Category Archives: Money

Cindi Scoppe’s long, lonely battle against legislator pensions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, Joe, because you really need help beating Phil Black

11 Replies

Just had to shake my head over this appeal from Joe Wilson:

Dear Friends,

Our South Carolina primary is on June 12th. That’s 73 days away. And tonight is our fundraising deadline for this quarter — there’s only 12 hours left to give. I need your help today as we get closer to the primary.

This is actually the last fundraising quarter before the primary. That’s why this one is so critical. Will you give $12 today?

I’m honored by the continued support across the Second District and the new support I have in Aiken through redistricting. Please donate today. Your donation will help us ensure a strong victory in June.

Sincerely,

Joe

P.S. With 12 hours left to fundraise for the last quarter before our June 12 primary, will you give $12 today?

Here’s the thing about that. Aside from the fact that Joe’s probably already drowning in money from the “You lie!” incident, he’s going to coast to victory in his primary with a dime being spent.

His only opposition is a nice guy named Phil Black, who has run against Joe before but failed to make any sort of impression on the electorate. Which is too bad, because like me, he favors a single-payer health care system. Which is another reason he’s not winning a GOP primary in Lexington County, the district’s gravitational center.

To his credit, Joe backhandedly admits that he doesn’t need the money for “victory;” he says he wants it to “ensure a strong victory.” You know, just to make absolutely sure that poor Phil is totally crushed.

I guess Joe just wants people to give token amounts of money to keep them in the habit of supporting him. Giving money to Joe is kind of like putting one of his signs in your yard. It’s the impression of support that it creates, rather than any material aid provided. Perhaps he hopes it will generate a habit of loyalty.

The affluent populist PAC that assumes melanin makes people think just alike

4 Replies

I thought this release interesting:

PAC+ Launches the New American Majority PAC 3-21-12

PAC+, a new national network of leaders focused on democratizing money and politics to give voice to America’s New Majority, launched today at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Recognizing that People of Color and progressive Whites are the New American Majority of people in the United States, PAC+ will combine the resources of its members and direct them to strategic races in states where the demographic revolution can change the political balance of power. In 2012, PAC+ is focusing on six strategic states — Texas, Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, Ohio, and California.

Led by the team that in 2007 created Vote Hope, the country’s first Democratic SuperPAC, PAC+ is an innovative approach to politics that weaves together demographic developments, technological tools, and network theory into a powerful force for change. “Currently a handful of billionaires are hijacking our democracy and advancing policies that are harmful to the majority of the American people. PAC+ is piloting a new model of SuperPAC that is focused on many donors, not mega-donors,” said Steve Phillips, Chairman of PAC+.

PAC+ is being launched by a National Board of over 70 community and political leaders in 16 states and is “powered by” PowerPAC.org, a social justice advocacy organization that coordinated the country’s first independent expenditure for Obama in 2007 and conducted a $10 million, 18 state electoral program targeting African American and Latino voters in key states. “Democrats spend tens of millions of dollars pursuing a strategy based on an outdated and inaccurate picture of the American electorate,” said Dr. Julie Martínez Ortega, President of PAC+. “The census data make clear that People of Color and progressive Whites are a majority of the U.S. population now, and our strategies need to shift accordingly,” added Dr. Martínez Ortega.

There are twelve million U.S. households of People of Color and progressive Whites with a household income of more than $100,000, and PAC+ is targeting less than 1% of that market, 100,000 people. “Many of us who benefited from the struggles that opened up the doors of higher education and corporate America are now in a position to give back,” said Maria Echaveste, Executive Committee member of the Democratic National Committee and the former Deputy Chief of Staff to President Clinton.

“Rather than get into a battle with the billionaires on the Right, major donors on the Left should invest their money in institutions and organizations that can unleash the power of the country’s demographic revolution, and PAC+ is just such an organization” said Susan Sandler, a philanthropist and private investor.

PAC+ will pool money from members across the country and direct those resources to strategic races in its six 2012 priority states. PAC+ is a federal political action committee and SuperPAC incubated by PowerPAC, a nonprofit advocacy and political organization. PowerPAC was organized to champion democracy and social justice in states and communities across the country and conducted the 2008 Obama independent expenditure campaign and a successful 2010 independent effort to help Kamala Harris win election as California’s Attorney General.

I found it interesting for its assumptions. First, the big one — that the portion of the electorate it claims as its own is indeed the New American Majority.

But it gets worse the more you dig into it. The most offensive is the assumption (or should I say “presumption”) that, in this group’s stilted phrase, “People of Color” are a group in which all the individuals want the same things, believe the same things and have the same interests. Apparently, melanin eliminates individuals’ ability to think for themselves. It gets worse when in presumes that those in this group who make six figures will, or at least should, feel they owe something specifically to other “People of Color,” simply for having succeeded in life.

That emphasis on affluence highlights the fact that this group assumes that mere dark skin alone — and nothing having to do with income or education or other indications of social class — predestines one to think a certain way.

At least with the whites who are shanghaied into this coalition, there is an ideological qualification — that they be “progressive,” however this group defines that. The whites are allowed to make up their own minds, to a limited extent (you know the contempt in which I hold the notion that people on the “left” or “right” can actually have identical positions on all issues — the notion upon which most political rhetoric in this country is based, tragically). But not the “People of Color.” Their attitudes are assigned, and they have no choice.

I do have to admit to being intrigued by this group’s combination of populism and affluence. That seems like a new wrinkle.

But we really don’t need any more efforts to herd groups of people together and assume they all think alike. The Democrats and Republicans are doing all they can on that score already.

Arguments heard in Haley ‘corruption lawsuit’

13 Replies

If you didn’t read the Free Times last week, you may have missed this:

Judge Hears Nikki Haley Corruption Lawsuit

by Corey Hutchins, March 16th 02:53pm

A judge heard oral arguments on March 12 in a public corruption lawsuit brought on behalf of a prominent GOP fundraiser against Republican Gov. Nikki Haley.

Fifth Circuit Judge Casey Manning has yet to make an official ruling on whether the case will move forward.

Reached by phone, Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey said the governor’s office had no immediate comment on the matter.

Former Board of Economic Advisors chairman John Rainey, who recruited Mark Sanford to run for governor in 2002, filed the lawsuit in November. It asks whether Haley broke any laws as a House member either by lobbying a state agency on behalf of her employer Lexington Medical Center or by doing secret consulting work for Wilbur Smith and failing to properly abstain from legislation benefitting the engineering firm. Both occurred during the time she represented Lexington County as a Republican in the S.C. House prior to becoming governor in 2010…

It continues to puzzle me that South Carolina went through such paroxysms over Ken Ard buying a few trinkets with campaign money, to the point of his resignation, while we’ve never had a satisfactory answer to the question, What did Nikki Haley do for Wilbur Smith to earn that $42,500?

For that matter, we don’t know what she did for Lexington Medical to earn that $110,000 salary.

We’re still waiting. Nikki’s still silent on these matters. And no one is bothered by that, apparently, except John Rainey.

Must be nice to have millions to throw away

36 Replies

Of course, if I did, I wouldn’t.

But Sheldon Adelson certainly does:

Washington (CNN) – In a move that could again dramatically shake up the Republican primary race, billionaire and major Republican donor Sheldon Adelson is expected to donate an additional $10 million to the super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich, Winning Our Future, a source with knowledge of the donation told CNN.

That contribution is expected soon, before the end of the month, the source said. The timing is important because Gingirch, whose campaign has been lagging, is hoping to do well in several of the upcoming Super Tuesday states that vote on March 6 to boost his effort. His allies will need that money to be in a position to help. Because ten states go to the polls on that one day, money is key in order to do well.

You know, even if I were a billionaire, I doubt I’d throw it away like this. I’d still want to get something for my money, beyond just spinning out the GOP nomination contest a little farther down the line.

The WSJ has speculated that this is more about hurting Santorum than it is about helping Gingrich. (If you can’t get past the pay wall, Slate summarizes the argument.)

Whatever. It’s like this rich guy is playing with rats in a maze — giving this one a reward, that one a shock, to see what they’ll do next.

If I had the money, I’d spend it for something better. Build Habitat houses. Or get myself a new truck. Or burn it to keep warm on a cold night. Something useful…

‘Dear Patriot:’ Santorum moves to capitalize on his surge in the polls

8 Replies

Earlier today, I got this email from the Santorum campaign:

Dear Patriot,

This is where we wanted to be. We have planned and strategized in preparation for this very moment. We have demonstrated that we can unite Conservatives and win states- even states that Mitt Romney won four years ago.

Now, according to a new poll from Public Policy Polling, I am LEADING Mitt Romney nationwide by a double digit margin.

Here are the results:

Santorum 38%

Romney: 23%

Gingrich 17%

Paul 13%

We know this race has seesawed back and forth so we don’t expect for a moment that Romney and his allies in the liberal media are going to let us stay there.

But this does confirm what we already knew: we are picking up momentum and are in the right place to take advantage of it. We have a strategy that has produced victories and can win us the Republican nomination. And we need to keep it going.

Will you help us?

This poll comes on the heels of three huge wins last week in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri. Conservatives across the country are coming together and uniting behind this campaign.

Everything is going our direction for the moment, but that’s the very reason we can’t let up–the Romney campaign is starting to get desperate. Governor Romney does not have a consistent record of conservatism that he can run on. Because of that, he can’t talk about his story and will instead spend tens of millions of dollars in negative, dishonest, personal attacks on my record and my character.

I saw what Mitt Romney did to Newt Gingrich after he lost South Carolina. Romney is right now making plans to do the same thing to me in Michigan–carpet bomb the state with dishonest ads. We need to be ready so we can fight back!

That’s not going to be good enough to defeat President Obama. The GOP standard bearer must convey a clear vision of Reagan Conservatism to the American people if we are going to win this election. Running an inauthentic, Massachusetts moderate is not going to fire up conservatives, and it’s not going to appeal to independents. We can’t do it if we’re going to defeat President Obama.

Every four years, people say, “This is the most important election of our lifetime.” I think that’s true this year, but I’ll go even farther than that: this is the most important election in American history.

President Obama’s vision for this country is to fundamentally change us from a free market, capitalist system to a Republic in the mold of the faded, decrepit Republics of Western Europe. We simply cannot allow four more years of this.

We are winning elections and the polls are all trending our way. I am going to win the Republican Nomination for President and defeat Barack Obama. But it’s not going to happen without your help, right now. Not tomorrow, not next week. Right now.

Let’s get it done!

For America,

Rick Santorum
Conservative Republican for President

A new business model for journalism?

2 Replies

Romenesko brought my attention to this idea today. It’s intriguing, because the holy grail in journalism today is to find a new way to pay for it, now that the old business model that sustained newspaper journalism for generations has collapsed so spectacularly.

Interest in news and commentary is as great as always, but in the past, those who demanded such commodities were not the ones who paid for it — it was advertisers, who came to the newspaper for completely different motives. Now that marketing has changed so radically, turning from mass media to targeting messaging, how do you pay people to come up with the professional-quality content that the public still desires?

Here’s one way:

I call it the eBay of investigative journalism, and here’s how I envision it:

Bring donors and investigators together in an exclusive online network, creating a forum where they could pitch ideas to each other.

Donors in the network who want specific topics covered would propose stories and agree to fund the investigations. Journalists in the network would bid on the projects, outlining how much money they need. Multiple donors could contribute to each project.

Project pitches would work the opposite direction, too, with investigative journalists outlining their own ideas and donors “buying in” by providing the funds. Donors could contribute the full amount to fund projects they really like or fund parts of multiple projects. Journalists also could pitch ideas as teams or recruit teams within the network.

The network would have a team of editorial directors whose job would be to vet the donors, journalists and ideas. Only the best would make the cut, just like applying for media jobs.

Of course that only applies to investigative journalism — or more, broadly, what we referred to as “enterprise” stories: Someone (traditionally an editor) says “go out and look into this.” Traditionally, the journalist did so because he was paid a salary. Now that the revenue source that paid that salary has collapsed, this is an interesting idea for paying for a journalist’s time and expertise to pursue a subject.

Of course, there are real problems with it. Not every worthwhile story, not everything that citizens need to know, is marketable. That’s why it worked better to pay journalists salaries so that their scope of investigation was unlimited by what attracted a paying customer.

Then, there’s the fact that it does little good for the area of opinion journalism, which has been my specialty since 1994.

But perhaps most critically, it does nothing for the most fundamental, basic, bread-and-butter kind of journalism: simply covering everything in a community — crime, public safety, courts, politics, business. If you try to cover news according to whether someone wants to pay to see that particular story, it becomes PR.

But it’s still an intriguing idea.

Taking a risk with a mustard seed

23 Replies

I don’t often get releases like this one, so I thought I’d share it:

11 Trinity Youth Transform $1,100 into More Than $60,000

In Just 90 Days, through the Kingdom Assignment, Students Raise Money to Further the Kingdom of God

Thursday, February 9, 2012, Columbia, SC Trinity Cathedral’s Episcopal Youth Community (EYC) is making a big impact in their parish and in our community. In November of 2011, Canon Brian Silldorff challenged 11 members of EYC to participate in the Kingdom Assignment. The result? More than $60,000 to fund an array of projects, both sacred and secular.

The Kingdom Assignment is an international project dedicated to stewardship of God’s Kingdom that started some ten years ago in Lake City, California. You can read more about the Kingdom Assignment on their website, www.kingdomassignment.org.

After teaching a Sunday school lesson about the Parable of the Talents, Silldorff challenged eleven youth to participate in the Kingdom Assignment and entrusted them with $1,100 and offered just three rules: 1. The money belongs to God and is entrusted to you. 2. You have 90 days to further the kingdom of God with your talent and treasure. 3. You must report back in 90 days about your project and its success.

It’s now 90 days later and the Kingdom Assignment project will culminate during Youth Sunday School on Sunday, February 12, 2012 at 10:15am in the Workshop. Students, adults, and those impacted by the project will be present along with parishioners and the media to celebrate the impact and reach of more than $60,000.

You are invited to join in the celebration and share in the success. Please email Brian Silldorff if you plan to attend as space is the Workshop is limited. The Worskshop is located on the ground floor of the Trinity Center for Mission and Ministry located at 1123 Marion Street, Columbia, SC 29201.

Way to go, kids! I’m proud of you. Even though you’re not Roman. At least you’re catholic. You know, my cousin is one of y’all’s priests.

This reminds me of the best sermon I ever heard from my own pastor, Msgr. Lehocky. It was so long ago, he probably doesn’t remember it, but I do — the main points, anyway.

I’d always had trouble with that parable — you know, the Capitalist Parable:

¹⁴`The kingdom of heaven will be like the time a man went to a country far away. He called his servants and put them in charge of his money.

¹⁵He gave five bags of money to one servant. He gave two bags of money to another servant. He gave one bag of money to another servant. He gave to each one what he was able to be in charge of. Then he went away.

¹⁶`Right away the servant who had five bags of money began to buy and sell things with it. He made five bags of money more than he had at first.

¹⁷`The servant who had two bags of money did the same thing as the one who had five bags. He also made two bags of money more than he had at first.

¹⁸But the man who had only one bag of money dug a hole in the ground. And he hid his master’s money in the ground.

¹⁹`After a long time, the master of those servants came home. He asked what they had done with his money.

²⁰The servant who had been given five bags of money brought five bags more to his master. He said, “Sir, you gave me five bags of money. See, I have made five bags more money.”

²¹`His master said, “You have done well. You are a good servant. I can trust you. You have taken good care of a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Come, have a good time with your master.”

²²`The servant who had been given two bags of money came and said to his master, “Sir, you gave me two bags of money. I have made two bags more money.”

²³His master said, “You have done well. You are a good servant. I can trust you. You have taken good care of a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Come, have a good time with your master.”

²⁴`The servant who had been given one bag of money came and said, “Sir, I knew that you were a hard man. You cut grain where you did not plant. You pick fruit where you put nothing in.

²⁵I was afraid. So I went and hid your money in the ground. Here is your money.”

²⁶`His master answered him, “You are a bad and lazy servant. You knew that I cut grain where I did not plant. You knew that I pick fruit where I put nothing in.

²⁷You should have put my money in the bank. Then when I came home, I would have had my money with interest on it.

²⁸So take the money away from him. Give it to the one who has ten bags.

²⁹Anyone who has some will get more, and he will have plenty. But he who does not get anything, even the little that he has will be taken away from him.

³⁰Take this good-for-nothing servant! Put him out in the dark place outside. People there will cry and make a noise with their teeth.” ‘

Not that I have anything against capitalism; I don’t. I just didn’t like it that Jesus was suggesting that the third servant had done something wrong. I mean, if someone else asks you to hold his property, shouldn’t you take every precaution to preserve it and have it ready to give back to him? Doesn’t basic honesty require that? Capitalism is a fine thing, with your own money. But do you have the right to take a risk with someone else’s, without specific (preferably written) authorization?

The risk part was what got me; that’s what seemed wrong. It was too easy to fail.

Father Lehocky urged us to look at it in a whole new way. He said people who play it safe are wasting the talents or other gifts they are entrusted with. OK, I sort of got that, but what if they fail? What if they do?, he said. Failing is part of life. You can fail big-time, and by doing so advance the cause of God. Look at Jesus himself. Was there ever a bigger failure? Look at the way he died. Charged as a criminal, whipped nearly to death, stripped naked and nailed up on a gibbet like an animal for the unfeeling community to watch his death-agonies. Abandoned by his friends, who ran like scalded dogs before the bully boys and denied even knowing him. Not a word he’d said had ever even been written down. All over, all done with, all for nothing. He’d taken a risk, and failed spectacularly, by every standard the world had for judging such things.

Except that he hadn’t, as it turned out. He’d really started something. The risk he’d taken had paid off in a way no ordinary mortal would have predicted.

That sermon made me think differently about my life and how it should be lived. It made me look at failure in a new way. Not that I’ve always lived up to that new way of looking at life. But it made me think. And now that I’m writing this, I’m thinking about it again…

Nikki has a budget idea… no, the other Nikki

9 Replies

Phil Bailey (Senate Democrats, Pub Politics) sent out this release yesterday, and I’m just getting to it:

Legislation to Transform State Budget Process Introduced

Columbia, SC – Lexington State Senator Nikki Setzler has introduced legislation to transform the state budget process and ensure the public knows how all dollars collected from South Carolina taxpayers by state government are spent.

Senator Setzler’s legislation targets so-called ‘other funds’ and treats money from those accounts like other state dollars in the budget. The legislation, introduced by Setzler on Tuesday, takes spending authority for billions of dollars held in special accounts away from a single government official and rightfully places it with lawmakers.

Currently, the state budget is divided into three types of funds: general funds, federal funds and other funds. General funds are tax dollars collected by the state. Federal funds are dollars from Washington that the state does not control. And ‘other funds’ are the dollars that are not general or federal fund dollars, primarily generated from fees charged to those who use the agency’s services.

Over the past 10 years, with lessening state tax revenues, state agencies have grown more reliant on ‘other funds’. For example, one agency in 2000 spent $35 million in general funds and $4.0 million in other funds. By 2009, that agency spent $29 million in general funds and $20 million in other funds.

Until two years ago, the Legislature had little to no oversight over “other funds” in state government. For years, a single government official would grant state agencies authority to spend those funds. The Joint Other Funds Oversight Committee was formed to review these funds and agencies’ request to spend these dollars. Setzler’s legislation would permanently transform the budget process.

Setzler said serving on this committee has been a wake-up call. “The taxpayers of South Carolina were being left in the dark. The budget process was nowhere near as transparent as it should be,” said Setzler.

The legislation introduced by Setzler and co-sponsored by Republicans and Democrats directs all ‘other funds’ to be deposited in the state’s General Fund and appropriated by the General Assembly.

“This makes the budget more transparent and state agencies more accountable to the taxpayers. This is common sense reform and I’m happy to have the bi-partisan support of my colleagues in the Senate,” said Setzler.

###

Sounds intriguing. I’d like to know more — what sorts of fees we’re talking about, how and why they came into being — before I could make up my mind about it. I’ve asked Phil for some examples.

Try to understand the plight of the 1 percent

2 Replies

A friend shared with me this fun piece in The New Yorker. An excerpt:

Perhaps you are wondering what our cause is. Perhaps you’re wondering why we, the richest people on the planet, have come together. Perhaps you’re curious whether what we’re undertaking couldn’t technically be called a vacation. These are all good questions.

We’re angry. We’re angry at something we’re calling “imagined frustration.” By this we mean that, except for Congress, the White House, banks, major lobbyists, and the editorial boards of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, no one is listening to us. And we’re tired of it.

You claim to know something about us. You think we are rich beyond comprehension, that we can do anything we please at any time, go anywhere we want at a moment’s notice, wander the earth in a state of constant bliss, enjoying abundant and fabulous sex. Perhaps you do know us.

There are those in the more liberal press who have questioned whether the wealthiest one per cent truly understand how difficult life is for so many Americans right now, and to that we would say— Oh, look, someone just brought in lobster and a Bollinger Grande Année.

Except for money and the almost unnatural flawlessness of my skin, we are no different, you and I. I don’t know who you are or what you look like or how much money you have in the bank. Nor does it matter. Because we’re just men. Unless you are a woman. Or a child. Or a pony. But ponies don’t read magazines, do they? Unless they’re precocious ponies, like Mister Ed. And he wasn’t real. But I think you get my point. And that is: we are the same, except for the coarseness of the skin on your elbows. Do you know that feeling, upon waking at 4 A.M., heart racing, your mind looking twenty, thirty years down the road, wondering how you are going to make ends meet? Worrying about what would happen if you lost your job, asking yourself how you’re going to pay for your kids’ college or retire? Well, I don’t. But I read a story about it once and remember thinking, I’m so glad that’s not me…

See, I identify with these people, because they are living the life to which I would like to become accustomed. That’s what makes me a real American. So don’t be giving them such a hard time…

Arts advocates gearing up to fight again

10 Replies

Based on the emails I get, one of the best-organized lobbies in South Carolina is the one that promotes the arts. Of course, they need to be if their favored programs are to survive, since it appears that each year that Nikki Haley is governor is going to be a battle for existence for the state Arts Commission and related recipients of state funding.

Following up on the governor’s State of the State address last night (which I missed — anyone have anything to share about that?), they’ve sent out the following release. There will be many more, of last year is any guide:

STATE ARTS FUNDING:

Governor Nikki Haley has now given her State of the State Address and presented her Executive Budget. She has once again recommended NO state appropriations for the South Carolina Arts Commission. However, the agency will continue to move through the budget process which is now in the S.C. House.

Sub-committees of the House Ways & Means (HWM) Committee – the budget writing committee – are holding budget hearings from the various agencies and will later make recommendations for state agency funding in their own version of the state budget. The Arts Commission is scheduled for a budget hearing on Thursday afternoon, January 26th. Their HWM sub-committee consists of:

Rep. Chip Limehouse (Charleston, Berkeley) 803-7342977 [email protected]

Rep. Joe Neal (Richland, Sumter) 803-734-2804 [email protected]

Rep. B.R. Skelton (Pickens) 803-734-3036 [email protected]

Rep. Garry Smith (Greenville) 803-734-3141 [email protected]

Arts supporters should continue to thank their legislators for their past support and request that they continue to support state funding for the Arts Commission – especially if your Representative serves on the above Subcommittee. Don’t forget that many legislators have their own web site, Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. The state’s web site has been redesigned making it easier to locate and contact your legislator, follow the House and Senate meeting calendars and legislation at: www.scstatehouse.gov

ARTS EDUCATION FUNDING:

There is some GOOD news regarding arts education funding within the Governor’s Executive Budget. Governor Haley has reinstated approximately $1.2 million for the Arts Curricula Innovation Grants Program within the Department of Education’s budget, which Superintendent Mick Zais recommended for elimination.

Arts advocates should thank the Governor for her support of these critical funds that are not only used for initiatives that support innovative arts education programs that improve student achievement, but provide quality professional development for arts and classroom teachers.

Governor Nikki Haley

Office of the Governor 1205 Pendleton Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Ph: 803-734-2100

Fx: 803-734-5167

www.Facebook.com/NikkiHaley

www.Twitter.com/scgovoffice

www.governor.sc.gov

Email at: www.governor.sc.gov/Pages/sendMessage.aspx

SCAA’s ARTS ADVOCACY DAY is Tuesday, February 7th!

Join us at the Statehouse in support of continued state funding for the arts and arts education. Attend the Legislative Appreciation Luncheon in honor of the Legislative Arts Caucus. Join your legislators over lunch and be informed about the latest issues affecting the arts in our schools and in our communities. Reservations are a must and please consider being an “underwriter” of the event! Registration information can be found below. A form is also attached for your convenience.

Capt. Romney’s crew fights both sides at once

3 Replies

Note the two sides, above and below, of a mailer I received at home.

One of the good things about being a Patrick O’Brian fanatic is that it provides one with so many good metaphors.

For instance… one of the most difficult things for a man of war’s crew in the age of sail was to fight both sides of the ship at once. One way this might occur would be if a ship sailed between two enemy ships and fired with its larboard and starboard guns at the same time. This took not only a very well-trained crew, but a numerous one — remember, it took a lot of men just to keep changing sail and maneuvering the ship, plus twice the usual number of gun crews. Each gun required a crew of several men, and they weren’t much good if they hadn’t had plenty of experience firing live ammunition at targets under all sorts of conditions.

This required a wealthy commander, because the Royal Navy provided a minuscule amount of powder and shot, and the captain had to shell out his own money if he wanted his men to be able to perform well, even to survive, in a fight.

And only a captain with a numerous, well trained crew would attempt anything so taxing as dashing between two enemy ships to fight both sides at once.

Either that, or a very desperate captain.

I suppose you could interpret this mailer I got at home either way. It was sent out by Restore Our Future, Inc., which exists to promote Mitt Romney.

We know he’s a wealthy captain, with a numerous crew. But is he also desperate?

His foes are the ones who should be desperate. They know that if they don’t stop him in South Carolina, they are done for. But he also knows that, and probably just as soon have done with them all.

So he fires both broadsides at once; never mind the cost.

Here’s a shocker for you: People whom Romney has supported are supporting him in return

5 Replies

I have always, according to everyone else, underestimated the role of money in politics. It bores me, so I don’t attach the importance to it that everyone says I should.

But for all you folks who are so much more world-wise than I, here’s a tidbit to gnaw on:

Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC and its affiliates states have lavished close to $1.3 million in campaign donations to federal, state and local GOP politicians, almost all since 2010. His recipients include officials in the major upcoming primary states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, and in three southern Super Tuesday states where he was trounced four years ago.

In New Hampshire, a U.S. senator, a congressman, 10 state senators and three executive councilors shared $26,000 in donations from Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC in 2010 and 2011 combined. All 15 have showered Romney with endorsements leading up to Tuesday’s primary

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley came out for Romney last month – a year after his Free and Strong America PACs funneled $36,000 to the Tea Party darling’s 2010 election bid. And 19 state and Washington, D.C., lawmakers in three Super Tuesday states – Georgia, Tennessee and Virginia — are backing Romney after his PAC poured a total of $125,500 into their coffers for elections held in 2009 and 2010.

Make of that what you will. Me, I’m like, Yeah, I knew that they were supporting each other. So what do I care about the money? But that’s me. I’m cynical about cynicism; I think it’s all overblown.

Yeah, we know. That’s why we can’t afford basic government services. Not news.

31 Replies

The SC Senate Republican Caucus is bragging on how terrific it is that people hardly have to pay any taxes to support state government in South Carolina. Great job they’re doin’ ain’t it?

The thing is, that’s not news to anyone except the out-of-touch people who go around complaining about how high taxes are in SC, based on nothing. (And really believe it, too.) Actually, last I heard we were the lowest, not second-lowest.

Here’s the best part — this was sent out as a fund-raiser. The email that brought it to my attention gave me a choice of two things to click on: “View full image,” or “Donate now.” Because, you know, I’m supposed to be so thrilled that state taxes are so low, so eager to donate to elect people to make my taxes even lower, that I might not even have the patience to go look at the full image before I write my check.

I will never understand the mentality that will cause someone to shell out money — sometimes millions, in the case of a guy like Howard Rich — in order to avoid paying the same money in taxes. I mean, if I were so in love with my money that I passionately hated paying taxes, I wouldn’t want to pay it to politicians, either. Why would anyone hate the idea of his money being spent on public services so much that he’d rather it go to enrich political consultants?

But that odd world view exists. No doubt about it. Which is why pitches like this work — against all logic.

Here’s how you can support Wikipedia

3 Replies

Kathryn Fenner asks that I pass this along:

Dear Kathryn B,

Here’s how the Wikipedia fundraiser works: Every year we raise just the funds that we need, and then we stop.

Because you and so many other Wikipedia readers donated over the past weeks, we are very close to raising our goal for this year by December 31 — but we’re not quite there yet.

You’ve already done your part this year. Thank you so much. But you can help us again by forwarding this email to a friend who you know relies on Wikipedia and asking that person to help us reach our goal today by clicking here and making a donation.

If everyone reading this email forwarded it to just one friend, we think that would be enough to let us end the fundraiser today.

Of course, we wouldn’t turn you down if you wanted to make a second donation or a monthly gift.

Google might have close to a million servers. Yahoo has something like 13,000 staff. We have 679 servers and 95 staff.

Wikipedia is the #5 site on the web and serves 470 million different people every month – with billions of page views.

Commerce is fine. Advertising is not evil. But it doesn’t belong here. Not in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others.

When I founded Wikipedia, I could have made it into a for-profit company with advertising, but I decided to do something different. We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others.

Thanks again for your support this year. Please help spread the word by forwarding this email to someone you know.

Thanks,
Jimmy Wales
Wikipedia Founder

OK, so she asked me this last week and I’m just getting down to that email. But I think they’ll probably still take your money, even though it’s past the 31st.

And once a little more cash flows into the bradwarthen.com kitty, I’m going to give, too. I use this a whole lot more often than I do NPR, and I’ve certainly given gladly to that…

OK, so only 1 in 3 of us is poor. Hurray! Not.

22 Replies

I saw this correction to reports that nearly half of Americans are below the poverty line or “low-income:”

UPDATE: Hold on just one second. The widely-cited “1-in-2” figure that a number of media outlets reported Thursday — including the Associated Press (and, of course, us by extension) — may not be accurate.

At least according to an NBC News affiliate in Los Angeles, which says it double checked the number with a trio of Census analysts who say that the actual figure for how many Americans are officially classified as either low income or impoverished is closer to 1 in 3.

NBC-LA explains that despite reports to the contrary, the Census officials tell them the the true figures are as follows: about 49.9 million Americans, roughly 13.8 percent of the U.S. population, are living below the poverty line and another 53.8 million, or about 18 percent, are considered low income.

49.9 million + 53.8 million = 103.7 million, or roughly 31 percent of the U.S. population. That’s still a pretty substantial chunk of the U.S. population, but not quite the “nearly half” that made its way into headlines around the Web and onto TV broadcasts.

Maybe it’s just because I missed the original report, but I hope you’ll excuse me for not breaking out the champagne. “Only” 31 percent of Americans are poor? This is not good, people.

Column III: Kevin Bryant takes destructive approach, offers reader no way out but rage

7 Replies

Talk about your basic destructive nihilism.

Sen. Kevin Bryant offers nothing positive, but simply gives us a Sanfordesque trashing of USC, in his column today in The State.

Go ahead and read it, and tell me where he offers any kind of solution. Show me where he suggests how we might see to it that the university become a better steward of our money. He does not. When he complains that “USC, like much of higher education, sees itself as a sovereign empire,” does he offer a remedy?

No, he does not. He does not, for instance, offer the solution I have offered for 20 years — likely long before Kevin Bryant was thinking about such things — for the fact that our respective universities are, indeed, too autonomous: A state board of regents, answerable to the governor, that would govern the entire system of public higher education.

Or if he has some other idea (which I doubt), he could offer that.

But he doesn’t. Why not? I fear that this is the reason: He’s not sufficiently interested in solutions. What he’s interest in doing, it seems to me, is further eroding the already pathetically feeble public will to support higher education in our state.

As things stand, do you know how much of USC’s operating funds come from state taxes? 9 percent. The state general fund is like the university’s 5th source of funding in order of magnitude. When I was in school, it was closer to 90 percent. So yeah, the university does tend to act rather independently of state government as it seeks to serve our state.

I don’t think it should be that way. I think USC should be clearly a state institution — adequately funded by the state, and held accountable to the state. But I’m not holding my breath, not when our state is run by people like Kevin Bryant.

His column presents no proposals, no arguments, but merely regurgitates what has been reported in news media, only with scornful modifiers added.

His aim, or what I take to be his aim, is best expressed in his trite, hyperbolic conclusion:

The giant sucking sound that you hear is the siphon running from your wallet into the tank at USC. You might want to let your politicians know that enough is enough.

The only point to be gained from this is that he wants us all to be angry. And since he offers no program or solution to address that anger, we can only suppose that said anger is for him an end in itself, as long as you see the university as something that exists purely to waste your money (an impression he creates by ignoring how little of the taxpayers’ money the institution gets), and that you let your lawmakers know that you don’t want them ever spending another dime on that bunch over there.

Never mind that North Carolina has adequately funded its higher education system as an economic development engine (just what the senator despises), leading to the result of having a wealthier and better-educated citizenry. Every word in Sen. Bryant’s column is well designed to make sure that, if there is even a scintilla of desire remaining in the heart of the electorate to invest in public higher system in this state, it gets drowned in the proverbial bathtub.

If he had a different aim, he would offer a solution to the problems he cites. Instead, he urges us to get mad, and be more alienated.

AARP survey shows support for entitlements

18 Replies

I recently said that, of all the advocacy groups that set up shop in the runup to the primaries back in 2007, the only one to return seemed to be ONE.

But another, AARP, has launched its own effort. It’s not as visible as those red T-shirts that Samuel Tenenbaum and his cohorts wore on AARP’s behalf four years ago, but it’s now noticeable. I had meant to listen in on a press conference call the nonprofit was having this morning about a new survey, but didn’t get back to the office from a speaking engagement in time to pull that off. But I can share the release that went with it:

Likely Republican Voters in First-in-the-South South Carolina Primary
Want Social Security, Medicare Protected from Deficit Cuts
AARP Releases Survey and Launches 2012 Republican Caucus and Primary Video Voter’s Guide

Columbia, SC – AARP today released survey results showing that by nearly 3 to 1 (68.5 percent for Social Security, 70.5 percent for Medicare), likely Republican voters in the South Carolina GOP Primary overwhelmingly oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits to reduce the deficit.

AARP’s GOP South Carolina Primary Survey highlights the major disconnect between Washington and Republican voters in South Carolina who will be critical in determining the next Republican Presidential nominee. While the Washington talks about making a deal to cut Medicare and Social Security to meet their budget target, voters say they oppose cuts to the benefits they earned and need. Almost 600,000 South Carolina seniors received Social Security in 2010 and accounts for nearly 63 percent of the typical older South Carolina residents own income. Over 99 percent of South Carolina seniors are enrolled in Medicare.

“The results demonstrate that strong majorities of supporters for every Republican presidential candidate oppose cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits,” said AARP South Carolina spokesman Patrick Cobb. “Conservative South Carolina voters and voters who agree with the Tea Party oppose cuts to these programs. The message these voters are sending is clear: Do not cut the Social Security and Medicare benefits they’ve earned.”

The survey interviewed 400 likely Republican primary voters (age 18+) in South Carolina with the mean age of 64 with 73.5 percent identifying themselves as “Conservative.” Conducted by GS Strategy Group with funding from AARP, the research has a 4.90 percent margin of error. Over 88 percent of voters said that Social Security benefits will be important to their monthly income in retirement and nearly all – 92.3 percent – say the strength and solvency of Medicare is essential to seniors’ health care security in retirement. When asked their preference on ways to cut government spending and reduce the deficit, respondents overwhelmingly say they prefer reducing U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan over cutting either Medicare or Social Security with 73.5 percent in favor of troop withdrawls to cut spending v. 8.5 percent preferring Medicare cuts, and 73.5 percent in favor of troop withdrawls v. 6.0 percent preferring Social Security cuts.

Respondents were asked which candidate they would vote for if the primary was held that day. The survey, conducted October 18-19, yielded the following results (by percentage):

· Cain 27.8 percent

· Romney 27.0 percent

· Perry 7.8 percent

· Gingrich 7.3 percent

· Paul 5.0 percent

· Bachmann 3.0 percent

· Huntsman 1.5 percent

· Santorum 1.3 percent

· Undecided 19.5 percent

AARP will provide information to its members and all Americans throughout the election season to help voters understand where the candidates stand on the issues that matter most to them and their families. As part of these efforts, AARP is launching its 2012 Republican Caucus and Primary Video Voters’ Guide on November 13.

The Video Voters’ Guide will feature one-on-one, unedited interviews with four of the top candidates on topics important to older voters, including: jobs and the economy, retirement security, Social Security and Medicare. The video will be mailed to Republican voters in the five early nominating states and will be available to all AARP members and the general public on www.aarp.org/youearnedit<http://www.aarp.org/youearnedit>, as well as through the AARP Bulletin.

The guide will feature candidates who registered at 5 percent or higher in an average of national polls. They include Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Congressman Ron Paul and Texas Governor Rick Perry. Former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain and Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney declined repeated invitations to participate. Mediacom Communications will air the Video Voter Guide in its entirety on Sunday, November 13 at 7 p.m. Eastern time.

For more information on the survey or the Video Voter’s’ Guide, please visit www.aarp.org/youearnedit<http://www.aarp.org/youearnedit>.

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a membership that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world’s largest-circulation magazine with nearly 35 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go-to news source for AARP’s millions of members and Americans 50+; AARP VIVA, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

###

Full disclosure: I am card-carrying member of the AARP, and the organization has advertised on this blog on more than one occasion.

Saving the world from democracy

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits