Category Archives: South Carolina

SGM gets it — so does this Unpartisan

Respondent SGM had such a pertinent question, expressed so well, on my last post that I feel compelled to highlight a large part of his comment — and then answer it gladly — in this separate item.

Here’s an excerpt from what he wrote:

Since you bring up the Karen Floyd race for Superintendent of
Education, what a fine example of just how fragmented and weak our
state’s executive branch is. (It seems like the same principle is also
applied to the structure of most local mayors’ offices.)
It almost seems like the state constitution was written explicitly
to make the executive branch as diluted and powerless as possible.
Oh, wait a minute, I get it now, it was deliberate…
OK. So does your UnParty have a platform position on this issue?
Seems to me that it would be in the interest of all (except the
state legislature) to have a stronger, unified governor’s office.
From a political point of view, it would make the race for governor
actually mean something and allow both parties to run broader, more
intense campaigns. They could actually offer platforms that were
comprehensive and had actual chances of getting things done their way.
Seems like the big party machines would look at this as an economy
of scale issue. Instead of spending campaign money and resources spread
out over several candidates with diverse issues and constituencies,
they could consolidate their efforts into a single race which might
engage more of the electorate.
From the voters point of view, it would go a long way to giving us
some real accountability. We might get some representation that would
have actual authority to get things done and that we could hold
responsible if it’s not effective.
As it stands now, nobody can be held responsible because they can
all point their fingers at other offices and claim that the authority
to take action has been withheld from them.

Amen, SGM! And yes! Maybe I can’t speak for the whole Unparty, but this Unpartisan could not agree more with your assessment of what is wrong with S.C. government. I spent the whole year of 1991 on a special project documenting exactly the problems of fragmentation that you outline. That series helped lead to the partial restructuring of the executive branch in 1993 — a reform that went a lot farther than many expected the Legislature to go, but not nearly far enough. Last year (trying once again to get some reform rolling in the Legislature), we ran a mini-series of editorials updating that project, which was on line, but disappeared. As we revamp our online editorial presence, I intend to restore those pieces.

Until then, here are some pieces that serve as a sort of primer on the issue, starting with a very few of the more than 100 articles in the original 1991 series:

Main kickoff piece — 5/5/91
Legislative state history — 5/5/91
Single-member districts — 5/12/91
Weak governor — 5/19/91
Choosing magistrates — 5/26/91
Highway department — 6/16/91

From our 2005 recap:

Overview editorial from 1/16/2005
Overview column by me from 1/16/2005
Too many state agencies — 1/19/2005
The long ballot — 1/26/2005
School control too fragmented — 1/30/2005
Local government hamstrung — 2/6/2005

And for a big finish, here’s the whole text of a column I wrote for 2/6/2005 as part of that recap series:

THE STATE
SHARDS OF POWER
Published on: 02/06/2005
Section: EDITORIAL
Edition: FINAL
Page: D2
BY BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
YOU WANT the bumper-sticker version of what’s wrong with government in South Carolina?
Fragmentation.
At every level and in almost every area, government is chopped up into so many little shards that power is never sufficiently concentrated to allow any of those mini-governments to get much done. This so confuses and dissolves the lines of political accountability that voters seldom have any way of really knowing whom to blame for failure.
At the state level, we have at least 85 agencies, many with overlapping responsibilities. A few are part of the governor’s Cabinet, but that’s only about a third of the government as measured by spending. Most of the rest are run by boards and commissions made up mostly of people you and I did not elect. A few are even run by people who are elected separately from the governor, and therefore have no political or legal mandate to cooperate with the governor or any other part of state government.
Last week, opponents of fixing that last problem raised the usual specious argument that letting the governor appoint such specialized functionaries as the secretary of state and agriculture commissioner takes away the people’s right to choose their leaders. Try this: Go to the mall and ask the first 10 intelligent-looking adults you see to name the secretary of state and explain what he does. How many could do it? I thought so. Then ask them to name the governor. Now, whom do you suppose they’re going to be able to hold accountable when something goes wrong?
Fortunately, the House passed the measure. The bad news: It only lets the governor appoint two of the eight separately elected state agency heads. Worse, this is the most substantive move the Legislature plans to take toward restructuring this year. The other two bills that have a chance – one that theoretically puts the governor in charge of administrative functions and the other that claims to reduce fragmentation in health care and a few other areas – do even less.
The worst news: The Legislature isn’t even contemplating addressing the fragmentation of local government.
There are no plans to do anything about the 85 school districts – every one with its own expensive administrative structure – in our 46 counties. The same with the other 800 or so local governments (no one is really sure how many there are) that make it nearly impossible for voters to keep track of who is setting their property taxes.
So why do we have a system that seems to be designed not to get things done? That could be answered in a complicated way, but here’s the simple way: It was designed not to get things done. The basic organizing principles of government in South Carolina were established to serve the interests of the antebellum slaveholding elites. They wanted a system that resisted change, and that’s what they created. There have been changes over the years, but it’s basically the same structure we’ve always had.
In a column several weeks back, I quoted from the 1990 series of columns by USC professors Walter Edgar and Blease Graham that helped inspire the original Power Failure series. I didn’t have room for this gem:
"It makes no sense for the 130 residents of Pelzer to be subject to the taxing authority of six different governing bodies and service districts."
No, it doesn’t. And it makes no sense for the people of Richland and Lexington counties to be subject to more than 20. But that’s the way it is.
And nobody’s doing anything about it.

I’ve got plenty more where that came from if you want it.

I like John McCain anyway

14 Replies

Mccain1
This was on Dan Hoover‘s "occasional blog," as the colleague who brought it to my attention so truthfully characterized it.

Well, I don’t care; I like McCain anyway. I like him even though he’s appearing at a fund-raiser for Karen Floyd. Speaking of which, I’m really jealous that Karen buys ads on the SC Hotline, but not on my blog. Not that I’m offering to sell any (those ads you see have to do with thestate.com or some other contract; they’re not sold for my blog per se), but she’s not exactly beating down my door, either.

If y’all keep reading this site at the rate you have been (note: just two more comments and this one will be at 300; the previous record was 259), the politicos will be throwing money at me — which would beat what they usually throw at me.

Of course, I expect those numbers to drop once I get tough on commenters — and that self-imposed deadline to decide what to do along those lines is coming up Sunday. So maybe that will save me from going all commercial.

Back to the original subject, I have a question for Bob McAlister: Since when are you and Charlie on the same team?

Mccain2

Mayor Bob on smoking bans

40 Replies

Columbia Mayor Bob Coble had sent me four e-mails (all of which I just read, since I just got back from vacation) responding to our lead editorial of July 30, which essentially said we’d love to see smoking eliminated from local bars and restaurants, but we didn’t think state law would allow a municipality to take such action.

FYI I am attaching the Attorney General’s Opinion
that holds that the State
has preempted cities from banning smoking in public buildings. The opinion
says that because the State Clean Indoor Act is statewide, it preempts
local governments from a smoking ban by "implication." I think the legal
issue is unclear enough that it should be decided by the Court in
a declaratory judgment action. The Clean Indoor Air Act does not
address smoking bans by cities but regulates where smoking is prohibited. If
the State Legislature had specifically addressed smoking in restaurants
I would feel differently. Thanks

So the mayor is apparently forging ahead. Here’s a followup message:

FYI The Smoke Free
Columbia folks have sent me two ordinances. The first is a model ordinance (with
Columbia filled in) and the second is the ordinance that Sullivan’s Island
adopted (or is in the process). They are very similar. Thanks,
Bob

Well, I wish him luck, but it’s still our position that the Legislature intended to prevent localities from taking this common-sense step. Either way, state law needs to be changed. On this and other matters that naturally fit within the realm of local ordinance, the state should leave communities alone to decide their own rules, as expressed by the governments closest to the people.

Is Sanford a Galloway fan?

1 Reply

This has come to me from two sources — his bureau chief, and someone with his syndicate. It’s from Joe Galloway, the author of We Were Soldiers Once, And Young, who is now military correspondent for McClatchy out of Washington.

I have no idea whether it’s for real, or someone’s scamming Joe. Neither does Sanford press aide Joel Sawyer, although he doesn’t say anything to cast doubt on it. Nobody logs the governor’s personal notes. I suspect it’s real, but the governor’s out of pocket and we may not have an answer before tomorrow. But here’s what the Galloway missive said:

gents:
am in receipt of hand written note on stationery of South
Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford with a clipping of my column from The State
newspaper. Gov Sanford writes:

"Dear Mr. Galloway:
Your writing speaks
to me. Thanks for saying things in such straight forward
fashion.
Mark."

It was initially passed on to various editors by John Walcott, McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief.

I have no idea what, if anything to make of this, but I found it interesting because Galloway hasn’t been a fan of the current administration’s military policies, to put it mildly.

Mr. Walcott is — understandably, I suppose — under the impression that Mark Sanford is a garden-variety Republican. Actual Republicans who deal with him in South Carolina know better. The great irony here is that he will probably be re-elected because the vast majority of Republican voters in this state don’t know him any better than Mr. Walcott does.

Chalk up another one for the way partisan politics scrambles up everything in this country. Parties give everyone the false impression that the world, and issues, are far, far simpler than they are. This is very dangerous.

Oh, and for those of you who still harbor monolithic notions about "the media," I am not a fan of the current administration OR of Mr. Galloway’s work. As regular readers know, I believe in our nation’s mission in Iraq — probably more than Mr. Bush does, judging by his actions — and judging by what he writes, Mr. Galloway does not. Of course, I may have misread him.

I certainly respect the perspective from which Mr. Galloway writes. After all, someone has actually deemed it worth the money to send him to the war and write what he thinks, an opportunity I have never had (so in part, you should chalk up my lack of enchantment with his work product to envy) — probably because he has at least 40 years experience as a war correspondent, and I have zero.

And I definitely appreciate the fact that he obviously cares deeply about the troops, having shared their danger — especially in Vietnam. Did you see the Mel Gibson movie? Well, Joe Galloway was actually there, and lived it, as others died all around him. He was portrayed by Barry Pepper.

I truly stand in awe, and must say in all humility that perhaps I would see things as he does, given the same experiences. But as things stand, I don’t.

I do know Mark Sanford, though, and I look forward to hearing more about this …

Sanford vs. Moore

12 Replies

Allegations highlight main difference
between Sanford and Moore

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor

EVERYBODY likes Tom Davis. He’s open, sincere, hard-working and honest as the day is long. That makes him a good emissary for Gov. Mark Sanford.
As legislative liaison during the session, Tom (I can’t call such an approachable guy “Mr. Davis”) is the one bright, warm spot in the governor’s four-year Cold War with the General Assembly. Lawmakers may sometimes use him as a whipping boy because he’s handy and the governor isn’t (that’s him above standing at the back of the House above, watching lawmakers rip into the governor’s veto of the budget this year), but no one stays mad at Tom for long. He’s too nice a guy.
Sen. Tommy Moore calls Tom Davis a “hired gun.” Not by name. That’s just how he refers to the person responsible for a “white paper” released by the Sanford campaign that attacks his performance in the Senate.
Tom’s no hired gun; he wouldn’t wear the black hat in anybody’s Western. He’s the faithful sidekick. He has neglected his law practice in Beaufort — and, more importantly to him, his family — for the past four years to help his friend Mark Sanford.
But he is the guy going around and peddling a set of detailed allegations against Sen. Moore. (You can find a link to Cindi Scoppe’s column on the subject Friday, and to the entire “white paper,” on my blog.)
The allegations go back to 1988. Sen. Moore is accused of letting a bribery-tainted tax cut slip by him; of watering down ethics legislation after the Lost Trust scandals in the early ’90s; of continuing to hamper efforts to plug ethics loopholes since then; and of supporting a bill that would benefit a company that contributed to his campaigns and was proposing a development in his district. With supporting documents (mostly old news stories from The State and other papers), the handout runs to 45 pages.
And this is only the beginning. “This isn’t exhaustive,” Tom says. He plans additional “white papers” on the environment, education and possibly other issues.
Tom’s been working at this since the June 13 primary — poring through Lexis-Nexis, digging articles out of newspapers’ electronic archives. He seems to have enjoyed the change of pace after months of standing at the back of the House and Senate chambers and watching fellow Republicans roll right over his boss on issue after issue: “To me, it was like reading a very, very detailed historical novel.”
But why would a governor who is 30 points ahead in the polls (according to Tom) go to this kind of trouble to dig up such detailed allegations? Was it, as some speculated at first, a sign of how nervous Mr. Sanford was about a Jake Knotts candidacy that didn’t materialize? No, says Tom; polls showed Sen. Moore losing more votes to Sen. Knotts than the governor would have.
“Desperate people employ desperate tactics,” says Sen. Moore. “It sounds to me like some people have looked at some poll numbers” and that they weren’t as favorable as Tom lets on. He doesn’t know this, though, as he has yet to get out there with a baseline poll himself — a measure of how far behind he is in fund-raising. It reminds him of former Gov. Jim Hodges’ decision to attack challenger Sanford practically from the day after the primary four years ago. “I thought it was ill-conceived and unwise,” said Sen. Moore. “He must have the Hodges playbook.”
But Tom’s “white paper” is actually of great value to the voters, for one reason: It highlights the main difference between the two candidates.
“I don’t think he’s a bad man,” says Tom. “I don’t think he took bribes. I think it (the 1988 tax break) got in the budget because he didn’t read the budget.”
Note this from the first line of the release: “Sen. Moore’s legislative record shows that he was inattentive to details, easily misled and unconcerned about (providing) legislative due diligence in reviewing legislation….”
Time and time again, what you see and hear is this contrast:
Mark Sanford is a stickler for detail. In preparing his executive budget, he challenges every line in an excruciating process that lasts months. (“Every line,” complains Tom. “It’s hell for me.”) Then, when lawmakers pass a budget that he doesn’t like, he vetoes the entire thing rather than work with them to come up with something mutually acceptable. His six-year career in Congress was marked by an utter lack of achievement; he’s remembered for sleeping on a futon, and talking endlessly about Social Security reform that never materialized. He is admired for being uncompromising, even though that means he gets little done.
Tommy Moore (below, with long-time Senate Chaplain George Meetze) is respected as the “go-to” guy in the Senate. He is regularly appointed to conference committees because he is known for rescuing legislation by getting people of differing views to find something they can agree on and take action. As a result, his 28-year career in the Senate offers much to praise, and much to criticize. Of the 1991 Ethics Reform Act, he says, “You had a lot of people working together,” from the governor and other ardent reformers to lawmakers who didn’t want to pass anything. “You could have had everybody stand firm on their own positions, and then you would have gotten nothing done, and that would have been the absolute worst of all scenarios.”
To him it would, but not necessarily to Gov. Sanford. There’s the contrast. Tom’s whole point in his 45-page broadside is that “there are bad sides to being the insider who gets things done.”
But as Sen. Moore points out, there are good things as well.
Which do you prefer? You have to decide by November.

More on the subject.

Smoking column

62 Replies

Good news: We get to smoke for free.
Bad news: We have no choice

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor

WHY IS it called "secondhand smoke"? What’s "secondhand" about it? When I find myself gagging on it, and look around for the source, it’s always coming straight from the cigarette. The smoker’s not using the smoke first before sharing it with me. Most of the time, he’s not puffing on the thing at all. He’s just sitting there, letting the tendrils of carcinogenic particulates pollute the room. Smoking

Let’s give smokers this much credit – when they do take a pull on their coffin nails, they usually refrain from blowing it right in our faces.

So there’s nothing secondhand about it. Those of us who "don’t smoke" are getting the full, genuine, original article, fresh and straight off the rack. Face it, folks – we’re smoking. The good news is, were not even having to pay for it. The bad news is, we don’t have any say in the matter.

Now, the term "passive smoke" makes some sense. When you consider that most people are "nonsmokers," but all of them at some time or other have to breathe the stuff anyway, it becomes clear that most who smoke aren’t doing it on purpose.

Fortunately, the majority has in recent years become a lot less docile. As a result, fewer and fewer of us are forced to work long hours in smoke-saturated factories, stores and offices the way I was when I first came to work at this newspaper, a fact that cost me thousands in medical bills (even with insurance).

Notice how often I’m slipping into the first-person here. This makes me uncomfortable, which is why you’ve probably never read an entire column from me on the subject of smoking, even though it has been for many years my bane. I’m suspicious of other people who advocate things that would directly benefit them or some group they belong to, so I avoid it myself. When I wrote a column that dealt with my rather extreme food allergies, I spent much of the piece trying to rationalize my self-absorption.

But the subject of public smoking has been brought to the fore, and the time has come to speak out. There’s a new surgeon general’s report. The University of South Carolina has moved virtually to ban it. On the state and local levels, there are moves afoot to eliminate smoking from bars and restaurants – the last broad refuges of the gray haze.

It’s time to speak up. In fact, I wonder why the majority was so diffident for so long. I guess it was that classic American attitude, "Live and let others fill our air with deadly fumes." An anecdote:

A restaurant in Greenville. Our waiter came up and asked in a whisper whether we’d mind if a gentleman who smokes were seated next to us. You see, he explained, the petitioner was in a wheelchair, and that was the only table available that would be accessible to him. Granted, this was the nonsmoking section, but if we could accommodate him….

Uh, well, gee. A guy in a wheelchair. Poor fella. Its not like I can’t smell the smoke from across the room anyway ("nonsmoking areas" are a joke). I started thinking aloud: "I suppose… I mean… if there is no alternative… I’m allergic to it and all, but if you have to…."

At this point, the waiter began to back off, and said – with a tone of deferential reproach that must have taken him years to perfect – "Thats all right. I’ll just ask the other gentleman to wait for another table."

Gosh. I felt like a heel. I pictured a hungry, forlorn, Dickensian cripple, waiting for some kind soul to let him have a bit of nourishment. Tiny Tim grown up, being dealt another cruel blow by life. As the waiter started to back away from our table, I was about to relent… when suddenly, a rather obvious point hit me: "Or," I said, "he could just not smoke."

Why did he have to smoke if he sat in the section full of people who had specifically asked not to breathe smoke while dining? Easy answer: He didn’t. Nor did he need to spit, curse, pick his nose or break wind.

OK, I got off-message. Its about public health, not offensiveness. As the surgeon general reported, even brief exposure to tobacco smoke "has immediate adverse effects" on the body. (I knew that before, since smoke causes my bronchial tubes to start closing the instant they make contact. I’m lucky that way. I don’t have to wait 30 years to get sick.)

Smoke_pipe But you know what? Even if it were only a matter of being offensive, even if it were nothing more than putting a bad, hazy smell into the air, there would be no excuse for one person imposing it upon even one other person.

We’re not talking about one person’s interests being set against anothers. Its not in anybody’s interests for anybody to smoke – unless you make money off that human weakness.

Take that guy in Greenville. He was already in a wheelchair! Im supposed to waive the rules so that he can make himself sicker, and us with him? What madness.

It’s not even in the interests of many bars or restaurants – although, if nonsmoking establishments become the norm, I can foresee a time in which there would be a niche market for smoking dens.

And I’d prefer for the market to sort that out. I am no libertarian, yet even I hesitate to pass laws to ban smoking in public places. But the market has not addressed the matter to the extent you would expect. Why?

Richland County Councilman Joe McEachern says a restaurateur recently told him, "Joe, Ive got some great customers who are smoking; I cant personally put up a sign that says ’no smoking.’" But if there were a law, his business would benefit because the demand for clean-air dining is greater than he can meet now: "I can’t get enough room for nonsmoking."

OK, so if most people don’t smoke, and it’s to everybody’s benefit to clear the air, why can’t we work something out?

Maybe this is why: I still feel kind of bad about the guy in the wheelchair. But I shouldn’t.

Go give blood. NOW!

9 Replies

The South Carolina region of the American Red Cross is experiencing a severe blood shortage. That means we are all experiencing such a shortage.

Not giving enough blood to keep safe amounts on hand is par for the course around here. If anybody can explain why South Carolinians in the Midlands and Lowcountry (Greenville’s in a separate region) won’t chip in and give on a regular basis, I’d like to hear it. To me, it remains a mystery.

I know why I used to not give — I was scared. But I got over it, because I came to understand how bad the need was. And if I can get over it, you can. I’ve never been as afraid of anything as I was of giving blood. Just typing this paragraph mentioning giving blood would have made me feel faint. I’m still afraid every time I give, but I do it anyway. It’s good to face your fears.

People give in Iraq, and under considerably less comfortable conditions than we have at the local Red Cross (see above, in the Shiite slum of Sadr City in Baghdad). Why do they do that? Because they understand the need. Well, we have a need, too. We should respond to it. You can make an appointment online, or call 1-800-GIVELIFE or, in Columbia, 251-6138.

The Red Cross has extended its hours today, tomorrow and Friday in light of this emergency. Make an appointment and go. Or just go. I’m about to call them myself.

Runoff predictions, other info

23 Replies

Well, the polls have closed now in South Carolina, and if the weather back home has been anything like the way it’s been where I am, the turnout was probably pretty low today for runoffs.

So here is a recap of some of the info I provided on primary day, plus some new stuff, starting with … my runoff predictions (which you can compare to my predictions from a couple of weeks ago, if you’d like):

Treasurer: T-Rav. Duh.
Lieutenant governor: Mike Campbell. I don’t expect him to run away with it, though.
House District 96: Kit Spires. I don’t think Ken Clark can overcome the deficit from two weeks ago so quickly, not with turnout like this. If I were he I’d run as a write-in for the fall. He’s such a better representative than Mr. Spires could ever hope to be, and that is so obvious to anyone to whom he gets to present his case, that I cannot believe that any electorate would not choose him if he gets his message out well enough.
Richland County Council District 1: William Malinowski.
Lexington County Council District 7: This one is a tougher call, but I’m going to go with our endorsee John Carrigg over once-and-would-be-again councilman Art Guerry.

I think that’s all the ones we wrote about in the last couple of weeks. Let me know if I left somebody out.

Here are some more links you might find informative or conducive to dialogue as you contemplate returns:

More on Clark

1 Reply

Here’s some stuff that didn’t make it into my column. This originally came after the paragraph that ended with "believes ‘in compromise:’"

Mr. Clark does not. As a young Navy officer in the 1960s he wrote the
wrote the specs for, built and ran the computer system that ran the war
in Vietnam for Gen. William Westmoreland. Maybe we didn’t win that one,
but Mr. Clark’s machines saw to it that troops, ammunition, supplies and
intelligence got to where they were supposed to be.
He felt guilty being in a safe zone, so he would go over to the 7th Air
Force hospitals and write letters for the severely wounded. It wasn’t
part of his job, but he felt compelled to do it.
Captain Clark, USN-retired, is a problem-solver, and he works at an
exhaustive pace, doing far more than most representatives would say the
job demands. Some lawmakers can’t be found when it’s time to vote, much
less do the hard work in committees. Mr. Clark goes to the meetings of
every committee that touches on an issue that he’s studying. And he’s
interested in everything that would improve the health, wealth and
wisdom of South Carolinians.
Mr. Spires, by his own account, is interested in cutting property taxes. But he hasn’t taken the trouble to study any of the options, or even what the Legislature has actually DONE already to address the one part he articulates — his concern that old folks will lose their homes paying property taxes for schools.

Here’s another bit that just was too long and involved to get it to work into the thing. It came from Mr. Clark’s experiences doing something that would be utterly alien to Mr. Spires’ financial supporters — substitute-teaching in the schools:talking about poor, black mothers

One reason Mr. Clark is at a disadvantage is that while he’s a great representative, he has his weak spots as a politician. For instance, he cares too much about things that really matter. Instead of starting with "look how I’ve cut your taxes" (which he eventually did mention, but only because he felt the need to counter the lies from the fliers) when I walked into the room where the meeting was, he was talking about … teen moms, and the way they lead to problems in the schools.
"…these are not bad girls," he was saying. But they haven’t got a clue how to raise their kids. They work all day, come home exhausted, have nobody to help them with anyting, and not knowing any better, they park their kids in front of the TV.
"And what do they see? Sex, violence, vanity, pushing, shoving — and that’s what they bring into the schools." And that’s what he has to contend with when he teaches.
"I taught at the Naval Academy, where I’m used to seeing people who say
yes sir, no sir." The realities of what our society sends into the school doors is a profound contrast.

I’ll have more coming up from my interview last week with Mr. Spires later in the day. I left the notes in my briefcase, which isn’t with me. But I’ll have it later. (As it turned out, it was the NEXT day. Sorry.)

A call from Grady Patterson

2 Replies

You get so wrapped up in these primaries that sometimes you forget for a moment that there’s somebody else out there in the fall, and sometimes that somebody’s the incumbent.

We’ve been all atwitter awaiting the electrifying face-off tonight between Jeff Willis and … let’s see … Thomas Ravenel that it’s easy to forget the winner has to beat a very, very, very experienced Democrat in the fall.

I was reminded of that this morning when I got a call from Grady Patterson, who just wanted to congratulate me on "that editorial you did about the budget." I realized after a second that he meant my Sunday column (in this business, a lot of stuff flows under the bridge between a Sunday and Thursday). I thanked him and said something vague like, That’s a real mess, isn’t it?

It’s little surprise that Mr. Patterson, who regularly sides with the two lawmakers to outvote the governor on the Budget and Control Board, would agree with our take on that. Not that he has much hope it’ll do any good.

"I don’t think he’ll listen, but…" Mr. Patterson trailed off.

Well, we’ll see.

Hey, Andre! Where’s the governor?

9 Replies

Capt. Mark Sanford, U.S. Air Force Reserve, went to war today (incognito, posing as a milde-mannered governor). But he forgot to tell the XO he was leaving the bridge. Or whatever. (I was raised in the Navy, I don’t know what the AF guys call it.)

Andre_debate72 Not that I think there’s anything bad about his not telling Lt. Gov. Bauer that he was leaving the country. I mean, I think he’s required to by law and all (maybe; sort of, depends on what "unavailable" means… or something… I don’t know, you read it), but hey — a guy’s gotta use his judgment in a combat situation. That’s what leaders do.

Here’s the question, though: Do you suppose he "forgot" to tell him on purpose — so as to undermine his junior officer in front of the crew, just before he faces a crucial vote of confidence next Tuesday?

I’ve been critical of the governor in recent days, but I don’t think he would play politics with something that serious.

So here’s the second question: If he didn’t do it on purpose, did he really just forget? And how do we feel about that?

In any case, what if something had happened to the governor, and Andre didn’t know he was now in charge? OK, once again, we’re getting into the realm of that judgment thing. Best leave it be.

Still, I’m kind of peaved that the governor didn’t tell me he was going. I could have gone with him, and watched his "six" for him. Or something. Instead, I’m stuck here writing a stupid blog post, the point of which I’ve lost…

More on Sanford veto

33 Replies

Here’s some stuff I didn’t have room for in my Sunday column.

The bottom line is that even the things the governor says that sound reasonable don’t hold up when you run the numbers:

In his veto letter (on page 3), the governor says the following:

I have heard the arguments from some state legislators that "growing government by 13 percent this year simply puts us back to where we were before we had to make those midyear budget cuts." That is simply not true.The Budget is $744 million above the previous budget high-water mark that people talk of "getting back to," as is shown by the following chart.

He’s right that it is not true. And indeed, in raw, unadjusted dollars there is a $744 million increase over the highest previous year. But the real reason the statement is not true is that there is no real-world increase at all, and the latest budget falls far short of "getting back to" what we were funding before. In fact, it is actually a $247 million cut when adjusted for inflation.

In 2006, you have to come up with $6.623 billion to have the buying power of the $5.632 billion "high-water" budget passed in 2000. That’s according to the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.

The budget that the governor just vetoed is $6.376 billion. It falls short by $247 million from getting back to where we were before the cuts.

The governor also writes (on page 2) that:

I have consistently advocated limiting the growth in state government spending to a rate that reasonably correlated with the people’s ability to sustain it over time. Some would argue that this rate is population plus inflation, currently about 5.5 percent. Others say it should be the state’s average personal income growth, now about 6 percent.

When adjusted using the same official inflation calculator, the state budget grew by 6.41 percent from the one passed last year — not by 13 percent or even 10 percent.

So lawmakers who argue with the governor — if they have a clue as to what’s really going on — would not say, "growing government by 13 percent this year simply puts us back …." First, because it’s not growing by that rate. Second, because it doesn’t put us back at all. If they said either of those things, they’d be just as wrong as the governor is.

Column on Sanford veto

37 Replies

To kill a theoretical gnat,
Sanford drops the Big One

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor

FACED WITH global terrorism, the United States, in keeping with its values, drops smart bombs — doing as much as advanced technology will allow to kill mass murderers, and not the noncombatants they hide among.
Straining at a gnat of his own invention, Gov. Mark Sanford — in keeping with his values — drops the Big One on all of South Carolina.
Sure, he knew the Legislature had the power to disarm the bomb before it did away with the entire state government. But whether legislators wanted to save the day was up to them. If they had neglected to do their duty the way he abdicated his (if even a third of either the House or the Senate had called his bluff), it would have gone off.
Not that the governor expected for a moment that they would do that. He counted on them overriding his veto of the entire budget. He’s not insane; he’s just willing to place demagoguery ahead of responsibility.
The governor knows there must be a government for there to be a civilization in which he is free to engage in politics as a hobby. What he disagrees with the Legislature about is the size of government. Nothing wrong with that, right? We’re dealing with that question every time we argue whether the government should do this, or not do that.
But that’s not what the governor did. He decided that the government, as measured by expenditures, should grow by no more than this precise percentage.
The number he picks has nothing to do with the essential demands that a civilization places on government. It’s not based on the number of children to educate, or the number of miles to be paved and patrolled, or the number of prisoners that we decide to lock up, or the number of mentally ill people wandering about.
No, it’s based on an esoteric calculation involving the functions of inflation and population. He says his growth number is based on “the people’s ability to sustain it.” Never mind that some populations need more cops because they have more criminals per capita, or that a population whose pay is trailing the nation has a greater need to invest in education. Never mind a thousand other ways that the illogic of his proposition can be illustrated. He says you, the taxpayer, shouldn’t have to pay out more than what he says you can afford.
Sound good? Oh, yeah. On the hustings, it plays much better than actually using your line-item veto power to get as close as you can to your arbitrary number. That would upset voters, because each cut you made would be into something that some of them deem essential. Why not just veto the whole thing, knowing the Legislature will override you, and go into the fall talking about how those people grew government faster than your ability to pay.
This way, essential functions get sort-of funded (if you think they’re fully funded, count the number of cars ignoring the speed limit in full knowledge there aren’t enough troopers). Legislators still get their pork, rather than anybody forcing them to take a straight-up vote on whether the money would have been better spent on essentials. The governor gets re-elected as the guy who would save you from high taxes and overspending, if only those people would let him.
Win-win, for everyone but the 4 million people who live in a state that has never gotten it together and set priorities so that it can catch up to the rest of the nation.
I’ve now blown off enough steam that I can give the governor credit for a couple of things.
He did do the hard work, before the session, of going through state programs dollar-by-dollar — something the Legislature ought to do — and presented a theoretical budget that met his arbitrary figure. A governor should set out his statewide vision, and he did.
And the Legislature built the budget the way it always does, in big chunks, which meant the governor could not veto some of the specific programs he didn’t like without vetoing others he did like.
There’s no bigger advocate in this state than I for putting the executive functions of government in the hands of the elected chief executive. Mark Sanford is a slacker on that, compared to me.
But in any rational republican system, it’s the Legislature’s job to draft a budget. Assuming that lawmakers should simply adopt the governor’s spending vision and go home, without speaking up for the voters who sent them, is to go far beyond the limits of even the most fervid advocates of executive power. It would take us to the point of monarchy.
To say that the legislative branch had to do it his way or not at all is outrageous. To say that if the government isn’t precisely the size that Mark Sanford wants it to be, there should be no government at all, is horrific.
You say he expected the Legislature to override him? But in terms of raw, calculating political hypocrisy, that’s even worse than being a head-in-the-sky ideologue who doesn’t know the real-life consequences of his actions.
Consider this sequence: The governor spent the last days of the primary campaign ignoring his opponent, and running against the General Assembly. His beef was that legislators did not break precedent and stay in town so that he could give them his vetoes, so their votes to sustain or override would be there before the voters on election day. He pontificated mightily on their failure to be accountable.
Then, when they chose instead to go home and actually face the voters before election day instead of doing his bidding, he took full advantage of the extra time that gave him. He waited until after the polls were closed and the votes counted, and he was safely renominated, before dropping his Big One. He had to do it by midnight that night, so he did it between 10 p.m. and 11 p.m. And so Republican primary voters had no opportunity to hold him accountable for what he did with his veto power.
I thought Mark Sanford was better than this. I really did. Now I don’t.

Reflections on letters

95 Replies

Some reflections on letters in Saturday’s paper.

First, there was the one headlined, Grand Old Party is losing its way. My thoughts on it:
A person whose identity as a Republican reaches back to 1932 is bound to feel a bit lost, for a number of reasons. It is now the majority — or perhaps I should say, the plurality, party. (There are enough of us independents to keep either from being a majority, but I suppose you could say the Republicans are the majority among partisans, certainly here in South Carolina.) That means it has had to expand its membership beyond what it once encompassed. The letter mentions Glenn McConnell (unfavorably) and Mark Sanford (favorably). The two men are very different from each other, but united in two facts: They are both very libertarian, and it’s hard to imagine either of them fitting in with, say, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon. Actually, it’s a bit hard to imagine Ike and Nixon being in the same administration. Anyway, my point is that people looking for consistency and reassurance in a party large enough to win elections are almost certain to be disappointed.

Here-and-now issues should determine vote:
This letter is related to the first, in that it illustrates the way that many Democrats are determined to keep their party the minority among partisans by rejecting certain lines of thought. Take for instance the writer’s dismissal the idea that ideals, or faith, might outweigh material considerations. Or at least, that they should not do so among practical, right-thinking individuals. But that’s not the really telling bit. What really points to the main fallacy among many (but not all) Democrats is the suggestion that right-thinking (i.e., socially concerned or liberal people) cannot choose the "moral path" of their fathers. Why on earth would concern about the direction of the country or current events be inconsistent with faith or a "belief system." Why can’t a person who is concerned about the future still embrace the faith of his fathers? This writer seems to assume that traditional morality is utterly inconsistent with moving forward. Why so closed-minded? As long as supposed liberals think this way, they are doomed to failure.

Townsend did what he thought was right:
This writer says "Ronny Townsend worked tirelessly for the people he represented, for conservative values and for bettering public education." Exactly. A person who embraces conservative values would certainly be committed to serving and improving public education. It is a fundamental institution of our society, and one that is essential to building the kind of future that those who went before us envisioned. Anyone who would dismantle it, rather than protecting, strengthening and improving it, is a radical, leaning toward anarchy — anything but conservative.

Liberators not always what they seem:
Why would this writer believe that the idea that "there has always been a thin line between ‘invader/occupier’ and ‘liberator’ … was not considered three years ago?" It was and is to be expected that there is a delicate balance to be struck between such concepts. I certainly considered it, worried about it — still do. This is a short missive. Is the writer suggesting that those of us who favored the invasion must not have seen the inherent risks? Is he suggesting further that if anyone had seen the risks, the endeavor would not/should not have been undertaken? If so, I couldn’t disagree more. Those are merely reasons to proceed wisely — which certainly hasn’t always been done in this enterprise. I believe concern over that fact underlies this letter. But if leads the writer to conclude that it should not have been undertaken to begin with, or should be abandoned now, I have to disagree.

Feting Bernanke may be premature:
Why? So we don’t know whether he is a Greenspan or not? Why wouldn’t homefolks celebrate the fact that one of their own is the Fed Chairman. Seems sort of like a big deal in and of itself to me.

Accepting differences leads to better world:
One would be puzzled why someone would be compelled to write that "I am of the belief that God doesn’t hate." I mean, who isn’t? One would be further puzzled to read, "One day, I hope to find a community of faith that believes in love,
tolerance and acceptance. Maybe that is too much to hope for…" All true communities of faith believe in those things. They welcome sinners, and invite them to be penitent. The problem is that some do not wish to be penitent, and choose to characterize any suggestion that they should be as "hate." This is an obvious fallacy for anyone seeking a community of faith. It’s astounding how many people fail — or refuse — to see that.

Finally, Tests give teachers too little to go on:
OK, if you’re going to insist on standards being taught, why would you let teachers know what questions will be on the test that will measure whether they are teaching the standards. If you let them know the test, they would be able to — as many claim they already do — "teach to the test." It’s not about you improving test scores. It’s about teaching the standards. If test scores do improve, we’ll know how successfully you’re doing that. The letter presents one real reason for concern, when it suggests that students have seen "subject matter on tests that was not included in the standards." If so, something should be done about it. Of course, if the standard were not taught properly, the student would find the measuring test unfamiliar. So it’s difficult to tell from this missive where the fault lies.

Bob McAlister on Jack Bass

11 Replies

"I sense Jack’s sense is senseless," said Bob McAlister of his "good friend" Jack Bass.

In a never-ending quest for that thing they call "balance," I had called longtime self-styled GOP savant McAlister to get some perspective on what a colleague had termed Jack’s "wishful thinking."

"That’s just a Democrat seeing a passing fancy," Bob said of Jack’s "sense" at midafternoon that the governor, while winning, will not do as well as expected against Oscar Lovelace. (In an effort to define, "as expected," I called my good friend and colleague Lee Bandy, who said the figure Mr. Sanford needed to avoid embarrassment would be "70 and above." I went to Lee because he is far more schooled in the realm of political prognostication than I.)

Bob stressed again that he considers Jack to be a friend.

"I think probably he’s sensing that rarified professorial atmosphere to which he has become accustomed in recent years," added the competing blogger.

"I’ll make this prediction: I predict that Mark Sanford will win," said Bob. "Oscar-Mayer Lovelace is gonna get in the mid-twenties."

On turnout front, Bob said when he voted at the Wildewood precinct at 1 or 1:15, "I was the only one there, I think." (A disturbing sidelight on that: "Rusty DePass was watching the poll.")

Oh, one more thing: Bob wanted me to make sure I told everybody that Jack is an old friend of his. I said OK.

Jack Bass: ‘I just sense something’

1 Reply

I just got off the horn with Jack Bass, the College of Charleston professor, who will be joining me tonight on ETV at 10. He was sort of wondering whether there’ll still be anything to say that late, what with apparently light turnout and these slam-bang fancy new voting machines we’re all using.

At midafternoon, he said he thinks that while he will still probably win, Gov. Mark Sanford may get a Bassj rebuke from voters in the form of a lower-than-expected margin.

"I just sense something."

Jack said he’s hearing some of the sort of same anecdotal stories I’ve been hearing about folks who had not previously intended to do so voting for Dr. Oscar Lovelace.

Jack thinks the doc started to surge forward a bit last week, about the time the governor refused to debate him. Well, if so, there would certainly be justice in that.

"It almost sounded like Strom Thurmond after he turned 70," said the co-author of a popular biography on the late legend. Switching to his Strom voice: "Ah don’ want tuh give mah uhPOHnunt pubLISSity."

A couple or three other factors he sees likely to give the governor a less-than-satisfying victory:

Bobby Harrell’s column from Sunday. "One could interpret that in part almost as a signal to all the other House members" from the Speaker, Jack said. The question is, what would all those Republican lawmakers who don’t like governor anyway do in response to such a message? "Are they gonna just sit on their hands, or are they gonna get on the phone and call a few friends?"
Erstwhile Democrats voting in the Republican primary. And why wouldn’t they, Katon Dawson’s objections to the contrary? Unlike the Dem primary, the multiple hot Republican contests give Democrats and Independents, as well as Republicans, "something to vote for or vote against," a chance to "make a difference." Democrats see nothing really to care about in their primary. Governor? "Well, if you get Willis that’s fine and if you get Moore that’s fine," says Jack in describing the likely typical Democratic attitude. "You get a B candidate either way."
Finally, there’s the matter of Mr. Sanford being out of his element as an incumbent. He’s always run as the outsider. "Now he’s the insider trying to be the outsider," and obviously awkward at it. (I would submit his lame column last week, to which Mr. Harrell’s was a devastatingly effective response, as evidence of that. You might also want to contrast it to the way Dr. Lovelace chose to address voters in the last week of the election.)

So what about that turnout? Well, as I gazed at the dismal view out my window (below), I asked Jack how the weather was in Charleston. "Heavy overcast at the moment," he said. "I see somebody walking past my window with an umbrella."

Dismal

Primary-day column, WITH LINKS!

6 Replies

Read all about it. Then go vote!

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

AT MONDAY morning’s editorial meeting, we wearily debated how we might have done a better job on these primary elections. Should we have interviewed candidates in fewer races, opening time and space for more detail on the top contests? Did we make the best endorsements we could have? Did we give readers all the information that they need?
The answer to that last question is, “Of course not.” Resources are limited, and at best, even when our board has been as thorough as it can be in making a recommendation, ours is but one voice in a much broader conversation. Careful voters should attend thoughtfully to all of it.
My purpose in writing today is to refer you to additional resources, so you have more information available to you on this day of decision than we can fit onto one page.
Start by going to my blog on the Web. The address is at the bottom of this column. If you don’t feel like typing all that in, just Google “Brad Warthen’s Blog.” Click on the first result.
Here’s what you’ll find:

An electronic version of this column with one-click links to all the other information in this list.
The full texts of all of our endorsements. We don’t expect you to be swayed by the brief capsules at left; we provide this recap on election days because readers have requested it. Please read the full editorials.
Additional notes from most of the 51 candidate interviews that helped in our decisions. Please leave comments to let me know whether you find these notes helpful; it’s a new thing for me.
The Web sites of major candidates. These sites vary greatly in the detail they offer on issues (and in their frankness), but some can be helpful.
Addresses for state and local election commissions.
More links to last-minute news reports. The State’s news division is entirely separate from the editorial department, but that doesn’t mean I can’t help you find the news — including the Voter’s Guide from Sunday’s paper.
Recent columns, including an unpublished piece from teacher and former community columnist Sally Huguley, explaining why teachers should vote in the Republican primary.
Various explanations I’ve given in the past for why we do endorsements, and what our track record has been with them.
Much, much more — from the silly to the (I hope) profound.

Please check it out, and leave comments. I want to know what you think — so would others — about the election, about our endorsements, about the blog itself. There were 138 comments left there on one day last week. I’d like to see that record broken. Broaden the conversation beyond the usual suspects (no offense to my regulars; I just want more, and you know you do, too).
And then, go vote your conscience. Please. A number of observers have said voter interest is low this time around. It shouldn’t be. This election could help determine whether South Carolina does what it needs to do to improve public schools — and therefore improve the future for all of us — or gives up on the idea of universal education.
I’m not just talking about the governor or superintendent of education contests. As we’ve written in detail (which you can read again on the Web), there are well-funded groups from out of state trying to stack our Legislature so that it does what they want it to do from now on. Don’t stand back and watch that happen. Exercise your birthright. Vote.
Finally, after the votes are counted, be sure to tune in to ETV from 10 to 11 p.m. I’ll offer live commentary off and on (it won’t be just me for that whole hour, so you’re safe). You young people, ask your parents to let you stay up late. If you’re big enough to be reading the editorial page, you deserve it. You older folks, try to get a nap in the evening and rest up — after you’ve voted.

Here’s the address: http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

Other paper’s endorsements

2 Replies

As an FYI for those interested, here’s an e-mail I got from the state Press Association yesterday, regarding endorsements by papers across the state.

Interesting alignment of the planets, except for those mavericks in Rock Hill:

June 12, 2006
Thanks for responding to the endorsements survey.
Here is a summary of the results:
Nine dailies did not endorse candidates. One endorsed only local candidates.
Mark Sanford was endorsed by three (Columbia, Greenville and Myrtle Beach); Oscar Lovelace was endorsed by one (Rock Hill).
Tommy Moore was endorsed by four (Aiken, Columbia, Myrtle Beach and Rock Hill)
Mike Campbell was endorsed by three (Columbia, Greenville and Myrtle Beach); Andre Bauer by one (Rock Hill).
Greg Ryberg got five endorsements (Aiken, Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach and Rock Hill)
Staton was endorsed by four (Columbia, Greenville, Myrtle Beach and Rock Hill)
Weathers got two endorsements (Columbia and Greenville); Bell got two (Rock Hill and Aiken)
Spreadsheet
is attached. If you see any errors, let me know.

Bill
William C. Rogers
Executive Director
S.C. Press Association

Bill missed that Greenville also endorsed Tommy Moore.

Candidate Web Sites

Our Primary Endorsements

2 Replies

There is of course a link just to your left to our endorsements page, but I want to make this blog as user-friendly as I can, so here’s are direct links to every endorsement for today’s primaries, contest by contest:

For more information on the endorsement interviews that helped lead to these decisions (at least, the ones I had time to do posts on), click right here.

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits

Category Archives: South Carolina

SGM gets it — so does this Unpartisan

I like John McCain anyway

Mayor Bob on smoking bans

Is Sanford a Galloway fan?

Sanford vs. Moore

Smoking column

Go give blood. NOW!

Runoff predictions, other info

More on Clark

A call from Grady Patterson

Hey, Andre! Where’s the governor?

More on Sanford veto

Column on Sanford veto

Reflections on letters

Bob McAlister on Jack Bass

Jack Bass: ‘I just sense something’

Primary-day column, WITH LINKS!

Other paper’s endorsements

Candidate Web Sites

Our Primary Endorsements