Category Archives: Priorities

Harvey Peeler on road funding priorities

I received this oped by Harvey Peeler, the best Tweeter in the SC Senate, from the Senate Republicans. It contains some thoughts worth considering:

Force-feeding asphalt to Charleston while the rest of S.C. starves
by Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler

When a conservative think tank and the environmentalists team up to criticize the same state agency, you can bet they’re probably on to something.

Our entire system of funding road and transportation needs in our state is just about as broken as it gets, with a recent decision by State Transportation Infrastructure Bank (SIB) being the prime example.

Last month, the SIB took a vote to build an eight mile extension of the Mark Clark Expressway in Charleston, despite the fact that their bonding capacity is used up and the project is wildly unpopular locally.

Or to put in language folks outside the Statehouse might use, they spent money we don’t have on a project we don’t need and the people don’t want.

But the bigger problem is that the SIB is force feeding asphalt to Charleston, while the rest of our state is on a starvation diet.

Seeing this, the conservative South Carolina Policy Council and the environmentalist Coastal Conservation League – two groups who are rarely singing off of the same sheet of music – teamed up to point out just how corrupt our system for funding infrastructure has become.

I think they’re on to something.

Anybody who drives has seen the sorry shape of our roads first hand. In my neck of the woods, we have “see-through” bridges just miles from our homes with more holes than Swiss cheese. In Cowpens on Exit 83, the exit is in such bad disrepair that you have to drive through the parking lot of Mountain View Baptist Church to get back onto the Interstate. Or how I-26 becomes a parking lot on many weekends between Charleston and Columbia.

Meanwhile, since the SIB was created in 1997, they’ve doled out about $4 billion for road projects, with about half of it, a little over $2 billion, going to just two counties – Charleston and Horry. In fact, only 11 of our 46 counties have ever even gotten a penny of SIB funding.

The state Department of Transportation estimates that to bring all the roads and bridges in this state just up what is considered “adequate” level, it would take $20 billion.

Let’s think about that for a second – we need $20 billion to make our existing roads safe, and the SIB is busy spending another $4 billion on NEW roads in the backyards of politically connected legislators and the tourism lobby.

That latest Charleston boondoggle – which, it’s worth remembering, was built with promised money above and beyond what we’re already authorized to borrow – has never even been ranked by the state DOT as a funding priority. It even ranked 15th on a list in Charleston for priorities.

The question I have is, why do we even have a board separate and apart from the DOT, buying bells and whistles for our road system? It’s like a farmer borrowing money to buy a new Corvette when the wheels of his tractor are falling off.

Of course, it’s not like the DOT is any better. What is the DOT’s top priority right now? An interstate that hasn’t even been built yet, and may never wind up being built. I-73, which is supposed to go from Detroit to Myrtle Beach, will cost our state more than $1 billion just to reach the North Carolina line.

Now I’m no expert, but the times I’ve been to Myrtle Beach and looked around at the license plates, it didn’t seem to me like folks from Michigan and Ohio are having any trouble getting here.

The seven-member DOT and the seven-member SIB are driving our state into a ditch. Fourteen people making road-funding decisions. As the old saying goes, “When everybody is in charge, no one is in charge.”

It’s true in business, it’s true in government. We have a rogue Infrastructure Bank committing money that doesn’t exist to a project we don’t need, on top of a state Department of Transportation, where an unaccountable commission controls everything from traffic lights to curb cuts.

If we’re going to move our state forward, we’ve got to stop funding infrastructure based on favor swapping and horse trading. We’ve got to put first things first, fix the roads we have, and stop building new ones based on which legislator has the most pull or which special interest screams the loudest.

I pledge to work with the Policy Council, the Coastal Conservation League and any other group that wants to make this the reality for South Carolina.

Nikki, you just keep right on Facebookin’…

At one point in the midst of his reporting on the Senate’s override of most of the governor’s vetoes, Adam Beam Tweeted this:

Sen. Joel Lourie tells ‪#scgov @NikkiHaley to “stay off Facebook.” He was referring to this post: http://on.fb.me/Q4QnOg

So I followed the link, to where the gov posted,

veto of SC Coalition of Domestic Violence $453,680. Special interests made their way into the DHEC budget. This is not about the merit of their fights but the back door way of getting the money. It’s wrong and another loophole for legislators and special interests to use. Defeated 111-0

Hey, if this is the kind of response she’s going to get, the governor should spend more time on Facebook, not less:

  • Nick Danger Dunn Loopholes for special interests are only okay when they’re being used by people who have donated enough to your campaign, or who share your similar “interests” of furthering your political power and mutual backscratching. Right? Right? Otherwise they are unacceptable and wrong.

    Tuesday at 11:30pm ·  ·  16
  • Kim Ponce Obviously you are clueless as to how sexual violence impacts adults and children in South Carolina. DHEC has a long history of providing much needed funding for these services, many of which insurance companies will not pay for. What if it was your child, your sister, your mother needing a change of clothes at the ER, a child sensitive medical exam or interview, counseling?

    Tuesday at 11:32pm via mobile ·  ·  16
  • Xiomara A. Sosa again, with all due respect, this is not a “special interest” issues. This is a health and human services issue. please doo not muddy the water with such political jargon that is only divisive and pointless. Respectfully, Xiomara A. Sosa

    Tuesday at 11:32pm ·  ·  15
  • Marnie Schwartz-Hanley Does that mean the agencies will get the money to help us so that we are not 8th in the nation for criminal domestic violence?

    Tuesday at 11:35pm ·  ·  8
  • Alyssa Daniel As a 20 year victim of domestic violence, you should be ashamed

    Tuesday at 11:36pm via mobile ·  ·  16
  • Angie Wilson Rogers Maybe now YOU can stop being a distraction to SC voters, One-Term Haley?

    Tuesday at 11:37pm ·  ·  13
  • Grace Ammons The people have won. But I still cannot concieve of how this woman became our Governor!

    Tuesday at 11:40pm ·  ·  13
  • Dawn Ridge We’re 7th in the Nation and climbing, but GOD forbid we have money to support Victim’s Rights!!!!! Just make sure those inmates are watching cable tv and having 3 hot meals a day!!!!! This is complete and utter BS!!!!!!

    Tuesday at 11:43pm ·  ·  9

… and many more…

Of course, the comment thread is liberally sprinkled with the kind of “You go, girl!” responses Nikki expects. But it’s far from the unadulterated stream of fawning adulation that caused her to retreat to Facebook as her favored means of communicating with the world to begin with.

Are some of those responses a little on the emotional side, and lacking in calm discernment? Yep. But so are the kind of responses that Nikki goes to Facebook seeking. You can get calm and detached on an editorial page, but our governor scorns that. This is her medium.

I just hope she reads them all.

SC DOT: One example of how SC constantly underfunds basic functions of government

This post should be seen as the background to this little drama over the governor’s vetoes, to provide some perspective. What seems to have been missing on most, but not all, of Nikki Haley’s vetoes has been a clear explanation of what she would spend the money on instead.

Her ideology prevents her from setting out powerful arguments for alternative spending plans, because she, like the governor before her, lives in a fantasy land in which the government of South Carolina simply spends too much in the aggregate. That South Carolina bears no resemblance to the one in this universe.

The truth is that South Carolina appropriates far too little for some of the most fundamental functions for which we rightly look to the public sector. And the deficit between what we spend on those functions and what we should in order to have the quality of service other states take for granted is sometimes quite vast, involving sums that dwarf the amounts involved in these vetoes that you hear so much fuss about.

What is needed is a fundamental reassessment of what state government does and what it needs to do, to be followed by the drafting of a completely new system of taxation to pay for those things. Our elected officials never come close to undertaking these admittedly Herculean tasks. But they should. The way we fund state government needs a complete overhaul, and spending time arguing about, say, the “Darlington Watershed Project” doesn’t get us there.

This is something I’ve long understood, and often tried to communicate. I was reminded of it again at the Columbia Rotary Club meeting on Monday.

Our speaker was SC Secretary of Transportation Robert C. St. Onge Jr. He’s a former Army major general, having retired in 2003 — until Nikki Haley asked him to take on DOT in January 2011. Some of his friends congratulated him at the time. Those were the naive ones. The savvy would have offered condolences.

Normally, public speakers like to inspire with phrases such as “From Good to Great.” Sec. St. Onge’s talk was far more down-to-Earth, far more realistic. He entitled it “Getting to Good.” And once he laid out what it would take for SC to get to “good enough” — to get all of the roads we have NOW up to snuff, much less building any roads we don’t have but may need for our economy to grow — it was obvious that we aren’t likely to get there any time soon.

The secretary started out with some background on how we have the fourth-largest state-maintained highway system in the country, after Texas, North Carolina and Virginia. He didn’t have time to explain why that is, but I will: It’s because until 1975, county government did not exist in South Carolina. Local needs were seen to by the county legislative delegation, one of the more stunning examples of how our Legislature has appropriated to itself functions that are not properly those of a state legislature. When we got Home Rule, supposedly, in 1975 and county councils were formed, many functions that had been done on the state level stayed there. So it is that roads that would have been maintained by county road departments in other states are handled by the state here. It’s not that we have more roads, you see — it’s that more of them are the state’s responsibility.

He also noted how woefully underfunded our system is. Georgia, for instance, has less road surface to maintain, but twice the funding to get the job done — and three times as many employees per mile. He alluded to why that is, and I’ll explain: We have the most penny-pinching state government I’ve ever seen, with lawmakers who (contrary to the fantasies you hear from the likes of Mark Sanford and Nikki Haley) would rather be tortured than raise adequate money to fund a decent state government. OK, so the retired general didn’t explain it that way. He just mentioned the fact that we haven’t raised the inadequate gasoline tax that funds his department since 1987 (the year I arrived back in SC to work at The State). Add to that the fact that the tax is levied per gallon rather than per dollar spent, and you have a recipe for a crumbling road system.

Here’s the secretary’s full PowerPoint presentation if you want to look at it. If you don’t, at least look these representative slides, which sketch out the basic challenges…

Above compares us to neighboring states. Note that only North Carolina has our bizarre problem owning responsibility for most of the roads.

This is a breakdown of the categories of roads SC maintains at the state level. Note that almost half are secondary roads for which the state gets no federal funds. This is where the state is squeezed the hardest.

Above is what it would take to get just the interstates in SC up to “good” condition, and keep them there.

This is what it would cost to fix up and maintain all those secondary roads, which make up most of the state’s responsibility.

This is the most important slide. This is what South Carolina needs to spend, and has no plans to spend, to get the roads it has NOW up to good condition, and maintain them in that condition.

Gov. Haley could arguably justify ALL of her vetoes by saying, “We need to put it all into our crumbling roads.” Then, after she had eviscerated all of those agencies as being less important than our basic infrastructure, she would have to turn around and call for a significant increase in the state gasoline tax, to come up with the rest of what is needed.

But our elected state leaders never go there. They either don’t understand this state’s basic needs, or aren’t honest enough to level with us about them. They’d rather truckle to populist, unfocused, unthinking resentment of taxes, and government in general, than be responsible stewards of our state’s basic resources.

That’s the money picture. Beyond that, here are some small things that in the aggregate add up to a big problem. If our governor won’t take on fully funding our state roads system, maybe she could work with the Legislature to get rid of some of the worst white elephants that DOT is saddled with:

This is a parking lot in Fairfield County that DOT is required to maintain. Sec. St. Onge would like to get rid of it, but can’t.

Ignore the dirt road, and look at the cemetery that DOT is required to maintain in Saluda County. Sec. St. Onge would like to get rid of that, too, but he can’t.

Here’s a road leading to a church in Florence County, which DOT is also required to maintain. The church is the only thing that the road leads to. Sec. St. Onge would like to give it to the church, and the church’s pastor would like to have it. But guess what? They can’t make it happen.

So… I’ve given you examples here from but ONE agency illustrating how we tolerate the intolerable, and refuse to fund the necessary, in our state government. THIS is the sort of thing we should be discussing, instead of having unnecessary culture wars over the Arts Commission.

A couple of last thoughts: Before any of you who think like Nikki Haley’s base start trying to dismiss all this by quibbling about what “good” means, or going on a rant about how these government bureaucrats just always exaggerate the need for funds in order to pad their fiefdoms, consider the following:

  1. This is Nikki Haley’s chosen guy to run DOT, not some “career bureaucrat” she inherited.
  2. This is a retired general officer — a guy with a very comfortable, generous retirement package — who did not have to take this job, and does not need it to improve his lot or to define himself. He’s about as objective and practical a source you can find for leveling with you about such things as this.

Adam Beam’s Tweets about veto votes in House

Young Adam Beam is doing a very conscientious job covering the House as it runs through the governor’s vetoes. Here are some of his key Tweets thus far (sorry that this looks junky; I haven’t had time to clean it up):

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Voting now on Arts Commission. Overwhelming to override ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Vote was 110 to 5 to override Arts Commission veto. Voting “no”: Frye, Chumley, Nanney, Norman, Southard. # sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Arts Commission veto now heads to the state Senate. ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Veto No. 2 is EPSCOR funding — basically research money for universities. Vote is close.

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

EPSCOR veto (No. 2) is sustained, 70-45. Score: Haley 1, House 1.

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

House is leaving open option to reconsider veto No. 2. Could come back to it.

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Veto No. 3 overridden, 110-10. Sea Grant Consortium survives until at least tomorrow ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Four and five overridden. Next up: Certificate of Need program, the process that determines if a hospital can expand or open a new hospital

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Certificate of Need veto overridden. Next up: $10 million in one time money for teacher salaries. ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Looks like only “no” vote on teacher pay raises will be Rep. Ralph Norman, R-York ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Yep. Vote was 113-1 for teacher salaries. ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Veto No. 8: Governor’s School for Science and Math. Background:http://bit.ly/OOr4d2 ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Gov. School veto overridden 109-3

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Veto 9 is $1 million in deferred maintenance at the Dept of Mental Health. They got a huge increase this year, so House votes to sustain

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

House voting now on funding for a committee started in the Senate. Rep. White asks to send it to Senate, let them decide. ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

But the House doesn’t listen to him, votes 58-53 to sustain the veto.‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Next is $783K for Education Oversight Committee. Governor says she likes EOC, but doesn’t like how it is funded.

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

House overrides EOC veto, 80-34

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Next: $2.8 million for IT dept at Judicial Dept. Background: http://bit.ly/LHScPR ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

During votes, House members passionately discuss SEC media day — particularly anything Spurrier says ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

House overrides judicial veto, 108-6 ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

So far, House has only sustained one veto that has money attached to it: $300,000 for the Committee on Children ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

Wait, I was wrong. They sustained the $1 million in deferred maintenance for the Dept. of Mental Health ‪#sctweets

Adam Beam ‏@adambeam

House has sustained 8 vetoes so far. Overridden 10. ‪#sctweets

Follow his Twitter feed at @adambeam. To find out how your legislator voted on vetoes, Adam says to go here — but that must be for later, because I haven’t seen the info show up there yet.

Silly me, for thinking DeMint cared what I thought

Couldn’t help responding to Jim DeMint today when he Tweeted,

My response was in two parts. First, I answered his question: Yes!

I had read with interest the top story in The Wall Street Journal this morning, which said that the long logjam on national legislation to require online businesses to pay sales taxes just like their bricks-and-mortar competitors may finally have broken:

Republican governors, eager for new revenue to ease budget strains, are dropping their longtime opposition to imposing sales taxes on online purchases, a significant political shift that could soon bring an end to tax-free sales on the Internet.

Conservative governors, joining their Democratic counterparts, have been making deals with online retail giant Amazon.com AMZN -1.09% to collect state sales taxes. The movement picked up an important ally when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie—widely mentioned as a potential vice-presidential candidate—recently reached an agreement under which Amazon would collect sales taxes on his state’s online purchases in exchange for locating distribution facilities there.

Mr. Christie called taxation of online sales “an important issue to all the nation’s governors” and endorsed federal legislation giving all states taxing authority.

This should lead to quick resolution, in a rational universe, since Amazon has said they support a national solution. And that’s very good news for states like South Carolina, which have unwisely shifted so much of their tax burdens to sales taxes just as conventional, “analog” store sales have been drying up.

I was particularly interested because the change that had come about was that Republican governors, such as Chris Christie, saw the need to do something about the fact that their states’ coffers had been depleted by the shift of our economy to online shopping.

It caused me to wonder what it would be like to have a real conservative Republican governor, rather than a darling of the Tea Party or the Club for Growth, one who — like any real conservative — believes in responsible governance, one who sees his or her role as a steward of the state’s public sector.

And then I remembered, that I did experience that, for years, when Lamar Alexander was governor in Tennessee. And so it is fitting that Lamar is the senator pushing this legislation:

Seizing on the recent political shift, Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and co-sponsors from both parties are attempting to speed up action on a bill they wrote to give states authority to compel online companies to collect sales taxes.

One of the co-sponsors, Sen. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.,) said, “It gets down to a basic issue…of simple fairness for small businesses that create jobs and opportunities all across America. And with the sales taxes they collect, they provide for local police and firemen, for the sewers and streets.”…

Oh, but wait… as soon as I said, Yes!, I realized that Sen. DeMint’s question was purely rhetorical, meant only to set up his announcement that he’s leaping into the fray to fight against common sense.

You can always rely on Jim DeMint. Unfortunately.

Silly me, for thinking Jim DeMint cared what I thought.

What, Me Worry about what YOU think?/File photo from an editorial board meeting in 2007.

Just once, it would be nice to be able to respect one of this governor’s vetoes

2008 file photo

Cases could probably be made for some of Nikki Haley’s vetoes, but she doesn’t offer them. With each news story I read about yet another veto, I wait for her argument — and it never comes.

For instance, here’s what was offered instead of an actual reason for vetoing the Governor’s Schools:

“All of these are good things, but if we’re going to lead and take South Carolina to a new place, we’ve got to take the emotion out of it,” she said Thursday. “How can we handle these things smarter? To do that sometimes hurts, and to do that sometimes means we wait but we make good decisions in the end.”

You almost get the feeling that she pulled those words out of a dictionary at random. Take emotion out of it? What emotion? “Handle these things smarter?” OK, in what way? Just give us one of your smarter ideas. That would be helpful. Give us just one example of what a “good decision” might look like, by your lights. If you can.

But it increasingly appears that she can’t. These vetoes aren’t intended for analysis; they’re intended to appeal to gut impulses within her base. She vetoes the Arts Commission because it’s the closest she can get to slapping at the National Endowment for the Arts, which Robert Mapplethorpe put on the map as a favorite whipping boy of the right. (Yes, I know that doesn’t make sense, but with the Snake Flag crowd, things don’t have to make logical sense.)

She vetoes the Governor’s Schools because, I don’t know: Maybe some of those kids will grow up to be supporters of the Arts Commission. Maybe she figures none of her most ardent supporters have kids who go to the Governor’s Schools. Maybe she’s right.

(Disclosure: Two of my children attended the governor’s schools — one the one for science and math, the other the one for arts and humanities — but neither chose to stay there until graduation.)

I’d feel better about it if she would explain precisely what she wanted to do with the money instead, and why. I might argue with it, but I could respect her more.

As it is, I’m just sick and tired of hearing about her little gestures of pointless destruction. I’ve never been a fan of nihilism.

Graham, et al., warn against Defense cuts

The video above contains most of what Lindsey Graham had to say yesterday at the press conference at which he, Joe Wilson, Steve Benjamin, Bobby Harrell and Rich Eckstrom all decried the looming “sequestration” of the defense budget.

I didn’t get the video up and running at the start of Graham’s remarks, so here are some excerpts from what he said before that:

  • “As a Republican, I was very disappointed that my party leadership would put the Defense Department in such a bad spot.”
  • “If politicians can’t come up with a way to reduce spending in a responsible manner, fire us; don’t fire the soldiers. It’s the one thing that seems to be working at the federal level is the military. So we’ve come up with this hare-brained idea that if we can’t do our job, the penalty to be paid is by those who’ve been doing their job very well. I don’t know if you can print this, but I’ll say it: That’s ass-backwards.”
  • “What does it mean to cut a trillion dollars out of the Defense Department budget over the next decade? [the sequestration plus $400 billion in cuts being sought outside that] It means you have the smallest Army since 1940, the smallest Navy since 1915 — 231 ships — the smallest Air Force in history.”

After that, it’s pretty much all on the video. Sorry about the crudity of the clip — I was unable to edit it because I shot it on my iPhone, and don’t have software for editing that on my PC.

Bottom line, the message was that the nation shouldn’t dramatically weaken our defense just because members of Congress couldn’t do their job. Half of the $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts, resulting from the failure of last year’s supercommittee (which was a mere microcosm of the overall failure of Congress), are set to come from the Defense budget — $600 billion. And they would not be targeted — no eliminating $300 hammers and preserving pay for soldiers. “These are blind, across-the-board cuts.”

He kept hitting the point that one part of the government that’s doing its job — the military — shouldn’t get eviscerated because Congress isn’t doing its job at all.

Perhaps fitting given the setting and the presence of Mayor Benjamin, Graham’s tone was decidedly nonpartisan. For instance, he challenged Mitt Romney to put forward a plan for achieving the cuts without hollowing out the military.

I’ve got video of the other speakers as well, and can provide on request. But they said much the same things he said. His presentation was just more complete.

A conservative celebrates “growing government” — in the judicial branch

Our regular contributor Bryan Caskey celebrates the Senate’s passage of legislation expanding the state judiciary:

Six More Family Court Judges On the Way

Normally, I view additional government spending with a healthy dose of skepticism. However, even as someone who extols the virtues of fiscal restraint, I can absolutely say that we need more judges here in South Carolina.

Finally, the State Legislature has realized that South Carolina needs more judges to help manage the rising caseload here in the Palmetto State. Today, the SC Senate passed a bill approving the creation of six new family court judges and three new circuit court judges; nine in total.

This has been long overdue. South Carolina has the fewest number of judges per population and more than twice the national average of case filings per judge. Each year, Justice Toal tells the legislature these facts in her State of the Judiciary Report.
As a practicing lawyer here in South Carolina, I can tell you that wait times for hearings are longer than they need to be. I do a fair amount of family court work, and I do it throughout the state. Some counties run a tight ship, and others are an absolute nightmare.
In a certain county, in family court, just to get a hearing scheduled, not heard, can take up to six months. That’s insane. I know the wheels of justice are slow, but six months to get a hearing scheduled means the wheels of justice have fallen off. If you want to get the dockets moving, you have to have more people available to get the cases disposed of. Alternative dispute resolution (mediation) has taken some pressure off the court, but you cannot force people to agree. Sometimes, especially in family court, you have to have an adjudication…

I give him joy of those new judges. They were needed. It’s good to see at least one of the neglected areas of state governmental responsibility get at least some of the resources it needs.

Och! Wee bairns to be forced to work to 77

Admittedly, I’m mostly posting this for the opportunity to say “wee bairns” — which Walter Russell Mead beat me to, over on Twitter.

But I thought it interesting to put a bit more of a face on “austerity,” the concept that’s getting such a workout over across the pond:

Pension Crisis in Scotland?

U.S. states aren’t the only places facing pension crises at the moment: Underfunded and unsustainable pensions are wreaking havoc in Europe too. The Scotsman, in particular, is up in arms over new rules tying retirement to life expectancy; the paper describes the future under the rule changes as “a grim picture of aged toil.”

The gradual ratcheting up of life expectancy means that future retirees in the UK may be forced to continue working well into their seventies. And within the next decade, retirement age will rise from 65 today to 67. These changes will become more drastic as time goes on. Today’s toddlers may work until they turn 77, and their children are projected to work until they are 85.

The Scotsman (and others) shouldn’t forget the rather shiny silver lining to this supposedly ominous forecast: People may be forced to work longer, but that’s only because they are living longer too, and the new pension plan guarantees 20 years of coverage. Today’s youth may have to work until they are 77, but they can also expect to reach the ripe old age of 97 on average…

I’m with Mr. Mead. As austerity measures go, this one makes perfect sense. We should be be thinking more along those lines in this country.

Yeah, 77 is well up there. But it’s hardly the “grim picture” that the Scotsman would have it.

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.

Godspeed, John Glenn! Trying to remember the time when we KNEW that we could do ANYthing

Time now flies to the point that it’s achieved escape velocity.

Today, it is 50 years since my 3rd-grade class was herded into the auditorium to watch John Glenn take off in Friendship 7 to orbit the Earth.

And look how far we’ve come… today, Glenn marks the anniversary by chatting with American astronauts who are … visiting our moon colony? landing on Mars? pushing to the outer edges of the solar system?… no, merely orbiting the Earth in a space station. And not a cool, elegantly-revolving-wheel space station like in “2001: A Space Odyssey,” but something that looks like a cross between a bunch of tin cans fitted together and the kind of  TV antenna we used to have affixed to our houses in 1962.

So, in other words, we haven’t come very far at all. In fact, looking at our sad, tentative little foothold in space, we haven’t moved at all. In fact, we’ve regressed.

Sure, it was primitive to seal an astronaut into that little nonaerodynamic capsule like “Spam in a can” and throw it into space, but today we don’t even have a functioning capsule. The United States doesn’t have a single spacecraft of any kind in service. Remember the terrible Russkies whom we feared dropping atom bombs on us from Sputnik like rocks from a highway overpass? We have to hitch rides with them now.

When Glenn made his flight, anything and everything seemed possible — and because it seemed so, it was so. We were going to the moon, even though many technical barriers remained to doing so. We weren’t entirely sure when we started that it could be done, but we were going to do it. And we did. And then we pulled back to Glenn-like riding around the block. And then we even quit doing that.

No one could possibly have predicted, 50 years ago, that we would be so earthbound now. It was impossible to conceive. Back then, Robert Heinlein assumed we would have made two expeditions to Mars by the end of the century (even with a third World War delaying us), and that was totally doable. Of course we would! If we could go to the moon in a decade, surely we could make it to Mars in four!

But today, people make fun of Newt Gingrich for even talking about it. And between the left and its preference for social programs and the right with its not wanting government to do anything, it’s hard even to remember a time when we knew, for a fact, that we could do it all. And did it.

Now, we’re all about what we can’t do, or don’t want to do, which amounts to much the same thing.

It’s just not as exciting to be an earthling now as it was that day 50 years ago.

Must be nice to have millions to throw away

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…

Just in case you weren’t quite totally fed up with Congress yet

The Washington Post has done an analysis of congressional earmarks, and found the following:

Thirty-three members of Congress have steered more than $300 million in earmarks and other spending provisions to dozens of public projects that are next to or near the lawmakers’ own property, according to a Washington Post investigation. Under the ethics rules Congress has written for itself, this is both legal and undisclosed.

In the first review of its kind, The Post analyzed public records on the holdings of all 535 members and compared them with earmarks members had sought for pet projects, most of them since 2008. The process uncovered appropriations for work in close proximity to commercial and residential real estate owned by the lawmakers or their family members. The review also found 16 lawmakers who sent tax dollars to companies, colleges or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards.

None of the 33 were from South Carolina, although when you first look at the map, it appears that there is a mug shot looming over our state. But it’s just some guy named Jack Kingston from Georgia.

Not that the Post claims to have caught all the potential conflicts. It invites readers to help:

What do you know?

Help us disclose the undisclosed.

Do you have any specific information about earmarks in which current members of Congress may have had a personal financial interest? Or do you have any tips on undisclosed financial conflicts that could help us create a more complete financial portrait of Congress?

Please submit your info in the box below; all replies will be handled with confidentiality.

Now that I’ve reported this, what do I think about it? I think… I’m still ambivalent about earmarks. I can occasionally get stirred up about them. Unlike members of Congress, I’d prefer that with rare exceptions, projects be prioritized by disinterested bureaucrats, based on criteria that are as objective as possible. But it also seems within the legitimate constitutional purview of Congress to direct spending as specifically as it likes, and sometimes a specific local project actually does have national importance. Charleston harbor, for instance. The Hoover Dam.

As for the cases reported here… well, they get into that fuzzy area that I’ve always had a problem with. The area where “ethics” is defined in terms of appearances, rather than right or wrong.

It occurs to me that, since members of Congress are certainly most likely to advocate projects in their own districts — something that is not inherently wrong, even though it has enormous potential for skewing national priorities — that a certain percentage of such projects will be “near” their own property. What percentage? Well…

If 33 have been caught doing so (and as I said, there are likely to be more), that means just over 6 percent of the 535 members of Congress may have considered self-interest in seeking these earmarks. I say “may” because this is very fuzzy territory. I expect that some element of venality entered the decision-making processes of some of these members. But all, or even most, of the accused 6 percent? I don’t know, but I doubt it.

Take that Jack Kingston guy. He sought beach renourishment money, and he owns a beach house about 900 feet from the beach. Set aside whether you think federal money should be spent pumping sand onto beaches. Is it unusual for members of Congress to help local officials get financing for such projects, whether they own beach property or not? No, it isn’t.

And that brings us to the problem of earmarks overall. Most of the time, it’s a highly flawed way to set spending priorities. But do I think this story is a major “gotcha” on Congress? No. But it will play that way. What’s Congress approval rating down to now? 13 percent? It may go a fractional bit lower, as a result of this story.

Not that it should. 84 percent disapproval seems like enough calumny heaped about these elected heads.

Mr. Speaker, that’s not tax reform. That’s legislative business as usual in South Carolina…

SC House Speaker Bobby Harrell addresses the Columbia Rotary Club Monday. At far left is Joel Sawyer, who introduced him. It struck me as ironic for Mark Sanford's former press secretary to introduce the former governor's nemesis.

Trying to remember how long I’ve been pushing for comprehensive tax reform in South Carolina. It’s at least two decades. Maybe a year or two past that.

The eerie thing about it is that almost every politician I’ve talked to during that period, especially those running for office, have earnestly assured me that they’re all for it. But somehow, it never happens.

Many, many committees and blue-ribbon panels have been set to coming up with a plan that will be rational, equitable, and adequate to meeting the state’s revenue needs. And all have either wandered off into a swamp somewhere, never to be heard from, or have filed plans that have promptly been dumped in the trash. And whenever enough of a hue and cry arises — such as the one from business leaders over the execrable Act 388 — lawmakers have sworn to deal with it, and appointed another panel to study the matter yet again, etc.

Speaker Bobby Harrell has apparently decided to end the farce by abandoning the concept of comprehensive tax reform altogether.

That’s the gist of what he told us at Rotary yesterday.

He said that when you try to get rid of all the irrational bits of our tax code — such as the $300 ceiling on the automobile sales tax, or the tangle of other exemptions that lead us to exempt more in sales tax than is actually paid — then everybody comes out of the woodwork and opposes you, and you fail.

So he proposes to pass bits and pieces of reform. On the grounds that that’s doable.

Which means, in South Carolina, business as usual. Because that’s what our lawmakers always do — pass a new law affecting some small piece (or for that matter, large piece) of our overall tax system, with little regard for how it affects other parts. So we get, for instance, multiple “reforms” that essentially remove the burden of supporting public school operations entirely from the backs of homeowners (that is to say, on the home that they live in), which means that businesses — including owners of rental property — are forced to pay much more in property taxes to make up the difference.

At least on the most recent such massive shift, some of the burden was put on the sales tax — which is now too high, really, especially considering that we don’t tax everything, or even close to everything, meaning that the things we do tax are taxes disproportionately. Which is not fair; nor is it a sustainable way to finance government.

So here’s what’s going to happen, based on knowing the guys who have been running the General Assembly (and especially the House) since I’ve been watching them (and no, Doug, term limits are not the answer, because if anything newer members have a greater propensity to do this, in my experience — largely because of their greater ignorance of the effects of what they do)…

We’ll see bills to cut more taxes, narrowly defined aimed at whichever categories of taxpayers are hollering the loudest at a given moment. And most likely, nothing will be done elsewhere in the tax code to offset that hole in the general fund. Or if something is done, it won’t be sustainable, and/or will create a new injustice that will later be addressed by more piecemeal “reform.”

What should happen instead? The following:

  1. Lawmakers should figure out, from scratch, what state government needs to do (build roads, run schools, enforce laws, keep air and water clean, etc.).
  2. They should then determine what it will cost to do those things.
  3. They should devise a tax system for raising that amount that is rational, fair, and sustainable. One that places no more restriction on economic activity than absolutely necessary, with the burden spread as widely as possible, and yet raises the needed amount reliably, with a minimum of peaks and valleys.

That’s what should happen. It is lawmakers’ duty to make those things happen. Because snipping here and putting on a patch there has never worked.

How many times have I written that now? I don’t know. Lots and lots…

Ghosts of SOTU speeches past

An outfit called Bankrupting America sent out this video last night before the State of the Union address. I didn’t get around to seeing it until today. As the release promises, “The video highlights 3 decades of State of the Union presidential promises on fiscal discipline.”

There’s also a fact sheet that goes with it.

I find being part of a long, ongoing tradition to be very reassuring, don’t you? See, it doesn’t matter whether they’re Democrats or Republicans — presidents are all pretty much alike. People don’t change. Makes us feel… solid,  grounded.

I would say, though, that one of those presidents actually did something about it: Bill Clinton. The video doesn’t mention that. But the fact sheet dismisses it this way: “Despite two years of on-budget surpluses, deficit spending in other years added to the debt.”

Oh, the video also assumes that the only way to reduce the deficit, and the debt, is by reducing spending. Raising taxes, and simply growing the economy to increase revenues, are not considered. In case you didn’t notice that.

Arts advocates gearing up to fight again

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 ChipLimehouse@schouse.gov

Rep. Joe Neal (Richland, Sumter) 803-734-2804 JoeNeal@schouse.gov

Rep. B.R. Skelton (Pickens) 803-734-3036 BRSkelton@schouse.gov

Rep. Garry Smith (Greenville) 803-734-3141 GarrySmith@schouse.gov

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.

The legislative agenda? Same as it ever was

My ex-colleagues at The State did their annual laundry list of what the SC General Assembly should do in the session that convenes tomorrow, and as Cindi Scoppe acknowledged in her accompanying column, there wasn’t much new to see:

IF THE HEADLINE on today’s editorial provokes in you a sense of deja vu, that’s because it’s the same one we used last year to greet the annual return of the General Assembly. And it’s no different in substance from the year before that. In fact, the need to overhaul our tax code and spending policies and restructure our government have been among the top five issues confronting the Legislature for as far back as I can recall.

I’m not particularly fond of writing the same editorials year after year, but what choice is there? Our overarching problems are unchanged because the Legislature keeps tinkering around the edges or, worse, fixating on red-meat issues that satiate cable-news-engorged constituents but do nothing to nurture a state starved for a government that actually works. A government that provides the services that our state needs, in at least a moderately efficient way, and that pays for those services through a tax system that does not unnecessarily burden our citizens or undermine our values or give special favors to favored constituencies.

Yep, our state’s needs don’t change much from year to year. And neither do our lawmakers’ penchant for ignoring those needs.

If you’ll recall, my very last column at The State (“South Carolina’s Unfinished Business,” March 22, 2009) pretty much covered the same ground. That was almost three years ago. And after all that time, I would only need to reword one short passage:

Raise our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax by a dollar, bringing us (almost) to the national average, and saving thousands of young lives.

Actually, you wouldn’t even have to reword it — you would just have to add a parenthetical acknowledging that our state has taken a tiny baby step in that direction. Other than that, the column could pretty much run as-is.

Little wonder that I don’t get too excited with the new session rolls around each year…

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

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.

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

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.