Category Archives: Spending

McCain increasingly turns toward November

14 Replies

Here’s an excerpt from a McCain release that illustrates what we’re seeing more and more, which is the "presumptive" nominee starting the general election campaign:

   

The Washington Post this week clearly laid out one of the key differences at stake in the coming general election. The Post reported, "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year’s spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group." Barack Obama is no better; he requested and received over $91 million of our hard-earned tax dollars for his own special interests and earmarks.
    What’s worse is that Senator Obama, who claims to be a candidate of "change," has refused to disclose the earmarks he requested prior to last year, when he started running for president. Washington needs change, but we will ever see it from someone who is part of the business as usual crowd in the Senate. How many earmarks did John McCain request last year? Zero.

This is a good place for him to start, since fighting pork gets him in good with those crybabies in his base we keep hearing about, and plays well with independents. Heck, even Speaker Pelosi has teamed up with Jim DeMint to fight earmarks.

One quibble, though: It makes no logical sense to say, "Barack Obama is no better," when in the same sentence you quantify the degree to which he was at least less bad: He sought $91 million worth of pork to Sen. Clinton’s $340 million. Assuming, of course, those numbers are accurate.

Huck Finn had a good rule of them that should be applied to political rhetoric: "Overreaching don’t pay."

So in Washington, spending equals revenue?

27 Replies

It’s been over 20 years since my job entailed dealing regularly, via phone, with editors in the old Knight Ridder Washington bureau, so I guess I forgot what it could be like.

When I was editing the George Will column for today’s op-ed page, I ran across this paragragh:

   In January, with much preening, House Democrats embraced "paygo,” the pay-as-you-go rule that any tax cut must be "paid for” by compensatory tax increases or revenue cuts. In December, Democrats abandoned it because of the alternative minimum tax.

Does that make sense to you? It sure didn’t to me. So I called The Washington Post Writers Group, and asked the question, did he mean "’paid for’ by compensatory tax increases or spending cuts?" The first person I asked referred me to another person (which is fine; I hadn’t exactly expected the first person to answer the phone to address the question anyway — he had just sounded like he wanted to try).

The second person I spoke with was one of those people who is unbothered by long stretches of "dead air" in a conversation. A couple of times, while waiting for a response from him, I had to say, "Hello?" to see if he was still there.

After I repeated the question to him, and waited through a long pause, he said he supposed that would be a fine substitution, as it was synonymous.

I could have just let that go in the interest of getting on with a very busy day and enabling folks to go home and start their holiday, but my inner Scrooge asserted himself: Obviously we were miscommunicating.

They’re hardly synonymous, I insisted. "Revenue" is money coming in; "spending" is money going out. It you were going to cut something in order to balance a tax cut, it would have to be the latter.

Another long pause.

Finally, he conceded that he saw my point.

After another long wait, I said, so that substitution’s OK?

Yes, he said.

And then, he added most strangely, "He just meant it in the Washington sense." If there had been irony in his tone, I would have laughed politely. But he sounded so serious, so "you folks in the hinterland wouldn’t understand our insider lingo," that I almost laughed anyway — and not politely.

But I let it go. I had a lot more work to do.

Ditch the Farm Bill

6 Replies

Yesterday, Senators rejected the Fresh Act, which sought to reform the mad waste embodied in the Farm Bill currently up for consideration. They said the sensible approach, proposed by that wild-eyed radical Dick Lugar, "just moves too far, too fast." Those are the words of Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.

OK, so you don’t like the alternative. So just don’t pass a farm bill, say I. If any true needs go begging as a result, we’ll address them as they come. In the meantime, we’ll say goodbye to such scenarios as the one that the WSJ mocked Tuesday in "Green Acres" terms:

    The Environmental Working Group has a map of New York City making the rounds on the Internet that shows 562 dots, each representing a Manhattan resident who gets a USDA farm payment. Who knew that growing cotton, corn and soybeans was such a thriving industry near Central Park? We don’t know the incomes of these people, but it’s a fair guess they’re not homeless.
    What we have here is a real-life version of the 1960s TV show "Green Acres," but in reverse. In the fictional series, Eddie Albert and Eva Gabor play a fancy couple who flee Manhattan to live down on the farm among the pigs and goats, while she pines for the glitter of Times Square. In the 2007 version, they flee the farm for Manhattan and get a subsidy check at their Park Avenue penthouse. What a deal.

Hooterville was an absurd nightmare for Oliver Wendell Douglas, who learned episode after episode that everyone saw madness as perfectly normal. So it is with Washington and farm bills.

You’re a mean one, Mr. DeMint

11 Replies

And a good thing, too. But I’ve got to ask, is this the way to sell this?Grinch

… I promise to be your Grinch.  What does that mean?  I will stay "on guard," making sure they don’t try to slip anything past the American people.
$400 million dollar bridges to nowhere, multi-million dollar buildings
named after current congressmen and yes, believe it or not, a Hippie
Hall of Fame are all on their agenda to be snuck through before the
year ends…

Our junior senator is casting himself as the villain in a Yuletide drama over earmarks. Trouble with that is, I would think the guy who’s demanding some spending accountability would be the good guy.

Well, at least it’s an attention-grabber, and I suppose that’s the point. In this case, it’s also intended to be a money-grabber, as it’s a fund-raising gimmick for the senator.

Seems like there’s something contradictory in there somewhere — give me money so I can save you money — but then again, I guess that’s the whole basis of our economic system, and it would make more sense to me if I were a businessman. Which I’m not. Just in case you were harboring some serious delusions…

Finding common ground on health care reform

12 Replies

The dialogue on this post about single-payer started out in the predictable manner — with libertarian Doug decrying the very idea that I would want him (which is the way he reads the words "we" and "us") to be a part of what I see as the common-sense sense solution to a critical need we have in common as a society.

But you have to read past that. One of the problems Doug and I have discussing issues is that he likes the "how" of specific proposals, whereas my interest lies more in the broad concept. As an INTP, I intuitively understand his frustration, but that’s the way I approach things.

And once you do get to proposals, the ideology falls away enough for Doug to say things that I agree with. For instance, he set forth these five suggestions for taming the health-care-cost monster in America:

1) Reduce drug patent lengths to allow competition from generic makers

2) Require insurance companies to offer coverage that is portable, not revokable under any circumstance, and restricted in the percentage increases in premiums to a limited range across all policies

3) Abolish HIPAA rules that only add expensive overhead costs to the system

4) If healthcare for all is a national concern, pay for it by cutting government costs in other areas rather than simply adding another tax on top of the waste already built into the government. The money is there already to easily cover every one who doesn’t have insurance.

5) Go back to the days where drug companies could not advertise on TV, radio, or print media. All that marketing cost gets passed onto consumers. I really don’t care if I ever see another commercial for Viagra, Ambien, or any other product that has "oily discharge" as a frequent side effect.

With the exception of item No. 4, which is simply a libertarian article of faith (which is why I initially read right over it), this seems like a list I could go for. (As much as I’d like to have a clean sweep,that one is just a spoiler condition. While you or I or anyone can come up with a list of federal expenditures that we could do without, that’s not how representative democracy works — such decisions are made collaboratively, and one person’s waste is another person’s essential. This fact lies at the root of so much libertarian alienation. Anyway, the bottom line is that in the real world, if you say you’ll only agree to a national health plan if you cut an equivalent amount elsewhere, you are for practical purposes saying let’s not do it at all. But in the interests of furthering dialogue, let’s set that aside.)

I was a little surprised that Doug went for No. 1 even more wholeheartedly than I would, since it’s about property rights. And I always thought that HIPAA (which I hate) was about privacy (another libertarian priority), and specifically about trying to achieve Item No. 2 by preventing insurance companies from knowing your medical history. But fine. I’m all for it. And I prefer the more direct, regulatory way of approaching No. 2 — if you insist on still having insurance companies.

I was even more pleased and surprised when Doug, later in the dialogue, proposed that we just make the plan that federal employees are on available to everybody. I would have to study this a lot more closely (and those of you who deal intimately with that system, please weigh in), but I have to applaud Doug’s willingness to do something that bold, even if it’s not single-payer.

Of course, he threw in the caveat that we could cover the cost by cutting spending elsewhere — once again, a fine idea until you try to do it, and something that can’t be an absolute condition if we want to get anything done.

But the really cool thing is that, when we get down to such specifics, we’re no longer arguing about the need for universal coverage. We’re just haggling over the price.

How did you vote in the District 5 referendum, and why?

19 Replies

Let’s have a little real-time civic discussion here.

I notice that interest seems high in my posts from yesterday on the subject, here, here and here.

Now that the voting is actually going on, let’s analyze it, and let’s not do it the bogus, TV-style, talking-heads-guessing way. Let’s hear from real people who have voted today:

How did you vote in the District 5 referendum, and why?

I’ll do my best to keep up with approving comments, to keep this as current as possible. Now, let’s see what happens.

Video: What’s different about THIS referendum?

1 Reply


One last word on the subject of the District 5 referendum. Now, on the eve of the vote, is a good time to revisit my video clip in which the unanimous board explains, in their words, what’s different about this bond proposal, as opposed to the ones in the past that divided the trustees.

Does ‘Fresh Act’ have a chance in the face of same ol’ rotten Farm Bill?

10 Replies

 Have you heard about the refreshing alternative to the same old tired, porky approach to farm legislation?

    Sens. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., and Richard Lugar, R-Ind., proposed a rebel farm bill called the Fresh Act that would replace billions of dollars in payments to farmers of a handful of crops with an insurance program that would be available free to all farmers — including the 91 percent of California farmers who receive no federal crop subsidies….
    But it would come at the expense of the … cluster of seven states in the Midwest and South that get most of the $7.5 billion that will be spent this year on subsidies for corn, cotton, rice, wheat and soybeans.
The plan is expected to save so much money that it could finance a veritable liberal dream list.
    Billions of dollars would be diverted to food stamps and fruit and vegetable purchases in school food programs. Money would be freed for conservation easements to preserve farm land from suburban sprawl and a host of other environmental programs. Aid for organic farms and locally based food purchases, research for fruit, nut and vegetable crops, and rural development would rise.
    The changes would also bring farm programs into compliance with world trade treaties, and still trim $3 billion from the deficit.

Anybody think it’s got more than a snowball’s chance of overcoming the massive stone wall of interests stacked against it? It would be nice to think so.

Oh, and before you "conservatives" dismiss it on the basis of that "liberal" reference above, check out what The Washington Times said.

Don’t take the brown museum!

8 Replies

My man McCain keeps going on about this proposal Hillary had for a Woodstock museum, and I can’t help that the old dude’s missing the real problem here. I keep thinking: a museum? For Woodstock?

There’s something extremely uncool about that. Museums are where established, older-generation culture is stored and entombed in cold marble, right? It’s where the Man puts his stuff.

Wasn’t Woodstock — to the extent that it was about anything other than being a rip-roarin’, get-high-and-get-nekkid sort of party — sort of about the opposite of that?

Where was Hillary’s head at?

Oh — and in case you’re not digging where my headline is at, here’s a link.

In South Carolina, we keep talking about the wrong things

12 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
We always seem to be having the wrong conversations in South Carolina. Sometimes, we don’t even talk at all about the things that cry out for focused, urgent debate.
    Look at this joke of a commission that was assigned to examine whether the city of Columbia should ditch its ineffective, unaccountable, “don’t ask me” form of government. It was supposed to report something two years ago. And here we are, still waiting, with a city that can’t even close its books at the end of the year. Whether its that fiscal fiasco, or the failure to justify what it did with millions in special tax revenues, or the rehiring of a cop who was said to be found drunk, naked and armed in public, there is no one who works directly for the voters who has control over those things.
    But as bad as it is to have no one to blame, there is no one to look to for a vision of positive action. A city that says it wants to leap forward into the knowledge economy with Innovista really, really needs somebody accountable driving the process.
    Columbia needed a strong-mayor form of government yesterday, and what have we done? Sat around two years waiting for a panel that didn’t want to reach that conclusion to start with to come back and tell us so.
    It’s worse on the state level.
    What does South Carolina need? It needs to get up and off its duff and start catching up with the rest of the country. There are many elements involved in doing that, but one that everybody knows must be included is bringing up the level of educational achievement throughout our population.
    There are all sorts of obvious reforms that should be enacted immediately to improve our public schools. Just to name one that no one can mount a credible argument against, and which the Legislature could enact at any time it chooses, we need to eliminate waste and channel expertise by drastically reducing the number of school districts in the state.
    So each time the Legislature meets, it debates how to get that done, right? No way. For the last several years, every time any suggestion of any kind for improving our public schools has come up, the General Assembly has been paralyzed by a minority of lawmakers who say no, instead of fixing the public schools, let’s take funding away from them and give it to private schools — you know, the only kind of schools that we can’t possibly hold accountable.
    As long as we’re talking about money, take a look at what the most powerful man in the Legislature, Sen. Glenn McConnell, had to say on our op-ed page Friday (to read the full piece, follow the link):

    South Carolina can only have an orderly, predictable and consistent growth rate in state spending by constitutionally mandating it. It cannot be accomplished on a reliable basis by hanging onto slim majorities in the Legislature and having the right governor. The political pressures are too great unless there is a constitutional bridle on the process.

    The people of South Carolina elect 170 people to the Legislature. In this most legislative of states, those 170 people have complete power to do whatever they want with regard to taxing and spending, with one caveat — they are already prevented by the constitution from spending more than they take in.
But they could raise taxes, right? Only in theory. The State House is filled with people who’d rather be poked in the eye with a sharp stick than ever raise our taxes, whether it would be a good idea to do so or not.
    All of this is true, and of all those 170 people, there is no one with more power to affect the general course of legislation than Glenn McConnell.
    And yet he tells us that it’s impossible for him and his colleagues to prevent spending from getting out of hand.
    What’s he saying here? He’s saying that he’s afraid that the people of South Carolina may someday elect a majority of legislators who think they need to spend more than Glenn McConnell thinks we ought to spend. Therefore, we should take away the Legislature’s power to make that most fundamental of legislative decisions. We should rig the rules so that spending never exceeds an amount that he and those who agree with him prefer, even if most South Carolinians (and that, by the way, is what “political pressures” means — the will of the voters) disagree.
    Is there a problem with how the Legislature spends our money? You betcha. We don’t spend nearly enough on state troopers, prisons, roads or mental health services. And we spend too much on festivals and museums and various other sorts of folderol that help lawmakers get re-elected, but do little for the state overall.
    So let’s talk about that. Let’s have a conversation about the fact that South Carolinians aren’t as safe or healthy or well-educated as folks in other parts of the country because lawmakers choose to spend on the wrong things.
    But that’s not the kind of conversation we have at our State House. Instead, the people with the bulliest pulpits, from the governor to the most powerful man in the Senate, want most of all to make sure lawmakers spend less than they otherwise might, whether they spend wisely or not.
    The McConnell proposal would make sure that approach always wins all future arguments.
    For Sen. McConnell, this thing we call representative democracy is just a little too risky. Elections might produce people who disagree with him. And he’s just not willing to put up with that.

Emma Forkner, head of the state Health and Human Services department

3 Replies

Here’s what it said in my Treo (copied and pasted from an e-mail from Cindi, who set up the meeting):

The Editorial Board will met at 9 am on Thursday, Oct. 18, with Emma Forkner, the (still sort of) new director of the Department of Health and Human Services. There’s nothing in particular on the agenda, although the agency has been in the news lately over questions about its new private Medicaid transport system. And there is of course the ever-present issue of how our state (and others) pay for Medicaid.

We will meet in the Board Room on the third floor.

And that was what it was, a get-acquainted meeting. But I report it for the same reason I’m trying to report all such contacts, because I want you to know who I’m talking to, and some readers — such as "GreenvilleGuy" on this post — are very suspicious of the supposedly cozy relationships between us and newsmakers.

Since there was nothing in particular we were looking for in the meeting, I had a good time talking big picture, and I was able to launch freely onto digression without Cindi kicking me under the table.

For instance, we learned that while 25 percent of Medicaid recipients were on some kind of managed care plan — translated into private-sector terms, either a PPO or HMO — 75 percent of recipients are on, essentially, a fee-for-service plan. She hopes that, thanks to the waivers GreenvilleGuy decries, those numbers will be reversed in 18 months to two years.

Fee-for-service? I asked. Isn’t that essentially what we in the private sector had 30 or 40 years ago? Yes.

After acknowledging that she was new to this world, I asked why she thought it took so long to institute such cost-saving measures as managed care in the public sector, when out here in the private world, our employers are constantly tweaking our insurance to save costs? (I had spent two hours the previous day hearing how my own insurance will change come Jan. 1.)

She hesitated to answer, so I gave her MY answer: Because whether you’re talking state employee insurance or Medicaid, the public at large doesn’t really want to take anything away from anybody. That makes it tough for anybody who answers to voters, or anyone who answers to someone else who answers to voters, to institute cost savings — whereas private employers can change things as they please, and what the hell are their employees going to do about it?

She agreed. This led to her problems with getting anything done in the civilian public sector. She had come up in the military, where you’re part of an organization that is disciplined to turn on a dime. That makes the military less regulation-bound that the civilian public sector, which for a lot of people is counterintuitive.

Since I grew up in the Navy, and have always thought the military way of running things superior (to ALL civilian systems, public and private), we got along swimmingly.

Of COURSE we should pay for the war

6 Replies

Only the hyperpartisans of Washington could screw up an issue this badly.

First, opponents of the Iraq war put up a proposal to raise a tax to pay for the war — but they don’t really mean it. Suggesting the tax is just their way of making a point:

WASHINGTON — Three senior House Democrats, seeking to highlight the costs of the Iraq war, proposed a U.S. income tax surcharge Tuesday to finance the approximately $150 billion (€105.8 billion) spent annually on operations in Iraq.
    The plan’s sponsors acknowledged the tax measure is unlikely to pass, but Democrats have been seeking in recent weeks to contrast the approximately $190 billion (€134.1 billion) cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars with the $23 billion (€16.2 billion) increase that Democrats want in domestic programs…

Then, being the way they are, Republicans rise to the bait of condemning the tax:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   CONTACT: ROB GODFREY
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2007
Clyburn and Spratt must condemn Democrat bully and his dangerous war tax
Dawson calls Democrat plan disgraceful, dangerous
COLUMBIA, S.C.
– The South Carolina Republican Party today called on Jim Clyburn and
John Spratt to condemn the disgraceful and dangerous tactics of their
colleague, U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee
Chairman David Obey, who threatened to raise taxes by as much as 15 percent unless President Bush begins a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq.  (Associated Press, 10/2/2007)…

And I am left disgusted, as usual, with both parties.

The Democrats disgust me because of their assumption that, if we had to pay for it, we would not support maintaining our commitment in Iraq. This is based in the same kind of contempt for citizens (particularly those who disagree on issues) that leads anti-war people to call for a draft — not because they think people should share in the sacrifice, but because they believe that if asked to share, no one would support the war. Such an assumption turns my stomach.

The Republicans disgust me because they exceed the Democrats’ hopes by reacting with supreme irresponsibility — they are too childish to want to pay for anything.

Of course we should pay for the war, whatever it costs. And public education. And infrastructure. And research into alternative fuels. And all sorts of things that are worth rolling up our sleeves, like grownups, to address together, as a civilized country.

Neither political party believes that you or I have the courage, commitment or sense of responsibility to embrace both a goal and the cost of achieving the goal. And because of that, both parties deserve nothing from us but our contempt.

You know about the UnParty and the Energy Party. As I cast about in my never-ending quest to figure out what we need in this country, yet another one keeps suggesting itself: The Grownup Party. Anybody interested?

Mike Huckabee on the obligation to govern

14 Replies

Huckabee1
By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
THERE’S A PRINCIPLE that I long thought was a given in American politics. As long as it held true, it didn’t matter so much if the “wrong” candidate won an election. No matter what sort of nonsense he had spouted on the stump, this stark truth would take him in its unforgiving grip, set him down and moderate him.
    Mike Huckabee, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, made reference to this principle when he met with our editorial board Thursday:
    “One of the tough jobs of governing is, you actually have to do it.” That may sound so obvious that it’s foolish, like “One thing about water is, it’s wet.” But it can come as a cold shock.
    Think of the congressional class of 1994. Newt Gingrich’s bomb-throwers were full of radical notions when they gained power. But once they had it, and used it, however briefly, to shut down the government, they quickly realized that was not what they were elected to do.
    Or some of them realized it. More about that in a moment. Back to Mr. Huckabee.
    Mr. Huckabee is a conservative — the old-fashioned kind that believes in traditional values, and wants strong, effective institutions in our society to support and promote those values.
    Many newfangled “conservatives” seem just as likely to want to tear down as build up.
    If Mr. Huckabee was ever that way, being the governor of Arkansas made him less so. “As a governor, I’ve seen a different level of human life, maybe, than the folks who live in the protected bubble of Washington see,” he said. And as a governor who believed he must govern, he was appalled when he saw government fail to do its job. He points to the aftermath of Katrina: “It was one of the more, to me, disgusting moments of American history…. It made my blood boil….”
   Perhaps I should pause again now to remind you that Gov. Huckabee is a conservative: “I’m 100 percent pure and orthodox when it comes to the issues that matter to the evangelical or faith voter, if you will,” he says.
    “But as a governor, I spent most of my time improving education, rebuilding the highway system, reforming health care in Arkansas” — things that are not inconsistent with conservatism.
    “And for that I had the right — had earned the right, if you will — to pass some pro-life legislation,Huckabee2
and strong pro-marriage and pro-family legislation. But I didn’t spend 90 percent of my time pushing that….”
    OK, let’s review: As a conservative, he has a certain set of ideals. But he knows that being governor isn’t just about promoting an ideology, whatever it might be. Being governor, if the job is properly understood, is the most pragmatic form of life in our solar system — except for being mayor.
    People expect certain things of you, and you’ve got to do them. Successful governors realize that, whether you’re promoting ideals or paving the roads, “The wrong thing to do is to go and to try to stick your fist in the face of the Legislature that you know is not necessarily with you, and create a fight.” (Gov. Huckabee had to deal with a Democratic assembly.)
    So what’s the right way?
    “You positively share your message, you communicate it… . If you can’t do that, I don’t think you can lead. Just… quite frankly, I don’t think you have a shot at it.”
    I know someone who needs to hear that. Remember the class of ’94? The only lesson Mark Sanford learned from shutting down the federal government was that it was worth trying again. So last year, he vetoed the entire state budget when lawmakers failed to hold spending to the artificial limits he had decreed.
    Of course, they overrode him. And he knew they would. For him, it was about the gesture, not about governing. It’s about ungoverning. It’s about the agenda of the Club for Growth.
    Gov. Huckabee, being conservative fiscally as well as otherwise, has been known to turn down taxes, but that’s an area where pragmatism can outweigh ideals:
“… We had a Supreme Court case where we were forced to deal with both equity and adequacy in education,” said Mr. Huckabee. “There was no way to do that without additional revenue.”
    Still, he refused to sign the tax bill Democrats gave him.
    “I didn’t think we were getting enough reform for the amount of money. It wasn’t that I didn’t support additional revenue, because I did, so I’ll be honest about that. But… we weren’t pushing for enough efficiency out of the system.” What sort of efficiency?
    “I wanted a greater level of school consolidation in order to fund the efficiency, which was a very unpopular thing.”
    Our governor has said he’s for school district consolidation (as am I), but he’s never done anything effective to achieve it. That would require building a constructive relationship with the Legislature.
    Another time, Gov. Huckabee actually opposed a tax cut. Why? That governing thing again: “Well, I supported the elimination of the grocery tax, but not the timing, and the timing would have meant we literally would have closed nursing homes, had to slash Medicaid. I mean, it’s one thing to trim the fat off the bone, it’s another thing, you know, to start going into the bone itself.”
    That wouldn’t worry the Club for Growth, about which Gov. Huckabee says, “They hate me. I call ’em the Club for Greed. That’s part of why they don’t like me… If people don’t have the courage to run for office, they can just give money to them and they’ll do the dirty work for you.”
    “I think it’s a sleazy way to do politics.”
    The Club for Growth loves Mark Sanford.
    I don’t know what sort of president Mike Huckabee would make, but I wonder whether he’d do another stint as governor….

For video, go to http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

Huckabee3

Sunday column video preview

1 Reply

   


This video is an amalgam of clips that contain pretty much all of the quotes from Mike Huckabee that you will find in my Sunday column, which is headlined "Mike Huckabee on the obligation to govern." You’ll also find some context for the quotes — as much as I could jam into YouTube’s 5-minute limit.

Please excuse the spots where I didn’t have video, and had to use sound from my little digital recorder. The quality isn’t as good as what I have on the video footage, and the splicing is a little rough — OK, really rough.

Bear with me; I’m self-taught. As Ferris Bueller said about the clarinet — "Never had one lesson."

I believe in miracles

19 Replies

District5

Praise the Lord, for this day I have been a witness to one of his Wonders.

Today, Sept. 4, 2007, the entire, unanimous 7-member board of Richland-Lexington School District 5 came in to visit with our editorial board to express its support for the proposed bond referendum to build new schools and renovate and expand old ones.

Yes, I had read the news that they had voted unanimously to support this effort to deal with the district’s growth while maintaining excellence and meeting new educational challenges. But reading it in black and white and seeing it, in real-life, up-close and personal in 3D — well, that’s a miracle.

The entire board sat and met with us for over ninety minutes, and there wasn’t a single firefight during the entire time. Total harmony. The above photograph, taken just minutes before this post, stands as proof. (Left to right, that’s Roberta Ferrell, Paula Hite, Jerry Fowler, Carol Sloop, Ellen Baumgardner, Ed White, Supt. Scott Andersen and Robert Gantt.)

Don’t tell me the cause is lost in Iraq. Don’t tell me John McCain can’t get back his momentum. Don’t tell me the Cubs can’t go all the way. I know better. I have been witness to a miracle.

‘No new taxes?’ How about, ‘No more collapses?’

5 Replies

Some folks I know who used to work in Minnesota sent me this link while I was at the beach last week. In light of the radical anti-government, anti-tax stuff that tends to hold sway in this state, I thought it might be worth sharing, even this late:

Nick
Coleman: Public anger will follow our sorrow
Nick Coleman, Star Tribune

The cloud of dust above the Mississippi that rose after the Interstate 35W
bridge collapsed Wednesday evening has dissipated. But there are other dark
clouds still hanging over Minneapolis and Minnesota.

The fear of falling is a primal one, along with the fear of being trapped or of
drowning.

Minneapolis suffered a perfect storm of nightmares Wednesday evening, as anyone
who couldn’t sleep last night can tell you. Including the parents who clench
their jaws and tighten their hands on the wheel every time they drive a carload
of strapped-in kids across a steep chasm or a rushing river. Don’t panic, you
tell yourself. The people in charge of this know what they are doing. They make
sure that the bridges stay standing. And if t! here were a problem, they would
tell us. Wouldn’t they?

What if they didn’t?

The death bridge was "structurally deficient," we now learn, and had
a rating of just 50 percent, the threshold for replacement. But no one appears
to have erred on the side of public safety. The errors were all the other way.

Would you drive your kids or let your spouse drive over a bridge that had a
sign saying, "CAUTION: Fifty-Percent Bridge Ahead"?

No, you wouldn’t. But there wasn’t any warning on the Half Chance Bridge. There
was nothing that told you that you might be sitting in your over-heated car,
bumper to bumper, on a hot summer day, thinking of dinner with your wife or of
going to see the Twins game or taking your kids for a walk to Dairy Queen later
when, in a rumble and a roar, the world you knew would pancake into the river.

There isn’t any bigger metaphor for a society in trouble than a bridge falling,
its concrete lanes pointing brokenly! at the sky, its crumpled cars pointing
down at the deep water! s where people disappeared.

Only this isn’t a metaphor.

The focus at the moment is on the lives lost and injured and the heroic efforts
of rescuers and first-responders – good Samaritans and uniformed public
servants. Minnesotans can be proud of themselves, and of their emergency
workers who answered the call. But when you have a tragedy on this scale, it
isn’t just concrete and steel that has failed us.

So far, we are told that it wasn’t terrorists or tornados that brought the
bridge down. But those assurances are not reassuring.

They are troubling.

If it wasn’t an act of God or the hand of hate, and it proves not to be just a
lousy accident – a girder mistakenly cut, a train that hit a support – then we
are left to conclude that it was worse than any of those things, because it was
more mundane and more insidious: This death and destruction was the result of
incompetence or indifference.

In a word, it was avoidable.

T! hat means it should never have happened. And that means that public anger
will follow our sorrow as sure as night descended on the missing.

For half a dozen years, the motto of state government and particularly that of
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has been No New Taxes. It’s been popular with a lot of voters
and it has mostly prevailed. So much so that Pawlenty vetoed a 5-cent gas tax
increase – the first in 20 years – last spring and millions were lost that
might have gone to road repair. And yes, it would have fallen even if the gas
tax had gone through, because we are years behind a dangerous curve when it
comes to the replacement of infrastructure that everyone but wingnuts in
coonskin caps agree is one of the basic duties of government.

I’m not just pointing fingers at Pawlenty. The outrage here is not partisan. It
is general.

Both political parties have tried to govern on the cheap, and both have
dithered and dallied and spent public wealth on stadiums! while scrimping on
the basics.

How ironic is it that! tonight ‘s scheduled groundbreaking for a new Twins
ballpark has been postponed? Even the stadium barkers realize it is in poor
taste to celebrate the spending of half a billion on ballparks when your
bridges are falling down. Perhaps this is a sign of shame. If so, it is
welcome. Shame is overdue.

At the federal level, the parsimony is worse, and so is the negligence. A
trillion spent in Iraq, while schools crumble, there aren’t enough cops on the
street and bridges decay while our leaders cross their fingers and ignore the
rising chances of disaster.

And now, one has fallen, to our great sorrow, and people died losing a gamble
they didn’t even know they had taken. They believed someone was guarding the
bridge.

We need a new slogan and we needed it yesterday:

"No More Collapses."

DeMint splits with Democrats over earmarks

Leave a reply


You may recall that after the last election, Jim DeMint formed an unusual alliance with Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats against earmarks. I also posted a video with the junior senator reflecting in positive tones about what it was like to work with Democrats.

The coalition has apparently not hung together all that well. I got this release today from Sen. DeMint’s office:

Today, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) asked unanimous consent to immediately enact earmark reforms that passed the Senate unanimously in January. After 6 months of delay, Democrats again objected and signaled they intend to weaken the earmark reforms behind closed doors in conference. Below are videos of DeMint’s speech and text of his prepared remarks.

– Wesley M. Denton
  Communications Director
  Office of Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC)

Mr. Denton was thoughtful enough to pass along these two videos as well.

How they voted on the pork

1 Reply

No surprise: The "Competitive Grants" program was vetoed by the governor and easily survived said vetoes. There are a bunch of separate items that make up the Competitive Grants program — implementation items (one for the CG program in PRT, one for the CG program in Commerce and one for the CG program in the BCBoard and one administrative item), and three funding lines. What follows are:

  • 1. The Legislature’s "fix" of the program.
  • 2. The governor’s message explaining why he vetoed the implementation items.
  • 3. The votes to override his vetoes.

1. Legislative "fix." The underlined language was added in this year’s budget, the strike-throughs were deleted, and the rest remains as it was laste year:

    63.37.      (BCB: Grants Review Committee)  On and after January 1, 2006, there is created within the Budget and Control Board the Grants Review Committee for the purpose of awarding competitive community grants to counties and municipalities.  The committee shall consist of five members with one member appointed by each of the following officials:  the Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate, and the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee of the House of Representatives.  The officials may make initial appointments to the committee and the committee members may organize prior to January 1, 2006.  Members shall serve two-year terms coterminous with the appointing official.  The committee must adopt rules of procedure and elect a chairman from the membership of the committee.
     The committee must meet at least twice annually to review applications for grants submitted by counties and municipalities.  All applications must conform to and all grants must be awarded pursuant to criteria established by the committee.  Grants must be awarded in amounts determined by the committee from funds appropriated by the General Assembly.  Staff for the committee must be provided by the Budget and Control Board.
     Applications for grants of one hundred thousand dollars or less must be processed administratively by the staff pursuant to criteria established by the committee.  Applications for grants to exceed one hundred thousand dollars must be reviewed for approval by the committee.
     The committee shall establish guidelines, which shall include but not be limited to:

  •            1)      Priorities for funding, to include but not be limited to, Department of Health and Environmental Control orders and consent decrees, the ability to match grant funds, and a focus on community festivals;
  •            2)      A signature of sponsorship on each application by a member of the General Assembly who represents the county or municipality applying for the grant or the signature of the Governor;
  •            3)      Applications for consideration must be in the form prescribed herein and adopted by the committee for any award made effective July 1, 2007;
  •            4)      Counties and municipalities must report annually on the expenditure of the funds received until the funds are expended;
  •            5)      Final financial reports must be received by the committee within ninety days of the completion of the project along with a description of the results achieved in the interest of the community; and
  •            6)      The Budget and Control Board Office of Internal Audit shall have access to all Grants Review Committee records as it deems appropriate.

     The committee should ensure that its process is efficient and minimizes unnecessary or duplicative paperwork.

——————————————

2. Governor’s Veto message on the implementation items:

Veto 81   Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.
Veto 82   Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.
Veto 83   Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.
Veto 84   Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.
Veto 85Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

This program has been in operation for longer than a year now with more than $20 million being doled out to various entities around the state. Through the process, there have been questions linked to several of the awards and whether there were efforts made to circumvent the process established by the General Assembly.

Further, at the writing of this message, there are approximately 2,200 projects totaling over $350 million in requests for a program that would have, at most, $69 million to award. Half of the grants were submitted over a year ago and have not been considered by the Committee, and it does not appear that they will.

In a little over twelve months, this so-called competitive grants program has become backlogged at the rate of five times the allotted money without a merit-based review process. We believe that this program should be ended once and for all.

——————————————-
3. Votes

IN THE HOUSE

VETO 81– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 76; Nays 31

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Bannister
Barfield               Battle                 Bowers
Brady                  Branham                G. Brown
R. Brown               Chalk                  Chellis
Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Crawford               Davenport
Funderburk             Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Jefferson
Jennings               Kennedy                Knight
Limehouse              Loftis                 Lowe
Mack                   McLeod                 Miller
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  M. A. Pitts            Rice
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Scott                  Sellers                Skelton
D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Spires                 Stavrinakis            Umphlett
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Williams               Witherspoon
Young

Total–76

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Cotty                  Delleney
Duncan                 Edge                   Frye
Hagood                 Haley                  Harrison
Herbkersman            Huggins                Kelly
Kirsh                  Leach                  Lucas
Mahaffey               Merrill                Mulvaney
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Shoopman
Simrill                Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Viers

Total–31

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 82– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 83; Nays 20

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Bannister
Barfield               Battle                 Bedingfield
Bowen                  Bowers                 Brady
Branham                G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Crawford               Davenport
Frye                   Funderburk             Gambrell
Govan                  Gullick                Hamilton
Hardwick               Hayes                  Herbkersman
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Howard                 Jennings               Kelly
Kennedy                Knight                 Limehouse
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               McLeod                 Merrill
Miller                 Mitchell               Moss
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Ott                    Parks                  Perry
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Shoopman               Skelton                D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Taylor                 Toole
Umphlett               Vick                   Viers
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Williams               Witherspoon

Total–83

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bingham                Cotty
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Hagood                 Haley                  Harrison
Huggins                Kirsh                  Leach
Mulvaney               Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Simrill                Stewart
Talley                 Thompson

Total–20

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 83– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 85; Nays 18

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bannister              Barfield
Battle                 Bowen                  Bowers
Brady                  Branham                G. Brown
R. Brown               Chalk                  Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Davenport              Edge
Funderburk             Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                  Howard
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Kennedy                Knight                 Leach
Limehouse              Loftis                 Lowe
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
McLeod                 Merrill                Miller
Mitchell               Moss                   J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Rutherford
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Simrill                Skelton                D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Taylor                 Umphlett
Vick                   Viers                  Weeks
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Total–85

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Bingham
Cotty                  Delleney               Duncan
Frye                   Hagood                 Haley
Harrison               Huggins                Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts            Shoopman               Stewart
Talley                 Thompson               Toole

Total–18

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 84– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 81; Nays 26

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Bannister
Barfield               Battle                 Bowers
Brady                  Branham                G. Brown
R. Brown               Chalk                  Chellis
Clemmons               Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Davenport
Edge                   Funderburk             Gambrell
Govan                  Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Harvin                 Hayes
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Howard                 Jefferson
Jennings               Kelly                  Kennedy
Knight                 Leach                  Limehouse
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               McLeod                 Miller
Mitchell               Moss                   J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Parks                  Perry                  M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Simrill                Skelton                D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Taylor                 Vick
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Witherspoon            Young

Total–81

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Cotty                  Crawford
Delleney               Duncan                 Frye
Gullick                Hagood                 Haley
Harrison               Huggins                Kirsh
Merrill                Mulvaney               Pinson
E. H. Pitts            Shoopman               Stewart
Talley                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Viers

Total–26

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 85– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 77; Nays 24

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anthony
Bales                  Bannister              Barfield
Battle                 Bowers                 Brady
Branham                G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter
Coleman                Cooper                 Davenport
Edge                   Frye                   Funderburk
Gambrell               Govan                  Hardwick
Harrell                Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                  Howard
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Knight                 Leach                  Lowe
Lucas                  Mack                   Mahaffey
McLeod                 Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Parks
Perry                  Pinson                 M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Simrill                Skelton                D. C. Smith
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith            Spires
Stavrinakis            Taylor                 Vick
Weeks                  White                  Whitmire
Witherspoon            Young

Total–77

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Cotty                  Crawford
Delleney               Duncan                 Hagood
Haley                  Hamilton               Harrison
Huggins                Kirsh                  Merrill
Mulvaney               E. H. Pitts            Shoopman
Stewart                Talley                 Thompson
Toole                  Umphlett               Viers

Total–24

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

VETO 195– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 516; Item Number 78(A); P28; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 84; Nays 19

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Bales                  Bannister              Barfield
Battle                 Bingham                Bowers
Brady                  Branham                Breeland
G. Brown               R. Brown               Chalk
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Coleman                Cooper                 Crawford
Edge                   Frye                   Funderburk
Gambrell               Govan                  Gullick
Hamilton               Hardwick               Harrell
Hart                   Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                  Huggins
Jefferson              Jennings               Kelly
Knight                 Limehouse              Lowe
Mack                   Mahaffey               McLeod
Mitchell               Moss                   J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Rice                   Rutherford             Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. M. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Spires                 Stavrinakis            Taylor
Toole                  Umphlett               Vick
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Williams               Young

Total–84

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Bowen
Cotty                  Davenport              Delleney
Duncan                 Hagood                 Haley
Harrison               Kirsh                  Leach
Loftis                 Lucas                  Mulvaney
Shoopman               Thompson               Viers
Witherspoon

Total–19
———————————-
VETO 212– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 79(A); P32; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants; $500,000.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 86; Nays 12

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Bales                  Ballentine             Bannister
Barfield               Battle                 Bingham
Bowen                  Bowers                 Brady
Branham                G. Brown               R. Brown
Chalk                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Coleman
Cooper                 Crawford               Edge
Frye                   Funderburk             Gambrell
Govan                  Haley                  Hardwick
Hart                   Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Herbkersman            Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jefferson              Kelly
Knight                 Leach                  Limehouse
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mack
Mahaffey               McLeod                 Mitchell
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts            Rice
Rutherford             Sandifer               Scarborough
Sellers                Shoopman               Simrill
Skelton                D. C. Smith            F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith            Spires                 Stavrinakis
Taylor                 Toole                  Vick
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Whitmire               Williams

Total–86

Those who voted in the negative are:

Bedingfield            Cotty                  Davenport
Delleney               Duncan                 Gullick
Hagood                 Kirsh                  Mulvaney
Thompson               Umphlett               Viers

Total–12

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

———————————————

VETO 236– OVERRIDDEN

Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 86(F); F03; Budget and Control Board; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 81; Nays 17

Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Bales                  Bannister              Barfield
Battle                 Bedingfield            Bingham
Bowen                  Bowers                 Brady
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
R. Brown               Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cobb-Hunter            Cooper
Delleney               Edge                   Funderburk
Gambrell               Govan                  Hamilton
Hardwick               Harrell                Harvin
Haskins                Hayes                  Hiott
Hodges                 Hosey                  Howard
Huggins                Jefferson              Jennings
Kelly                  Knight                 Leach
Limehouse              Lowe                   Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McLeod
Mitchell               Moss                   J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal             Neilson                Ott
Owens                  Parks                  Perry
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            Rice
Sandifer               Scarborough            Scott
Sellers                Simrill                Skelton
F. N. Smith            G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Spires                 Stavrinakis
Taylor                 Vick                   Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Williams               Witherspoon            Young

Total–81

Those who voted in the negative are:

Ballentine             Cotty                  Crawford
Duncan                 Frye                   Gullick
Hagood                 Haley                  Harrison
Kirsh                  Merrill                Mulvaney
D. C. Smith            Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Viers

Total–17

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.

IN THE SENATE
VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 81   Part 1B, Section 9.44, Department of Health and Environmental Control, page 380; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator ALEXANDER moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Ryberg
Scott                     Setzler                   Sheheen
Short                     Thomas                    Vaughn
Williams

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 82   Part 1B, Section 26.6, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism, page 400; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Ryberg
Scott                     Setzler                   Sheheen
Short                     Thomas                    Vaughn
Williams

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R.175, H. 3620 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3620.htm> by a vote of 85 to 18:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 83   Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 83   Part 1B, Section 27.23, Department of Commerce, page 404; Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Ryberg
Scott                     Setzler                   Sheheen
Short                     Thomas                    Vaughn
Williams

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R.175, H. 3620 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3620.htm> by a vote of 81 to 26:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 84   Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 84   Part 1B, Section 63.35, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Competitive Grants.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5
AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Ryberg
Scott                     Setzler                   Sheheen
Short                     Thomas                    Vaughn
Williams

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

Message from the House

Columbia, S.C., June 28, 2007

Mr. President and Senators:

The House respectfully informs your Honorable Body that it has overridden the veto by the Governor on R.175, H. 3620 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3620.htm> by a vote of 77 to 24:

R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 85   Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
Speaker of the House

Received as information.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 85   Part 1B, Section 63.37, Budget and Control Board, page 465; BCB: Grants Review Committee.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 40; Nays 5

AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Ryberg
Scott                     Setzler                   Sheheen
Short                     Thomas                    Vaughn
Williams

Total–40

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Verdin

Total–5

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 145   Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; page 514; Item Number 65(H); J04; Department of Health and Environmental Control; Competitive Grants; $2,800,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator ALEXANDER moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

Ayes 39; Nays 6

AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Scott
Setzler                   Sheheen                   Short
Thomas                    Vaughn                    Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Ryberg                    Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 195   Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 516; Item Number 78(A); P28; Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism; Competitive Grants; $3,000,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator LEATHERMAN moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6
AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Scott
Setzler                   Sheheen                   Short
Thomas                    Vaughn                    Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Ryberg                    Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACT

Veto 212   Part IB; Section 73; Proviso 73.12; Page 517; Item Number 79(A); P32; Department of Commerce; Competitive Grants; $500,000.

The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.

Senator McGILL moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.

The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"

The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:

Ayes 39; Nays 6

AYES

Alexander                 Anderson                  Ceips
Cleary                    Courson                   Cromer
Drummond                  Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Gregory                   Hayes
Hutto                     Jackson                   Knotts
Land                      Leatherman                Leventis
Lourie                    Malloy                    Martin
Matthews                  McConnell                 McGill
Moore                     O’Dell                    Patterson
Peeler                    Pinckney                  Rankin
Reese                     Ritchie                   Scott
Setzler                   Sheheen                   Short
Thomas                    Vaughn                    Williams

Total–39

NAYS

Bryant                    Campsen                   Grooms
Hawkins                   Ryberg                    Verdin

Total–6

The necessary two-thirds vote having been received, the veto of the Governor was overridden, and a message was sent to the House accordingly.

SooeeeEEE!

1 Reply

Hey, did you wonder what legislators did this year about their farcically named pork machine, the "Competitive Grants Program?"

    Well, I doubt that you’ll be shocked to learn that they left town with it still intact — DESPITE it being revealed this year for a sham, and DESPITE the governor’s vetoes of the program. The Legislature made quick work of overriding THOSE vetoes — even though the program had been initially broken up into eight separate pieces (three pots of money, and five provisos), probably so it would attract less attention when it was first passed last year. (That worked — at least until the checks started rolling out). … In a minute, I’ll give you the governor’s explanation for why he vetoed the program, followed by all eight roll-call votes in the House and in the Senate.

    But first, you’ll be interested to know that on the very day the Senate was overriding those vetoes, the Legislature’s hand-pick grants committee was approving even more expenditures. You can find them at this address.

    You can also check out an article in today’s Post and Courier about those latest grants.

Driving Mr. Bauer: The Sequel

5 Replies

UPDATE on Gov Lite Driver: The House by a smaller margin overrode the veto of the PROVISO for the chauffeur. The possible logic: The money line included other stuff; as long as the PROVISO was removed, there would be no security detail (Just an extra $90,000 in the lt gov’s office with no particular use, and possibly unavailable to be spent, although I’m not sure) … So here’s THe vote to override the PROVISO:

VETO 95– OVERRIDDEN

Part 1B, Section 72.110, General Provision, page 502; Lt. Governor Security Detail.

The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:

Yeas 77; Nays 21

Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Bannister
Barfield               Battle                 Bingham
Bowen                  Bowers                 Brady
Branham                Breeland               G. Brown
Chalk                  Chellis                Clemmons
Clyburn                Cooper                 Cotty
Davenport              Delleney               Edge
Frye                   Gambrell               Govan
Gullick                Hardwick               Harrell
Harrison               Harvin                 Haskins
Hayes                  Hiott                  Hodges
Hosey                  Jefferson              Jennings
Kelly                  Knight                 Leach
Mack                   Mahaffey               Merrill
Miller                 Mitchell               Moss
J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal             Neilson
Parks                  Perry                  Pinson
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Sandifer
Scarborough            Scott                  Sellers
Simrill                Skelton                F. N. Smith
G. M. Smith            G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith
Spires                 Talley                 Taylor
Toole                  Umphlett               Vick
Weeks                  Whipper                White
Williams               Witherspoon

Total–77

Those who voted in the negative are:
Ballentine             Bedingfield            Crawford
Duncan                 Funderburk             Hagood
Haley                  Hamilton               Huggins
Kirsh                  Loftis                 Lowe
Lucas                  McLeod                 Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts            Shoopman               D. C. Smith
Stewart                Thompson               Viers

Total–21

So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.