Category Archives: Legislature

Mike Sturkie, S.C. Senate District 23

Sturkiemike_016

10 a.m. Michael Sturkie
is one of two challengers going up against Jake Knotts in the
Republican primary for this Lexington County seat. Mr. Sturkie has
lived in the district 26 years, and owns two businesses, S & T
Grading and Excavating, and S&T Landfill.

He says he thinks the
people of the district want more focus on "major issues," rather than
what he says is an overemphasis on "good ol’ boy issues." I asked him
for a definition of the latter (since a lot of folks use it, sometimes
meaning different things), and he meant "favoritism" in appointments
and such. Beyond that, he said of Mr. Knotts, "It seems like he’s
picking fights" all the time, whereas Mr. Sturkie said he would present
a lower profile: "I can take a back seat."

He suggests he would never
vote otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of his district,
whatever the facts, and believes more issues should be settled by
referendum rather than through representative government. He wants to
do away with property taxes altogether, and pay for everything with an
even higher sales tax. He said he’s "not looking to pad my pension,"
and would want to "fix" the overgenerous deal afforded lawmakers. Of
teachers, he said "they’re getting paid a lot less than they deserve.

Andy Brack on Queensland

Over the weekend (as in, before my Sunday column appeared), Andy Brack sent me the following e-mail. Andy, by the way, hosts S.C. Statehouse Report:

Brad,

Hope you’re well.

Peter Beattie was over at our house last night for dinner and mentioned that you and he had talked about some of the things that Queensland has done well.

I was in Queensland last year and did a series of columns on what’s happening there compared to here…thought you might be interested:

SC can nurture Queensland relationship better, July 29, 2007

Collaborating with Queensland for economic success, Aug. 5, 2007

South Carolina can learn about life from Queensland, Aug. 12, 2007

South Carolina leaders need to start thinking big, March 7, 2008

Best,

Andy

How lawmakers voted on their pension COLA

Cindi sent me the following stuff to post as a supplement to her column today:

    Here’s the recorded vote from last Wednesday, when the House sent the bill that contained the legislative COLA back to committee, in hopes that the committee will remove the legislative COLA and report the bill back out, so it can be passed. This is a convoluted way of doing things, but it’s the only option representatives had available at this point other than 1) killing the entire bill or 2) passing it.
    A yes vote was to send the bill back to committee. A no vote was to allow it to pass with the legislative COLA included.
    The bill is H.4673.

Yeas 58; Nays 51

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                  Allen                  Anthony
Ballentine             Bannister              Bedingfield
Bingham                Bowen                  G. Brown
Cato                   Chalk                  Coleman
Crawford               Delleney               Erickson
Frye                   Funderburk             Gullick
Hagood                 Haley                  Hamilton
Harrell                Harrison               Haskins
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hutson
Kelly                  Kirsh                  Leach
Limehouse              Lowe                   Lucas
McLeod                 Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   Mulvaney               Neilson
Owens                  E. H. Pitts            Rice
Sandifer               Shoopman               Simrill
D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Talley                 Thompson
Toole                  Walker                 Witherspoon
Young

Total–58

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander              Anderson               Bales
Battle                 Bowers                 Brady
Branham                Brantley               Breeland
R. Brown               Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Cooper                 Daning
Dantzler               Duncan                 Gambrell
Govan                  Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            Hosey                  Howard
Jefferson              Kennedy                Littlejohn
Loftis                 Mack                   Mahaffey
Merrill                J. H. Neal             Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Phillips
Pinson                 M. A. Pitts            Scarborough
Scott                  Sellers                Skelton
Stewart                Taylor                 Umphlett
Vick                   Weeks                  Whipper
White                  Whitmire               Williams

Total–51

Why can’t we be smart like our sister?

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THINK OF South Carolina as a restless schoolboy. He doesn’t test well, but he’s got loads of potential; everybody says so. He’s a well-meaning kid, but has an attention-deficit problem. There he sits, as far to the back of the class as he can get away with. As the teacher drones on about science and stuff, he wonders whether he can get away with spending his lunch money on candy again. Then, just as he’s turned to calculating the number of days left until school is out and he can go to the beach (he’s very good at this sort of math), his reverie is rudely interrupted.
    The teacher stands over him, her eyes just boring into him over the glasses on the end of her nose. She speaks directly to him, demanding to know, “Why can’t you be smart like your sister?”
    The poor kid hears that a lot.
    My own rather feckless, aimless mind (I was born here, you know) has been running along these lines all week, as I’ve been repeatedly reminded of how well our smart sister has applied herself. Not my sister, personally, but South Carolina’s. Her name is Queensland, and she’s our sister state in Australia.
    Her former premier, Peter Beattie, spoke at my Rotary meeting Monday, although I didn’t realize it at the time because I slipped out of the meeting early (I’m telling you, I am that boy). Mr. Beattie is the one who suggested the whole “sister-state” economic development relationship when he was in office back in the ’90s. He got the idea after a visit here in 1996. He had come to study how our state had taken advantage of the Atlanta Olympics, serving as a training site and hosting the women’s marathon trials. He hoped his state could do the same with the Sydney games.
    As things turned out, though, our “sister” would go on to do some things we should emulate. As premier, he pushed a strategy that would lead to Australia’s “Sunshine State” getting a new alias: “The Smart State.”
    During a week when the S.C. Senate Finance Committee was reacting to tough fiscal times by cutting back on the endowed chairs program and letting K-12 funding slide backward, I kept getting my nose rubbed in the smartness of our sister despite my best efforts to miss the point. On Wednesday, someone sent me a copy of remarks Mr. Beattie — who has been lecturing at USC’s Walker
Institute of International & Area Studies recently — had prepared
for a speech this coming Tuesday to the Global Business Forum in Columbia. I skimmed over what he had written…

    Twenty years ago, Queensland was a traditional rocks-and-crops economy where education was not regarded as a priority. But with increasing globalisation, my government knew this was not enough to compete with the new emerging markets of China and India…. We publicly said innovate or stagnate were our choices.
    As a result we developed a strategy called Smart State. This involved a major overhaul of our education and training systems… the cutting edge of developments in biotechnology, energy, information and communications…
    The result has been… Queensland’s lowest unemployment rate in three decades… budget surpluses and a AAA credit rating. Our economic growth has outperformed the nation’s growth for 10 consecutive years and was done on the back of competitive state taxes. Our focus has been long-term and education reform was central.
    Since 1998, the Queensland Government has invested almost $3 billion to boost innovation and R&D infrastructure…

    … but I didn’t have time to read it all just then. Being that unfocused boy, I did find time to write a pointless post on my blog about how “For some reason, Queensland keeps coming up a lot this week for me….” That night, I was attending a lecture by Salman Rushdie, who had been brought here by Janette Turner Hospital, the novelist and USC professor, who as it happens grew up in Queensland.
    So guess who I ran into at the reception that night for Mr. Rushdie? Yep — Peter Beattie. (The coincidences were starting to get as weird and mystical as something out of a novel by, well, Salman Rushdie.)
    Cooperating with the inevitable, I introduced myself, and he told me eagerly about the exciting high-tech opportunities he saw here in South Carolina, what with the endowed chairs and Innovista, and our state’s advantages in the fields of hydrogen power, clean coal technology and biotech.
    Biotech, by the way, has been a big one for Queensland, employing 3,200 people, generating $4 billion a year in revenues, and leading to such concrete advances as Ian Fraser’s new human papillomavirus vaccine, which is now protecting 13 million women worldwide from cervical cancer — just so you know it’s not all pie in the sky.
    When I asked him about some of the less-than-visionary (in my view, not his) decisions being made by S.C. political leaders as we spoke, he insisted that was not his place: “I’m a guest here,” he said in that wonderful Down Under accent. “Queensland is like South Carolina. Manners are important.”
    He spoke instead about the opportunities we had in common, and about the fact that places such as Queensland and South Carolina “have to innovate or be left behind.”
    South Carolina, so used to lagging behind the other kids, truly does possess the potential to be a “smart state” like our sister. But too many easily distracted boys over at the State House keep staring out the classroom window…

D.J. Carson, S.C. House 77

Carsoninterview

Wednesday, noon —
The departure of Rep. John Scott (who is running for a seat being vacated by a senator who has worked his posterior down to nothing) has opened up a three-way competition in the Democratic primary for S.C. House District 77 in Columbia.

The first of those candidates — indeed, the first candidate of the season — to interview with our editorial board was D.J. Carson, a political newcomer. I mentioned earlier that he was coming in.

Mr. Carson grew up in Columbia and Forest Acres, and graduated from Richland Northeast High School. He lived in Brooklyn while studying law on Long Island, and returned home. He worked as an aide to Rep. Todd Rutherford before becoming an assistant solicitor in the 5th Circuit, starting in August of last year. He has mostly prosecuted drug cases, and cites that experience as valuable in helping him understand critical issues in our state, from lack of education to youth gangs.

Mr. Carson’s platform is pretty straightforward: He says he’s running as an advocate for public education, and to oppose vouchers and tax credits. He would increase state spending on education, to increase teacher pay and turn around the Corridor of Shame.

He talks briefly about other subjects — economic development, health care — but keeps coming back to K-12 education. And when he comes back to education, he usually talks about the need for more funding. He mentioned, for instance, that he’d heard Corrections chief Jon Ozmint had predicted the need for two new prisons, and he said we should spend that $100 million on schools instead.

As we do in these interviews, we had a number of other things we asked him about, such as:

Tax policy: He says he favors increasing the cigarette tax, and vows that he will not advocate for any tax cut: "I’m not an advocate for cutting taxes because I’m not an advocate for cutting services."
Party loyalty: "Like-minded people hang around like-minded people," and he wanted voters in the district that his would be a distinctively Democratic voice. "Party affiliation is important." But he said he could also work across the lines, and that it was "more important to speak to people, not to speak to party."
Home Rule: He said he agreed that the Legislature should not be "micromanaging" local affairs.
Restructuring: He declined to offer an opinion, saying "I don’t want to speculate," and would need to study the issues involved first.

Mr. Carson is facing Benjamin Byrd and Richland County Councilman Joe McEachern in the primary.

Summers chairs Richland Democrats

Summersboyd

Back when Boyd Summers wrote us an op-ed criticizing the Bar exam mess that benefited the daughter of his ex-opponent, another blog speculated this meant he’d be going after Jim Harrison again.

Not so. Turns out that Boyd has other stuff on his political plate now. As he wrote via e-mail this week:

Hope you are doing well.  I wanted to mention to you that I was elected to succeed Steve [Benjamin] as Richland County Democratic Party Chair at the County Convention in March. 

If I can ever help you with anything, please let me know.  I will miss candidate interviews this year, but perhaps when it slows down I could meet with you guys to discuss County Party activities.

I wrote back to make sure I was understanding him right, and he said back:

That’s correct, I have not filed to run for the SC House or any other office this year.

I will be working to get other folks elected who have the same vision that I share to move my home state forward in a progressive manner.

Their is certainly a lot of work to be done.

I hope we will have the opportunity to get together soon.

Boyd

Jim Harrison, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was to have general election opposition this year — Democrat Tige Watts, who I’m told (see below) has dropped out. If that’s right, then Mr. Harrison will have a free ride now. Of course, thanks to partisan gerrymandering, there’s nothing unusual about incumbents having no opposition in the fall. But at least there are a few primary choices — in districts other than this one.

A little blog trivia for you: Messrs. Summers and Harrison were the first legislative candidates I ever posted video on…

House backs up on lawmakers’ pension COLA

Maybe it’s a good thing I used Cindi’s column in my usual Sunday slot.

Today, the House took action that will at least ALLOW the provision slipping in a cost-of-living increase on lawmakers’ ridiculously generous pension plan to be removed from the larger bill. Cindi explains what happened as follows:

An explainer: For procedural reasons, it would have been all but impossible for the House to remove the legislative cola from the bill today. So its only options were to 1) give the bill 3rd reading as is; 2) kill the bill; or 3) recommit the bill to committee so that the committee could remove the legislative cola (or not, if it so chose) and send it back to the House for debate. The third option was, in my opinion, the only responsible one. And that’s what the House did.

And hey, how often does the House move to do something that will please both the newspaper AND the governor? Here’s what Mark Sanford had to say:

"I want to thank everyone in the House – and in particular Mick Mulvaney who made the recommit motion – who agreed that this issue of backdoor pay increases needed to be revisited," Gov. Sanford said. "As this bill goes back through the committee process, we believe the first order of business should be to strip out this legislative pay perk. While we still have a number of concerns about the rest of this bill as well, today’s vote showed that a majority in the House have enough respect for taxpayers to put the breaks on this terrible idea. If this provision does, however, somehow survive the committee process again, we believe that at a minimum House members need to take a recorded vote on the matter so that taxpayers can hold them accountable for their actions."

Legislative interviews begin today

Late last week, I forwarded this release to Cindi:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2008
Contact:          Kerry Abel

MEDIA ADVISORY

Carson Announces for SC House
A New Generation for District 77

COLUMBIA, SC – Local attorney DJ Carson announced today his candidacy in the June 10th Democratic primary for SC House seat 77.
    "I grew up right here in this community," Carson said. "This is my home, and it deservesCarsondj
fresh, energetic leadership that looks beyond the daunting circumstances of what is and into the possibilities of what could be."
    Though this is Carson’s first run for public office, he is no stranger to politics. He spent 2000 as a grassroots organizer for the Democratic Party’s Coordinated Campaign and has also served as an aide to Rep. J. Todd Rutherford.
     Combined with his work as a Richland County Prosecutor, these experiences have given Carson a unique perspective on some of the most challenging issues facing us today.
     "I see how much drugs, guns, and gang violence costs this community every day and I’m ready to take that fight to the next level," Carson said. "I’ve been in the trenches and now I’m ready to lead the charge."
     "The time for excuses has past. The time for change has come. The future is now!"
      
                ###

Cindi responded thusly:

And we get to meet
him on Wednesday, at noon.

Ohmigosh, and here it is Wednesday at 11:21. And so it begins. I haven’t counted yet myself, but Warren said he counted up the candidates running in Midlands legislative and county primaries, and we will have 52 interviews between now and June. He also noted that we will have far more interviews for primaries than we will for general elections in the fall. Such is the domination of reapportionment by incumbents and political parties.

And Mr. Carson, who will be competing with Joe McEachern & Benjamin Byrd for an open seat currently held by Rep. John Scott (who is seeking a Senate seat), will be the first.

A senator explains the logic of the legislative pension plan

A reader apparently took me up on my suggestion that he contact his lawmakers about their pension plan. He shared this with Cindi, who shared it with me:

I want the same retirement plan the legislature is voting for themselves. I will work my a** off untill God knows when to pay for health ins & a retirement I can live on. It is no wonder you guys try so hard to keep getting elected.

Kenny rowland
Blythewood Sc

And this, he said, was his reply:

Mr. Roland:

For 77 years I’ve worked my ass-off for every damn thing that I own–which ain’t much!  And I sure-as-hell don’t need smart-ass-remarks from people lilke you & that’s why I’m going home in June!  In conclusion, if you want the same retirement plan like mine, then get elected like I did, spend 34 years in & retire!

Kay Patterson

Legislators about to sweeten their perk (quietly)

As the week drew to an end, it became more and more apparent that, tied up as I was getting the Saturday Opinion Extra thing done, any column that I did was going to be a rush job and probably not worthy of a Sunday.

Fortunately, Cindi Scoppe already had a column done that was better than either of the ideas I was kicking around (one would have been about the continuing dialogue we’ve had here about the cognitive divide between black and white over the Rev. Wright, the other would have been a look at the Pennsylvania primary, leading with an anecdote from when I was up there recently).

Cindi had written again about the absurdly generous pensions that S.C. lawmakers provide for themselves out of our pockets. More particularly, it was about the fact that they are about to vote themselves an increase in those pensions without so much as a debate.

    But the House is poised not only to approve the plan this week, but to do so without a bit of debate. That would have happened on Thursday, but for a procedural delay. And the Senate might not be far behind.
    Representatives are poised to act without so much as acknowledging what they’re doing. That means some legislators won’t realize what they’re doing — and with a few exceptions, those who do realize what they’re doing can get away with claiming ignorance.
    Or rather they could have. The purpose of this column is to make sure everybody — not just voters, but legislators as well — knows what’s happening, so there can be no claims of innocence.

Follow the link to read the rest of it. Along with the column was this informative box:

How generous is it?
For every dollar state employees contribute to their pensions, the taxpayers kick in $1.27; for every dollar legislators pay into their system, taxpayers pay $3.91.
The average pension for career state employees is $17,536 — 53 percent of their final salary. The average pension for our part-time legislators is $18,218 — or 102 percent of their pay.
Former legislators can buy “service credit” at the same super-subsidized rate after they leave office. A legislator who leaves office after eight years can buy credit for $2,280 a year for the next 22 years, and then collect an annual pension of $32,980. He will recoup his “investment” in three years, and clear $33,000 a year in profit for the rest of his life.
State employees get no subsidy if they buy additional credit after they quit working.
Former legislators can start drawing a full pension at age 60. That means an extra $91,000, on average.

It occurs to me that after reading this stuff, you might want to contact your representatives in the Legislature. To find out how to do that, go to www.scstatehouse.net and select “Find your legislator” on the left. Or call 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

More good news: Cigarette tax hike takes leap forward

First the smoking ban thing, now this…

A little bird just called to tell me that the Senate Finance Committee just voted, 14-11, to increase the state cigarette tax by 50 per pack, taking us to 57 cents (yes, currently it is only 7 cents, the lowest in the nation).

The vote followed three hours of debate, but the only person who actually seemed to be against the increase itself was Greg Ryberg. So what did they argue about all that time? Well, they argued about what lawmakers tend to really care about — how to spend the money. Of the $158 million the increase will raise per year, $5 million will go to smoking cessation efforts, the rest to Medicaid (which means getting a federal match). The spending decision was on a vote of 12-11.

Two important things to add:

  1. This is indexed to inflation (which the old tax wasn’t), so as cigarettes go up in price, so will the tax.
  2. The tax will also apply to those little "cigars," which are really just brown cigarettes. So no more loophole there.

If this gets full Senate approval, it will have to be reconciled with the 35-cent hike the House passed last year. The House plan was to spend the money on eliminating the sales tax on groceries, but that idea is now moot, since that happened last year anyway, without the cigarette tax increase.

You know, between this and the S.C. Supreme Court’s decision yesterday that it’s actually OK for local governments to respond to their citizens and pass smoking bans, it’s almost as though South Carolina leadership has suddenly made a consensus decision to behave in a rational manner toward tobacco. Two branches of gummint, that is — we have yet to hear from our governor. But let’s just pretend that first the full Senate, then the governor, will act like a sensible people about the health of South Carolinians, too. I’m not going to have my day ruined by thinking otherwise (even if Sen. Ryberg is a reliable indicator of the governor’s thinking, more often than not).

And no, this is not an elaborate April Fool’s Day gag. This good stuff is really happening.

Tom Davis predicting Rod Shealy attack

   


A reader yesterday asked what I thought about the smear job, reportedly engineered by Rod Shealy, that hit Tom Davis this week at the outset of his attempt to unseat Sen. Catherine Ceips.

When I read about it, I just nodded. Tom, the subject of my column this past Sunday, indicated last week that he expected something of the kind, and that it would probably be worse than even he expected:

    I hadn’t even thought about that, to be honest with you… I hadn’t even thought about what it’s gonna be like having a guy who wakes up in the morning who just wants to strip the bark off me. I mean, and that’s what Rod Shealy’s gonna wanna do… I’ve never been through a campaign. I’ve been told just to expect, whatever it is about you that you don’t want people to know, expect it to be known.

Tom thought it would be about something true about him — such as the fact that he was a Democrat when he was young — instead of this illegal-alien nonsense. But that’s Tom’s great liability in this race: He’s a Mr. Smith type. He’s a very open, candid, straightforward, sincere kind of guy (I would have added "thrifty, brave, clean and reverent," but you get the idea), so he figured whatever he was hit with would be something real.

So he was right: He hadn’t really thought through what it would be like with Rod Shealy after him. That’s because Tom Davis is incapable of thinking like Rod Shealy.

It’s a helluva thing, isn’t it, when honest people have to fear running for public office because of sleazy stuff that will be done to them that has nothing to do with their suitability for office?

Oh, but wait! Rod Shealy is reformed! It’s got to be true… PBS said so

Anyway, in the video above, you’ll see and hear Tom talking about this subject.

Graham on Sanford, S.C. politics

Graham_008

Sen. Lindsey Graham made headlines today by rather dramatically breaking with his friend and fellow Republican Mark Sanford. Far from having a "list" of Republican lawmakers he’d like to get rid of, Sen. Graham gave a thumbs-up to the whole GOP field of officeholders in South Carolina.

So when he came by today to talk about Iraq, Iran, Europe and nuclear proliferation, before he left we inevitably got into S.C. politics, starting with a question from reporter John O’Connor about to what extent Mark Sanford is actually a veep contender.

Mr. Graham was careful only to say positive things about the governor, he did say something about himself that drew a contrast between the two of them. He said he was backing Republicans, regardless of whether he agreed with them totally or not, is because "I’m a party leader." Which of course suggests that certain other people are not, but he wasn’t going to say so.

He was much more forceful and articulate when talking geopolitics, of course. I plan to go back through the more substantive parts of the interview and see if I can can pull out a clip or two from those parts later. For now, I thought I’d share the part that dealt with today’s news story.

   

Club for Growth targets two

You read here before about the incumbents who are favored by the Club for Growth. Now, in this release, we see whom they want to get rid of. Since the only names on the list are those of Richard Chalk and Jake Knotts, I’m guessing this is not a final list, but I could be wrong (Matt, please correct or confirm).

Mind you, this is not the same as the governor’s "list," but I think we can assume (there I go again) that it has some names in common with it. Anyway, here’s the release:

SC Club for Growth State Action PAC Endorses Three Reform-Minded Candidates
Columbia, SC – Today, the South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed three reform-minded candidates who are seeking election in the upcoming June 10th primary.
    Tim Scott, Stu Rodman and Katrina Shealy are lifelong advocates for smarter government, increased economic growth and more money for families and small businesses whose budgets are not growing nearly as fast as our state government’s.
    Each has shown a commitment to improving a state government that refuses to address South Carolina’s most important problems including high taxes, too much regulation and an outdated government structure.  Their success in this historic, watershed election will positively impact our state for decades to come.
    In a legislatively dominated state, change happens at the ballot box.  In the last election cycle, the SC Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed candidates in 23 primary and general election races.  Thanks in part to the electorate’s desire for change and the generosity of our members, endorsed candidates won 17 elections – an impressive 73 percent of the races in which the Club PAC was involved.
    The South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC has already endorsed seventeen strong, fiscally conservative incumbents for re-election.  Today, the State Action PAC is proud to announce the first challenger/open-seat endorsements of the 2008 primaries:

TIM SCOTT (HOUSE DISTRICT 117 – CHARLESTON)
    Tim Scott is a very successful small business owner, Chairman of Charleston County Council and a strong fiscal conservative.  Endorsed by Governor Sanford last fall for state treasurer and recently for this office, Tim has never voted for a tax increase nor has the council ever increased taxes during his thirteen-year tenure.  Long-time incumbent Tom Dantzler, who has consistently received “F” ratings from the Club, recently chose to retire rather than face a great candidate like Tim.
    Tim’s opponents for the open seat, Wheeler Tillman and Bill Crosby, both present causes for concern.  Tillman served for four years in the House during the 70’s as a Democrat, ran again for public office as a Democrat in the 1980’s and only switched parties earlier this decade.  Crosby wants to spend billions of dollars a year in taxpayer money on mass transportation and making local libraries a statewide responsibility.
    We think Tim is unquestionably the best candidate in this race based on his record as a strong fiscal conservative and reformer.  Tim will also make history as the first African-American Republican elected to the legislature since Reconstruction.  Tim Scott is a rising conservative star, and we urge you to send him to the Statehouse.

STU RODMAN (HOUSE DISTRICT 123 – HILTON HEAD)
    Stu Rodman is a proven, reform-minded leader who will bring his fiscally conservative principles to Columbia.  He currently serves on the Beaufort County Council and was elected to the Beaufort School Board, giving him valuable insights into government. 
    As a businessman with an M.B.A. and an engineering degree, Stu understands how important it is for South Carolina to be competitive in the global marketplace by lowering taxes, limiting government bureaucracy, and improving educational opportunities for our children.  Stu also served on Governor Sanford’s 2003 State Commission on Management, Accountability and Performance, which suggested ways to restructure and streamline state government.
    Stu is challenging incumbent Richard Chalk.  Chalk received an “F” in 2007 on the S.C. Club for Growth’s scorecard, which reflects his poor voting record on fiscal issues.  Chalk supported a higher gas tax on working families and was one of the few Republicans to vote to overturn Governor Sanford’s vetoes on all fifty budget items in the Club’s “Lard List.”  One can only assume Chalk was trying to send a message when he voted to overturn Governor Sanford’s veto of pork items like $150,000 for a new pottery program, over $8 million for Senator Hugh Leatherman’s pet projects in Florence and $9 million for a program editorial writers called “a legislative slush fund.”  We hope you will send a message to Chalk by supporting Stu Rodman.

KATRINA SHEALY (SENATE DISTRICT 23 – LEXINGTON COUNTY)
    Katrina Shealy is a proven leader and reformer in Lexington County.  Her experience as an insurance underwriter gives her a great foundation in fiscal issues and she recognizes that South Carolina’s out of control growth in state spending must end.  She supports state budget spending caps as well as tax cuts that will lower our state’s high income tax to encourage new businesses and better paying jobs.  Katrina also supports important tort and worker’s compensation reforms that will safeguard our small businesses.  As Chairwoman of the Lexington County Republican Party, she has done an incredible job of building a grassroots network of people who will work to support her campaign.
    Her opponent is incumbent RINO (Republican In Name Only) Jake Knotts, who earned an abysmal 8 out of 100 on our most recent legislative scorecard.  Knotts voted against a 29% reduction in our state income tax in 2005, complaining that letting you keep more of your tax dollars would reduce what he and his legislative buddies got to spend on government programs.  And spend it they have – growing government by over 40% in the last few years!  Last year Knotts even voted to send $950,000 of your tax dollars to the aforementioned Green Bean Museum and later voted to override every single one of Governor Sanford’s 228 budget vetoes that would have saved taxpayers $167 million. 
    To say that Knotts has worked against Governor Sanford’s reform agenda is like saying that John Edwards is willing to pay “a little extra” for a haircut.  He has cast crucial votes to kill Sanford-backed restructuring plans and to prevent parents from having increased choices about where to educate their children.  Just last year, Knotts voted to give a liberal judge a ten-year term on our State Supreme Court.  He explained his vote by saying that the candidate was “a female who puts more diversity on the bench.  It shouldn’t be about being conservative.”
    Frankly, we are not sure how Knotts even calls himself a Republican after publically supporting Democrats Jim Hodges and Tommy Moore over Governor Sanford in the last two gubernatorial elections.  Fortunately, he’ll finally get a chance to face Republican voters.
    Knotts’ defeat will remove a major legislative roadblock to lowering taxes, slowing government growth and implementing common-sense structural and educational reforms.  Katrina’s election will provide sorely needed leadership for her district and the state.  In fact, Knotts seems to agree – he contributed $100 to her campaign for House in 2002.  Once you are over the shock of hearing that he actually supported a Republican for a change, we hope you will support the real Republican in the race- Katrina Shealy.

You gotta hand it to the Club… here we haven’t even had our first legislative candidate interviews, and they’ve already settled on endorsements. Maybe it’s a little easier for them. Then again, maybe it’s just all that hard work, initiative and talent that helped the Club members grab their disproportional portions of the American pie, and which they firmly believe WE could do, too, if we would just buckle down and apply ourselves…

S.C. budget earmarks

Here’s how to find the earmark list Cindi wrote about in her column this morning:

    Here’s the link: http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/appropriations2008/gab4800.htm.
    It’s the second item listed under "H. 4800, GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL": "Earmarked Projects Pursuant to House Rule 5.3(F) (Excel format)."

    Cindi being the obsessively thorough type, she also suggests that I give "step-by-step directions for finding it," in case the link fails. (So that’s why I’m doing this; it’s not that I think you’re stupid or something:

    To FIND the list, go to www.scstatehouse.net, select "Current Legislation" from the options listed across the top of the page, then select "The Budget" on the right side of the page, then select "Fiscal Year 2008-2009 – General Appropriations Bill H. 4800 of 2008" to get to the link above.

Contact report: Hugh Leatherman

One thing I need to do is catch up on some recent meetings I haven’t let y’all know about, before I get too far behind. I’ll mention this chance encounter from this morning now:

I ran into Sen. Hugh Leatherman this morning at breakfast and sat with him for awhile to kick over a number of topics — national and state politics, what’s happening in Florence, etc.

Two things stand out in my mind:

  1. We talked about endowed chairs. Sen. Leatherman is high on the program, but isn’t convinced that the cap has to be raised. Mind you, he’s certainly not persuaded by any of the governor’s objections, which seem to him off-base. The governor chops at trees, but has never bought into the forest (although he IS into preservation of wilderness, so maybe that’s a bad metaphor). But the Senate Finance Chairman sees a way to make sure future chairs are funded without lifting the cap. He briefly explained it, but I confess I didn’t fully understand it, and didn’t want to detain him all morning trying to. It’s a good topic for further inquiry.
  2. I was reminded at various points in the conversation, as I am so often in speaking with the General Assembly’s Republican leadership, about how frustrated they are trying to deal with the governor day-to-day. Conversations such as this one flesh out the substance of such stories as this one in The Post and Courier today, about the governor’s efforts to stack the Legislature in his image. To serious, responsible lawmakers, having one Mark Sanford is enough of a burden; they don’t need any clones. Note this quote from the Charleston story: "If someone ran against Senator Leatherman, I’d probably support them." Who said that? Mark Sanford. So we’re not just talking paranoia here.

So is Kirsh still on the Club’s ‘nice’ list?

What did you think when you read John Monk’s piece over the weekend about Herb Kirsh’s bill to limit contributions by Howard Rich and others who get around limits now by giving through multiple corporations?

I just had one, simple thought: Will Rep. Kirsh still be on the Club for Growth’s list of approved legislators, or did he just make the "naughty" list?

Yes, I realize Howard Rich and the Club are different things, but they share the same aims. And the effort of groups with similar aims to stack the Legislature in the image of Mark Sanford is a very sore subject at the State House, where the governor is persona non grata.

Tax cigarettes more, but not because a poll said so

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
WHAT DO YOU think of the results of the latest Winthrop/ETV poll of South Carolinians, released late last week?
    Here’s what I think: Thank goodness the founders of this country bequeathed us a republic rather than a system of direct democracy, and those who devised our state system sorta, kinda went along with that.
    You say that’s not what you thought? Well, let’s look back at a couple of the poll’s findings:

    I look at that first result and hail the wisdom of the electorate. Numbers like that tempt me to run around the State House and wave them at all those finger-in-the-wind lawmakers, to get them to get off their duffs and raise our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax.
    But then I look at the second result, and I want to warn lawmakers not to govern by poll. Sound hypocritical? Let me see if I can explain my way out of this.
    Poll after poll, year after year, South Carolinians say they want the cigarette tax raised. This is useful to know, because lawmakers keep trying to excuse their inaction on the tax by saying voters don’t like tax increases. These polls indicate that voters do want this tax increased.
    But that’s not why it should be increased. It should be increased because it’s been thoroughly demonstrated that every dime by which we increase the cost of buying a pack of cigarettes decreases the number of kids who get hooked on tobacco. If you want to use the proceeds to pay for Medicaid, great. But that’s not the point. The point is pricing cigarettes beyond the reach of adolescents.
    Any lawmaker who does not know that about the cigarette tax is one who has not been paying attention to the debate at the State House. And a lawmaker who doesn’t pay attention to the debate is one who isn’t doing his or her job.
    You don’t raise a tax because you get a thumbs-up from a poll. You raise it, or lower it, or do something else, or do nothing, because you’ve done the due diligence necessary to draw intelligent conclusions about the likely consequences of such action. And that is your job as an elected representative.
    In a small group — say, small enough to fit in one of those iconic New England town halls that express the ideal of direct democracy — it’s at least theoretically possible to examine an issue thoroughly. People on various sides of an issue can challenge each other with questions; those who know more about a specific issue can share their knowledge with those who know less; and all of that can take place before a vote on what to do.
    Polls don’t do that. Polls derive overly simplistic conclusions from the gut, off-the-top-of-the-head reactions of folks who didn’t get a chance to study before the test. They provide useful information, but are a lousy way to make decisions.
    This is true even when those crafting the poll try to maximize the respondent’s preparation with questions that sound halfway like lectures. That was the case with this poll. Consider the way the constitutional-officers question was asked: “In South Carolina, we have several statewide elected offices. These include the Secretary of State, Superintendent of Education, Comptroller General, Commissioner of Agriculture, and others. Some people believe that it would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government if some of these positions were appointed by the governor, while others feel that they should continue to be elected and remain directly accountable to the voters. Which of these comes closer to your opinion?” The respondent then gets a choice between “Appointed by governor” and “Continue to be elected.”
    I’m not a bit surprised that three-fourths of respondents answered “continued to be elected” after all that — especially after they had just been told that was the way to keep those officials “directly accountable to the voters.”
    But I firmly believe that if you gave me five minutes with each of those folks, the result would be different.
    First, I’d ask the respondent to name each of those elected officials. Most would know who the governor is, almost none would know all of them. Then I’d ask, how do you hold someone accountable if you don’t even know that person’s name?
    I’d talk about the two current officers who had to be appointed because the ones who were elected ran afoul of the law. I’d ask whether they thought the governor — the official they know — should be held accountable for running the government day to day. Then I’d ask how they think he’s going to do that when most of the government doesn’t answer to him.
    I believe most folks would change their minds. I believe that because I trust the voters.
You see, I don’t oppose government by plebiscite because I think the people are less intelligent than politicians. I know too many politicians to think that. I oppose it because it’s not the best process. If you take poll respondents and put them in a situation in which they could thoroughly study and debate an issue before voting on it, their decisions would be far better than those they’d make on the spur of the moment.
    Sometimes, this process even works with politicians. But not when they spend all their time looking at polls.

Club for Growth’s preferred S.C. candidates

Just got this from Matt Moore, who is the new Joshua Gross at the S.C. Club for Growth (more on Joshua shortly). It includes the Club’s approved incumbents for re-election:

February 21, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Matt Moore

SC Club for Growth State Action PAC Endorses Seventeen Legislators for June Primaries

Columbia, SC – Today, the South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed seventeen current South Carolina legislators that are seeking election in the upcoming June 10th primary.

Each of these legislators has shown a continued commitment to limited government and responsible spending, while leading efforts to change South Carolina’s antiquated system of government.  All earned a combined grade of "B" or better in the Club’s legislative scorecards and cumulatively represent approximately the top 10% of grades for the entire General Assembly.

South Carolina Club for Growth Executive Director Matt Moore released the following statement on the endorsements:

"On behalf of our membership across the state, I’m proud to announce these endorsements.  We believe leadership matters.  South Carolina’s future generations will benefit from these legislators leading the charge to reform our state government.

Through the support of hundreds of members around the state, we are hopeful that many more change-oriented legislators will join these reformers at the Statehouse next January.  We will be carefully monitoring their re-election efforts.  Should credible challengers run against any of them, we will urge our members to contribute generously to these endorsed incumbents."

SC State Senate:

Legislator – District #, Area, Party
Kevin Bryant – 3rd District, Anderson, Republican
Danny Verdin – 9th District, Laurens, Republican
Mick Mulvaney – 16th District, Lancaster, Republican
Greg Ryberg – 24th District, Aiken, Republican
Larry Grooms – 37th District, Berkeley, Republican
Chip Campsen – 43rd District, Charleston, Republican

SC State House of Representatives:

Legislator – District #, Area, Party
Don Bowen – 8th District, Anderson, Republican
Michael Thompson – 9th District, Anderson, Republican
Jeff Duncan – 15th District, Laurens , Republican
Dwight Loftis – 19th District, Greenville, Republican
Eric Bedingfield – 28th District, Greenville, Republican
Herb Kirsh – 47th District, York, Democrat
Thad Viers – 68th District, Horry, Republican
Nathan Ballentine –  71st District, Lexington, Republican
Nikki Haley – 87th District, Lexington, Republican
Jim Merrill – 99th District, Berkeley, Republican
Chip Limehouse – 110th District, Charleston, Republican

#####

Oops — I guess Mulvaney’s not an incumbent — in the Senate. But the rest are, I believe.

Of course, the news this year will be the Club’s NON-approved legislators, which its ideological allies will be targeting in an unprecedented manner for removal.

And I want a certain person at that other organization (someone also involved with the Club) to note that this time, I did NOT use Gov. Huckabee’s preferred name for the Club.

Dialogue about the ‘Wireless Cloud’

This morning, noting this post and the comments on it, Cindi sent a note to Gordon and Mike, whom she knows from past lives (Gordon was my boss when I was Cindi’s boss when she was a reporter 20 years ago; Mike Cakora was one of our "community columnists" when we had that program on the op-ed page several years back):

Good morning Gordon and Mike

    I hope you’re both doing well.
    I’ve just been reading over your comments on Brad’s blog, and it occurred to me that if y’all read the legislative study committee report that is the backdrop for the news release he posted, 1) you might find it interesting and 2) you might be able to help me think through this — either via e-mail or through a continued discussion on Brad’s blog, whichever you prefer.
    I think the report should shed additional light on precisely what is being considered. In short, the majority report recommends hiring a consultant to further think through what to do with the ETV licenses; the minority report says this is plan is a recipe for losing a valuable state resource, which will revert to the feds if we don’t have a plan in place in less than a year.
    My initial, uninformed take is to agree with the minority report, written by Rep. Dwight Loftis. By way of background, Sen. Jim Ritchie — who along with Loftis first got this conversation going in the State House a year ago — had been spinning me in advance on the importance of the state taking action. He’s a proponent of a laptop for every student, by the way, a plan I am not sold on….
    I feel like this is something our editorial board needs to weigh in on at some point….
    Also, since Rep. Loftis has added me to his broadband e-mail list, I have received a handful of articles on the topic that I would be happy to share with either or both of you if you’d like.

Cindi

Gordon urged me to post the report Cindi referred to on the blog so we could have a discussion here. Here’s the report.

Mike also answered as follows:

To the extent that I can contribute, I will.  After my first scan of the report, I want to look at the FCC deadlines that the minority report is concerned about.  I need to get clear on FCC terminology too. 

Environmentally speaking, Clearwire looks to be involved with Sprint and Intel in trying to rescue WiMax according to breaking news. 
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/02/sprint_clearwir_1.html

Thus Clearwire’s role as a proponent in some of the BTAs in this state is interesting.  I pulled the latest lobbyist report and found that while all the usual players — Sprint Nextel, Intel, Time Warner, etc. — have lobbyists, Clearwire does not. 

Mike Cakora

So if you’re hip to the highly technical issues involved, here’s your chance to jump in. Personally, I’m depending on Cindi to figure it out and help me make up my mind. This is your chance to help Cindi — and Mike and Gordon as well.

Back before I started this blog, people like Dan Gillmor told me that the Blogosphere was chock-full of people who knew more about various issues (especially technical ones) than I or any other journalist did. While that is occasionally the case, it hasn’t been as often as I’d like. This seems like a good opportunity to realize the true potential of blogging.