for her House seat, including 2008 Senate candidate Katrina Shealy.

… and something just fell into place for me. I ran into Nikki at Starbucks a couple of weeks ago, and she introduced me to “Caroline” from her campaign. (At least, I think it was “Caroline.” Very young, even standing next to Nikki. That MIGHT be her in the background of the photo at this link.)

To which I responded, “Campaign? Already?” To which Nikki laughed a sort of “you know how it is” laugh. And I went away accepting that even for S.C. House members, the race has become this perpetual.

But maybe that wasn’t it at all, huh? Maybe Nikki was planning a big move.

I hope not. I like her as a House member, even if she does vote with the governor. I like that she actually tried to reform payday lending, for instance.

But if she ran as the “Sanford candidate,” that would just be too awful. I don’t want a nice person like Nikki to run as the “Sanford candidate.” I don’t want ANYBODY to run as the “Sanford candidate.” The very idea of there being even the slightest possibility of a continuation of these eight wasted years is appalling.

The whole point of the 2010 election is that we finally have the opportunity to get a governor who believes in governing. It’s the whole point, people. It’s why I started writing columns about the candidates as soon as they started emerging, much earlier than I normally would. We’ve got to get this one right.

Just keep repeating, folks: “We won’t get fooled again.”

We need the right kind of politics to become usual

By the way, on the subject of Dems running for governor, I got this release today from Mullins McLeod, which says in part:

In order to clamp down on politics-as-usual in the governor’s office, Mullins McLeod has made the following pledge to the people of South Carolina.

(1) No PAC Money. Corporations and special interests use PAC money to buy influence. Mullins McLeod will ban PAC money from his campaign.

(2) No Future Run for Office. Our current governor spends all his energies focused on his own political advancement. Mullins McLeod will change that by swearing to return to the private sector once his time in office is done.

(3) A Ban on Lobbying by Administration Members. When citizens volunteer to serve in office, it shouldn’t be for the future hope of making money from influence-peddling. Mullins McLeod will require senior staff members to forswear any future employment as a lobbyist while he remains in the Governor’s office.

(4) Honesty and Transparency. Our governor spends too much valuable time bickering over whether economic development and jobless numbers are correct. Mullins McLeod will cut through this impasse by bringing in outside accountants and non-government experts to produce honest figures – which will allow all sides to come together and focus on creating jobs to tackle our record high unemployment rate.

You know what? Not to criticize Mullins, but hasn’t it sort of become “politics as usual” for politicians to promise no more “politics as usual?”

And is “politics as usual” our problem? Actually, I don’t think so. I think one of our problems is that since 2002 we’ve had extremely unusual politics in the form of Gov. Mark Sanford, and it hasn’t served SC very well. He practices a sort of anti-politics, a negation of the practice of working with other human beings to try to find solutions to common problems.

Today at my Rotary meeting, Joel Lourie spoke. He said a lot of things, but one of the last thing he said was this:

Unfortunately, “politics” can be a bad word.

I view politics through the eyes of my parents. They taught me that politics can be a way of bringing people together to find commonsense solutions to our problems.

And I pledge to you to continue to do that…

What we need is for the kind of politics that Joel Lourie believes in to become “politics as usual.”

Don’t compromise

305-sanford_td01standaloneprod_affiliate74

Eight days ago, I went backstage at the Koger Center to thank producer Todd Witter for asking me to be on “Whad’Ya Know?” Then I went out on the stage itself, where Michael Feldman was perched on the apron (or whatever you call the very edge), shaking hands, signing autographs and posing for pictures with fans.

While I waited for a break in which to thank him too, some of the fans broke off and spoke to me, congratulating me on my performance, such as it was. People are really polite that way, you know. Anyway, one of them was Elizabeth Rose Ryberg, who happens to be married to Sen. Greg. She was quite gracious as always, and complimentary, but at one point she remonstrated with me in the kindest way, suggesting I shouldn’t be so rough on “Mark” — the governor, that is.

Not that she thought the governor was completely right in his refusal to request our state’s share of stimulus funds. In fact, she noted that her husband and Tom Davis had been working hard to bring about a compromise between the governor and legislative leadership on the issue. This surprised me slightly at the time, since I had thought of Sens. Ryberg and Davis as being two people in the governor’s corner if no one else was. After all, they had recently stood up with him at a press conference to support his position (although I had noticed that they had not stood very close to him in the photo I saw — and take a look at that expression on Ryberg’s face — that’s him at the far right).

But it makes perfect sense that even people who share the governor’s political philosophy would want to pull him in a direction away from the position he’s taken — especially if they are his friends.

A few days later, Sen. Davis and Ryberg went public with their “alternative budget” in an op-ed piece in The State. They say all this confrontation is unnecessary, that they can balance the budget and avoid teacher layoffs and prison closings without a dime of the disputed stimulus money.

You know what? I have not idea to what extent their numbers add up, because frankly I find budget numbers to be a form of math far more slippery than Douglas Adams’ satirical “Bistromath.” I’e seen lawmakers resolve budet crises on the last day of the legislative session, with a puff of smoke and a “presto — we found more money!” — too many times. But I know that Tom Davis and Greg Ryberg are perfectly sincere. I trust their intentions; I know they believe what they’re saying. They’re good guys — I refer you to what I’ve said about Tom and about Greg in the past.

But to the extent that they are trying to find a way to compromise with the governor, I say thanks but no thanks. Aside from their efforts, I’ve heard others speak of compromising with the governor on the stimulus — say, let’s just spent this much, and then use this much to “pay down debt.”

But there are two really big reasons not to go along with that, reasons not to compromise with the governor’s position in any way: First, whether you think the stimulus bill passed by the Congress was a good idea or not (or well-executed or not), South Carolinians are going to be paying for it, and need to get maximum benefit out of it. And as Cindi Scoppe pointed out in her column Sunday, no sane person would pass up the chance to keep a few more of our public servants working and paying their bills for a couple of years, rather than on unemployment, to help us get through this rough patch.

The second reason is this: The governor is WRONG. He is philosophically wrong, and he uses bogus numbers (I refer you again to Cindi’s column) to support his rather sad arguments. This man does not believe in the fundamental functions of state government. He is openly allied with people whose goal is reduce government to a size at which it can be drowned in a bathtub. He sees the size of government ratcheting downward (even though he claims, absurdly, the opposite), and his number-one priority is to make sure the ratchet sticks, that the cuts to essential functions in government are not restored. His insistence on using money that is needed now on something, ANYTHING other than immediate needs — even to pay debts that NO ONE expects the state to pay at this time — is essential to the permanent reductions he seeks. The last thing he ever wants is for the state to be rescued by any sort of windfall.

And that point of view needs to be rejected, flatly and clearly. No compromise with a position so wrong should even be contemplated.

I’ll tell James, but I don’t see how it will help

Today I got this release from the S.C. Chamber of Commerce:

Urge Your House Member to Vote for Comprehensive Tax Reform
Debate Expected This Week!

Thank you for contacting your House members over the past few weeks urging them to move forward on comprehensive tax reform. Your calls have made a difference in the debate! The House is expected to take up the legislation either Tuesday or Wednesday of this week.

Today, please again contact your House member and ask them to:

  • Amend S.12/H.3415 to contain a comprehensive (holistic) approach to tax reform. A complete analysis of taxes should be performed and not looked at individually. The business community is fearful that if a comprehensive approach is not taken, a huge cost shift to the business community, similar to Act 388 (Residential Property Tax Relief), could occur again.
  • The approach needs to examine state and local taxes including: county, municipal, special purpose districts and schools.

Contact your House member today! Click here for contact information, or click here to find your legislator.

That’s all well and good, and I’m with the Chamber on this. The State‘s editorial Sunday did a good job of explaining just what a hash lawmakers have made of the chances for real tax reform. (Two big problems: They want the big tax swap of 2006 that was so awful that it prompted what momentum exists for reform to be off limits, and they don’t want to require a vote on the final product, which is essential.) But I’m ever hopeful, and if contacting my House member will help, I’m all for it.

One problem: The release went on to tell me my representative was James Smith. But I live in Ted Pitts’ district. I’ll be glad to speak to Capt. Smith, but I don’t see how it will help…

Getting pumped over the budget

If you want to see someone who gets pumped about his job, look no further than Wesley Donehue over at the S.C. Senate Republican Caucus. I got this release from him a few minutes ago:

Members of the Press –

Happy Monday!  I hope you are ready for a fun week of super charged budget debate live from the South Carolina Senate Chamber.

The state budget will be reported from Finance Committee tomorrow and placed on the Calendar for Wednesday. You should expect the normal Senate schedule to change a bit throughout the week. In addition to budget debate, both the payday lending bill and the 10th Amendment bill are set for debate on special order slots.

Here are the other hot items popping up this week:

ON THE SENATE CALENDAR

Stimulus Resolution (S.577 – Leatherman); Adjourned Debate

Payday Lending (H.3301 – Harrell); Special Order, 2nd reading

10th Amendment Resolution (S.424 – Bright); Special Order

Dental Health Education Program (S.286 – Cleary); 3rd reading, uncontested

State Spending Limits (S.1 – McConnell); 2nd reading, McConnell objecting

Smoking in Cars (S.23 – Jackson); 2nd reading, L. Martin objecting

Fee moratorium (S.517 – Davis); 2nd reading, Lourie, Hutto objecting

Public Private Partnerships – DOT (S.521 – Grooms); 2nd reading, Hutto, Thomas objecting

Telecom Local Exchange Carriers (H.3299 – Sandifer); 2nd reading, uncontested

ESC Reform (S.391 – Ryberg); 2nd reading, Minority Report

24-hour Waiting Period for Abortions (H.3245 – Delleney); 2nd reading, Minority Report

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Water Withdrawal (S.452 – Campbell) – Agriculture Subcommittee, Tuesday, 9 a.m.

“Kendra’s Law” (S.348 – Fair) – Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, 3 p.m.

Home Invasion Protection Act (S.153 – Campsen) – Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, 3 p.m.

Concealed Weapons on School Property (S.593 – S. Martin) – Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, 3 p.m.

SC Healthnet Program (S.455 – Thomas) – Banking & Insurance Committee, Wednesday, 9 a.m.

Education Opportunity Act –  (S.520 – Ford) – Education Subcommittee, Thursday, 9 a.m.

Public School Choice Program – (S.607 – Hayes) – Education Subcommittee, Thursday, 9 a.m.

Car Title Lending (S.111 – Malloy) – Banking & Insurance Subcommittee, Thursday, 9 a.m.

Have a wonderful week!

Thanks,

Wesley

I don’t know about y’all, but my eyes are open a little wider, and I’m just that much more excited about my week than I was a few moments ago…