Category Archives: Spending

If you think spending TOO MUCH MONEY is the main problem with SC schools, you’ve lost me

Had to scratch my head at this Tweet from superintendent candidate Kelly Payne:

Education spending is a fiscal time bomb, see my solutions. http://www.votekellypayne.com

I followed the link, and it didn’t help me understand her point better.

There are a lot of problems with public schools — the inferiority of poor, rural schools compared to the suburban ones; the difficulty in hiring and retaining good teachers and getting rid of bad ones; the absurdity of maintaining more than 90 separate district administrations, to name but a few.

But too much money — at least, that’s how I read “fiscal time bomb” (maybe she meant something else; I hope so) — isn’t one of them. Unless, of course, you’re running in a Republican primary. Sigh. Kelly, being a teacher, should know better.

Old people just worry too much

2 Replies

Just saw this Reuters story:

Elderly fear cuts in U.S. deficit debate

(Reuters) – Advocacy groups for the elderly are gearing up for battle over U.S. Social Security, concerned that the administration’s efforts to tackle budget deficits could result in big cuts to the retirement program.

To which I say, Oh, get over it, old people!

There’s no way this or any other Congress is going to cut your benefits. They never have; they never will — and especially not a Congress that is WAY more in love with spending than with taxing. Ever hear of the stimulus?

No, they’ll wait until I’m eligible for Social Security and Medicare after paying for it my whole life for you, and then they’re going to cut the bejeebers out of them.

So, rest easy.

(Good thing I’m not anywhere near old, or y’all would have something to worry about.)

What were Richland council members doing in China?

9 Replies

OK, now that it’s been two weeks since this was in the paper:

With four members on their way home from China, one under the weather and a sixth with a scheduling conflict, Richland County Council couldn’t hold its regular meeting Tuesday.

Chairman Paul Livingston said he couldn’t remember another instance in his 19 years on the council when a meeting was canceled because not enough members showed up.

Absent were Joyce Dickerson, Norman Jackson, Damon Jeter and Gwendolyn Davis Kennedy. They went on a nine-day trip to China with the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce.

Councilman Jim Manning called in sick and Kelvin Washington had to work, Livingston said.

“I know folks can sometimes have a legitimate reason for not attending,” the chairman said, “but, still, it’s embarrassing not to have a quorum.”

After waiting about 20 minutes, he canceled the meeting. The 211-page agenda listed 40 items of business.

… I’ll go ahead and ask the question: What were these four council members (one of whom was voted out of office for an unjustifiable junket to Hawaiit, but was inexplicably returned to the council by voters in the last election) doing in China?

Anybody who knows the answer, please speak up. Maybe the explanation has been published somewhere, and I missed it.

Leave your comments on the ruling HERE

Sorry I’ve been out of pocket today — very busy, lots of meetings.

Ironically, late this afternoon I was in one with Chris Myers, and remarked to her that I was eager to see what her sister (Jean Toal) and company came up with. Neither of us knew that the ruling had been out for more than an hour at that point.

Anyway, all I had time for when I heard was a little bit of “I told ya” boasting on Twitter:

Unanimous, of course: 5-0, as I predicted. Since the outcome was so inevitable, the only thing to prognosticate about was the point spread.

And I don’t have time for much more now, even. But don’t let that stop YOU. Leave your comments about the stimulus drama right here…

Does Sanford really want us to be counted?

Had a number of thoughts when I read this story this morning, which among other things said:

Gov. Mark Sanford urged state residents opposed to using federal aid in the state budget to call lawmakers as they work out a final budget compromise this week.

The $5.7 billion draft budget, Sanford said, puts off needed cuts and reforms by tapping $350 million in federal stimulus money. Sanford has said he will not accept the stimulus money unless lawmakers pay off an equal amount of state debt.

“This is the time to stand and be counted with regard to the stimulus money,” Sanford said. “We’re going to paper over all of those changes that might be made and simply spend the money.”

Here are my questions:

Does the governor actually think that if the people of South Carolina stood up and were counted on this issue, more of them would agree with him on the stimulus? (From everything I’ve heard, that seems extremely doubtful.)
Is he making a cynical calculation that — in keeping with the human-nature phenomenon that only people who are against something bother to call (something I have experienced in the news biz, my favorite extreme example being all those letters we got against the U.S. taking military action in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001, a view which you knew wasn’t representative of South Carolina, yet which dominated among the letters we received for a time)?
Does he or his allies at SCRG or ReformSC have an organized calling campaign ready, designed to look like a “spontaneous” response to his call to the public?
Will the far greater number of South Carolinians who oppose the governor on the stimulus make an effort to be heard by lawmakers, or since they’re satisfied the General Assembly is on their side, will they decide not to bother them?
Whether they hear more from the governor’s side or the other, would lawmakers be swayed by lots of calls and e-mails?
Should they be swayed by such input, given that they’ve had months to think about this and should have made up their minds by now?
What do you think about “call your legislator” campaigns in general?
Which is tackier? The governor asking citizens to drive lawmakers nuts at the State House while they’re trying to finish the budget, or pro-stimulus lawmakers urging folks last month to call the governor at the mansion?
And finally, are these examples of excessive spending he cites the best he can do? $500,000 for State House security (which is really a spitting match over who will control security, Sanford or McConnell)? $750,000 for hydrogen research (note that S.C. investment in such research resulted in a $12.5 million grant just two weeks ago)? A million for football traffic control? Where’s the $350 million he says we don’t need?

Here are my answers, to which I invite you to add your own:

Possibly. One gets the impression that his personal feedback loop is fairly limited. He’s not the most social guy, and he seems to have a selective memory for those who tell him “attaboy.”
I don’t think so. I think he actually believes there’s a “silent majority” that agrees with him. At least, he seems to believe, most of the people who matter agree with him. (If a “silent majority” does call lawmakers, does that mean it should be called something else? Of course, the convenient thing for Sanford is that when it doesn’t call, he can explain it away by saying, “That’s because it’s silent.”)
Maybe, but frankly (and yeah I know that this is inconsistent with my answer on “2,” but who cares?), I don’t think he’s thought that far. The more I think about it, the more I suspect he’s thinking that he’s won the day merely by asserting that if the people of S.C. “stand up to be counted,” they will agree with him. He’s struck this pose so many times that he mistakes the rhetoric for reality. Let me explain: By saying the people of SC agree with him, he believes that makes it so, and is satisfied. (And who’s to say him nay, in the absence of evidence to the contrary? Even if nobody calls legislators, nothing is proved either way.) And then, when lawmakers ignore him, he claims they were ignoring the people of SC, when in reality they were only ignoring him. You know, because those lawmakers are so wicked and all. And thus the world according to Mark Sanford stays intact, with none of his assumptions challenged. Actually, the more I think about this theory, the more I think it is, in the immortal words of Marisa Tomei, “dead-on balls accurate.” And if I’m wrong, nobody can prove I’m wrong — hey! So this is what it’s like to be Mark Sanford! Yeah — I’m right because I’m right, and no actual facts in the world can persuade me otherwise. This could get to be a habit.
Almost certainly not. Why call and bug your lawmaker if he’s doing what you want?
Yes. Particularly if they’re hearing from people they know, back in their districts. Otherwise, probably not.
No, and you can tell which way I was leaning by the way I worded that one. This will offend “small-d” democrats, but I’m a “small-r” republican. I believe in representative democracy. We elect people to go study issues and take time arriving at conclusions through a deliberative process. And however messy or slapdash that process is in reality, a representative should NOT throw away his conclusions based on a few phone calls (which are, 99 percent of the time, orchestrated), either way.
On this point, I’m ambivalent. Yeah, when I was with the newspaper we used to do empowering things like tell people how to contact their lawmakers and even, occasionally, urging them to do so. And I think getting public input should be part of the decision-making process. But only part. Once again, it is the duty of an elected representative to study and issue and become more knowledgeable about it than he would be if he were back in his district busy earning a living doing something else. Elected representatives, in a republic, are delegated to spend more time on an issue than the average voter can devote to it, and thereby make a better decision than they would have from the gut. Yep, the system’s far, extremely far, from perfect. But I believe more bad decisions result from lawmakers voting from the gut than from deliberation.
Asking people to call the gov at the mansion is tackier, no question — even though the house does belong to us.
Apparently, that is the best he can do, which is pathetic. But then, he never really has had a case on this.

On that last point — the governor does this all the time. The thing is, he is very often right about the things he criticizes the General Assembly for. The “Competitive Grants” program is a wasteful boondoggle. The thing is, it’s such a tiny fraction of the state budget. And he uses such minor figures as his entire argument that government spending is billions out of control, which is ridiculous. Of course, you know that what he really wants is to stop the state from spending on public education and other substantial things. But that doesn’t sound so good, unless your audience is Howard Rich. So he cites a penny’s worth of pork and extrapolates a fortune wasted, which fools some of the people, but my no means all.

But you know what I’m noticing now? Government has been cut SO much that the governor even has trouble coming up with convincing anecdotal evidence. Instead of something clearly wasteful (or at least, that sounds clearly wasteful) for the state to be spending on, like a Green Bean Museum, he’s reduced to citing things that can easily be characterized as petty and self-concerned. Rather than arguing that the state shouldn’t have airplanes, he complains about control of those planes shifting from his Commerce Department to Budget and Control. Or McConnell taking State House security from the agency that Sanford semi-controls.

You know me — I think the governor should control all of the executive branch. But I also know that this would not in and of itself save large amounts of money. I favor it because I want government to be more effective and accountable. To argue that, because a minor function is being taken away from him, it proves that SC doesn’t need the $700 million in stimulus, just doesn’t follow any kind of logic.

Transparency in Cayce

Remember that last year, my colleagues and I endorsed Elise Partin in her successful bid to become mayor of Cayce? Endorsing in that particular election was unusual for us — we seldom got involved in municipal races outside of Columbia proper — but interest was high on both sides of the river after Cayce suddenly annexed the old Green Diamond property.

Also, Ms. Partin simply impressed us as someone who would be a breath of fresh air in local government. And one of the reasons we citied for picking her was what we perceived as a dedication to transparency on her part:

Cayce needs a steady leader who will keep the public informed and pay attention to detail. Mrs. Partin is sharp, does her homework and would expose attempts to put something over on the public….

Well, as it turns out, now that she’s at the helm, Cayce is garnering praise for taking steps to make its spending far more open and available to the public. I learned that via this news item over at Mike Fitts’ new outfit:

CAYCE — The city of Cayce has begun disclosing its spending details on the Internet for its purchases — tools, equipment, office supplies, utilities and more — by posting its monthly check register to its municipal Web site. The city joins a growing list of local governments to open their books to the public, allowing people to see what they are spending.

One small flaw in that report, however, is that the only source quoted was Richard Eckstrom, who was hailing the Cayce move as a pioneering response to his own call to local governments to be transparent. Sounds like our state comptroller was the main source on the item. I mean good for him and all that, but that left open the natural question: Whom do we have to thank in Cayce for taking this step?

A city press release quotes Mayor Partin as giving credit to Councilman Steve Isom:

“There’s no downside to providing citizens information about what their government is doing,” says Mayor Elise Partin. “There are certainly many ways to do that. Councilman Steve Isom felt strongly about having the monthly check registers on-line and we’re excited about it. Monthly financial reports have been on-line already on the city’s website and now this offers an additional outlet.”

So good job there, Mr. Isom. And it looks like we can thank the mayor, too, for being supportive of the effort. At least, she certainly sounds supportive.

It’s nice when someone lives up to your faith in her.

Don’t compromise

Eight days ago, I went backstage at the Koger Center to thank producer Todd Witter for asking me to be on “Whad’Ya Know?” Then I went out on the stage itself, where Michael Feldman was perched on the apron (or whatever you call the very edge), shaking hands, signing autographs and posing for pictures with fans.

While I waited for a break in which to thank him too, some of the fans broke off and spoke to me, congratulating me on my performance, such as it was. People are really polite that way, you know. Anyway, one of them was Elizabeth Rose Ryberg, who happens to be married to Sen. Greg. She was quite gracious as always, and complimentary, but at one point she remonstrated with me in the kindest way, suggesting I shouldn’t be so rough on “Mark” — the governor, that is.

Not that she thought the governor was completely right in his refusal to request our state’s share of stimulus funds. In fact, she noted that her husband and Tom Davis had been working hard to bring about a compromise between the governor and legislative leadership on the issue. This surprised me slightly at the time, since I had thought of Sens. Ryberg and Davis as being two people in the governor’s corner if no one else was. After all, they had recently stood up with him at a press conference to support his position (although I had noticed that they had not stood very close to him in the photo I saw — and take a look at that expression on Ryberg’s face — that’s him at the far right).

But it makes perfect sense that even people who share the governor’s political philosophy would want to pull him in a direction away from the position he’s taken — especially if they are his friends.

A few days later, Sen. Davis and Ryberg went public with their “alternative budget” in an op-ed piece in The State. They say all this confrontation is unnecessary, that they can balance the budget and avoid teacher layoffs and prison closings without a dime of the disputed stimulus money.

You know what? I have not idea to what extent their numbers add up, because frankly I find budget numbers to be a form of math far more slippery than Douglas Adams’ satirical “Bistromath.” I’e seen lawmakers resolve budet crises on the last day of the legislative session, with a puff of smoke and a “presto — we found more money!” — too many times. But I know that Tom Davis and Greg Ryberg are perfectly sincere. I trust their intentions; I know they believe what they’re saying. They’re good guys — I refer you to what I’ve said about Tom and about Greg in the past.

But to the extent that they are trying to find a way to compromise with the governor, I say thanks but no thanks. Aside from their efforts, I’ve heard others speak of compromising with the governor on the stimulus — say, let’s just spent this much, and then use this much to “pay down debt.”

But there are two really big reasons not to go along with that, reasons not to compromise with the governor’s position in any way: First, whether you think the stimulus bill passed by the Congress was a good idea or not (or well-executed or not), South Carolinians are going to be paying for it, and need to get maximum benefit out of it. And as Cindi Scoppe pointed out in her column Sunday, no sane person would pass up the chance to keep a few more of our public servants working and paying their bills for a couple of years, rather than on unemployment, to help us get through this rough patch.

The second reason is this: The governor is WRONG. He is philosophically wrong, and he uses bogus numbers (I refer you again to Cindi’s column) to support his rather sad arguments. This man does not believe in the fundamental functions of state government. He is openly allied with people whose goal is reduce government to a size at which it can be drowned in a bathtub. He sees the size of government ratcheting downward (even though he claims, absurdly, the opposite), and his number-one priority is to make sure the ratchet sticks, that the cuts to essential functions in government are not restored. His insistence on using money that is needed now on something, ANYTHING other than immediate needs — even to pay debts that NO ONE expects the state to pay at this time — is essential to the permanent reductions he seeks. The last thing he ever wants is for the state to be rescued by any sort of windfall.

And that point of view needs to be rejected, flatly and clearly. No compromise with a position so wrong should even be contemplated.

Getting pumped over the budget

If you want to see someone who gets pumped about his job, look no further than Wesley Donehue over at the S.C. Senate Republican Caucus. I got this release from him a few minutes ago:

Members of the Press –

Happy Monday! I hope you are ready for a fun week of super charged budget debate live from the South Carolina Senate Chamber.

The state budget will be reported from Finance Committee tomorrow and placed on the Calendar for Wednesday. You should expect the normal Senate schedule to change a bit throughout the week. In addition to budget debate, both the payday lending bill and the 10th Amendment bill are set for debate on special order slots.

Here are the other hot items popping up this week:

ON THE SENATE CALENDAR

Stimulus Resolution (S.577 – Leatherman); Adjourned Debate

Payday Lending (H.3301 – Harrell); Special Order, 2nd reading

10th Amendment Resolution (S.424 – Bright); Special Order

Dental Health Education Program (S.286 – Cleary); 3rd reading, uncontested

State Spending Limits (S.1 – McConnell); 2nd reading, McConnell objecting

Smoking in Cars (S.23 – Jackson); 2nd reading, L. Martin objecting

Fee moratorium (S.517 – Davis); 2nd reading, Lourie, Hutto objecting

Public Private Partnerships – DOT (S.521 – Grooms); 2nd reading, Hutto, Thomas objecting

Telecom Local Exchange Carriers (H.3299 – Sandifer); 2nd reading, uncontested

ESC Reform (S.391 – Ryberg); 2nd reading, Minority Report

24-hour Waiting Period for Abortions (H.3245 – Delleney); 2nd reading, Minority Report

SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS

Water Withdrawal (S.452 – Campbell) – Agriculture Subcommittee, Tuesday, 9 a.m.

“Kendra’s Law” (S.348 – Fair) – Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, 3 p.m.

Home Invasion Protection Act (S.153 – Campsen) – Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, 3 p.m.

Concealed Weapons on School Property (S.593 – S. Martin) – Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, 3 p.m.

SC Healthnet Program (S.455 – Thomas) – Banking & Insurance Committee, Wednesday, 9 a.m.

Education Opportunity Act – (S.520 – Ford) – Education Subcommittee, Thursday, 9 a.m.

Public School Choice Program – (S.607 – Hayes) – Education Subcommittee, Thursday, 9 a.m.

Car Title Lending (S.111 – Malloy) – Banking & Insurance Subcommittee, Thursday, 9 a.m.

Have a wonderful week!

Thanks,

Wesley

I don’t know about y’all, but my eyes are open a little wider, and I’m just that much more excited about my week than I was a few moments ago…

Bobby Harrell’s excellent column today

Bobby Harrell’s op-ed piece in The State today was quite good. Not just because I agree with it. In fact, there is nothing remarkable in that. Pretty much everyone from all parts of the political spectrum holds the view I do on the stimulus — that now that it is a fact and we will have to pay for it, we must make sure that South Carolina gets every penny of its share. Only a tiny band of reality-denying ideologues disagrees. Unfortunately, one of them is our governor. Our state is cursed in that regard.

But I often read columns that I agree with, and wish I didn’t, because they are so weak. They actually harm the cause. Not so in this case. Bobby does a pretty decent job. I wonder if it was this good when he turned it in, or whether Cindi (who has handled local op-eds since Mike left last year) made it this good editing it. Whichever is the case, I liked it.

Set aside the issue of whether Marie Antoinette actually said the thing about letting the peasants eat cake (she probably did not). I find often that the lead anecdote or analogy is the weakest part of an otherwise good column. And in this case, the idea expressed is sound, even if the historical reference is not.

The speaker sets the governor’s nonsense against hard reality, such as when he invites the governor to seek out the places where he thinks government is growing:

If he really thinks we are somehow growing spending by 11 percent this year, I invite the governor to visit the schools, police stations and disability care facilities and see for himself the reductions — not expansions — they are having to make.

And of course, the governor’s assertion that government is growing will NOT stand up to scrutiny at the rubber-meets-the-road level.

Then, he rather deftly takes away the one thing even many of the governor’s detractors would concede him — his ideological purity — by pointing out his inconsistency:

While Gov. Sanford has made it clear that he adamantly opposes taking this education and law enforcement stimulus money, he has at the same time already accepted all the other funds that he can out of the remaining 90 percent of the $8 billion in stimulus money and tax cuts coming to our state.

It makes no sense for the governor to cherry-pick the funds he will accept — such as the $50 million to make buildings more energy-efficient that he requested the other week — and oppose money for teachers and law enforcement officers on so-called “philosophical” grounds. This is inconsistent with any kind of viewpoint and goes against what most people would consider to be common sense.

Finally, he explains why the governor’s oft-repeated claim that lawmakers could avoid deep cuts simply by following the budget HE recommended months ago simply doesn’t fit reality:

These budgetary facts are not some form of “scare tactics,” as the governor claims. Pointing to his executive budget written months ago, the governor says he was able to fund key areas of government without stimulus money. But what he doesn’t tell you is that he also had $254 million more in state funds than budget writers have available today because the Board of Economic Advisors has twice lowered the revenue estimates since then.

Given the quarter of a billion dollars less in state funds that we have to write a budget with, the only thing scary about these facts is the reality of the situation — a reality Gov. Sanford doesn’t seem to grasp.

On the whole, a good piece.

Cindi sets the governor’s numbers straight

I highly recommend Cindi’s column in The State today, which debunks the numbers the governor uses in arguing his quirky view of the stimulus, and does so in highly understandable (even for me) terms. A sample:

The governor’s other numbers aren’t quite as obviously skewed, which is why we need to take a closer look at them. Since Mr. Sanford consolidated most of his claims in a recent op-ed column, let’s just work from that:

• “Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion.”

The budget passed by the House, which includes all $928 million in stimulus funds, was $21.2 billion, but because of another across-the-board cut last month, it will have to be cut to $21.1 billion. If you left out the $350 million Mr. Sanford wants left out, you’d be down to $20.7 billion. That’s about $800 million more than the current budget of $19.9 billion, which has been cut many times, but it’s less than the $20.9 budget the Legislature passed last spring.

On top of that, more than a third of the money is federal funds, which agencies don’t have the discretion to divert the way they can state funds. And of course our population is increasing, which increases the demand for government services.

• “Even education spending will go from $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion.”

After I raised questions about the first figure, Mr. Sanford’s office sent out a note Tuesday saying it got bad figures from the State Budget Office and it should have said education spending will go from $3.43 billion to $3.55 billion. But even the “correct” numbers demand explanation. The budget passed by the House includes $3.8 billion in state and federal funding for the state Education Department; eliminate stimulus funds, and it drops to $3.55 billion. Last month’s budget cuts would reduce that figure to $3.5 billion. So, the increase would be $70 million, not $200 million.

Still, that is an increase. Sort of. Here’s where context is crucial: The budget the Legislature passed last spring promised $3.8 billion to the schools, so they started this school year thinking they had $3.8 billion to spend; they paid the raises the Legislature mandated, and kept their staff at the levels that would support. Then the state budget cuts started. Since schools were barred by law from laying off teachers or cutting their pay, they had to dip into their reserve funds. That means they will actually spend significantly more than $3.5 billion this year.

So getting $3.5 billion next year would be a reduction, and reductions mean layoffs. (At an average $61,000 in salary and benefits, a $100 million cut takes out more than 1,600 teachers.)…

But you should go read the whole thing. It’s all valuable.

There’s no journalist in South Carolina who understands, or explains, state fiscal matters better than Cindi. I’ve relied heavily on her ability to explain these things — to me, and to the readers — for over 20 years.

Sanford’s letter to Obama

28 Replies

So that you might be fully informed, I pass this on. Can you see me rolling my eyes from where you sit?

You saw the story about Obama's response to the original request, right? The administration told the gov that the stimulus is supposed to be used to save or create jobs. To which it might well have added, "Duh!" Marvelous restraint on the administration's part there.

Anyway, here's the latest letter:

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR

March 17, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President
United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I'd first thank you and Director Orszag for your response of March 16 to my letter of the previous week. Likewise, I have to express my disappointment that our substantive dialogue about the best way to adapt this stimulus to the unique situations of states across this country was interrupted by the Democratic National Committee's launching of a petty attack ad against us even before we had received your response.

I've made clear my opposition to using debt to solve a problem created in the first place by too much debt – and I don't believe this to be an unreasonable position. What I find less reasonable is the way this DNC attack ad returns a nation indeed yearning for change back to the same old politics-as-usual. Because I believe you and I share a common desire to escape this worn-out "attack first" mentality, I'd respectfully ask you to immediately condemn and put an end to this unnecessary politicization of a truly important policy discussion.

In the spirit of moving forward, I'd offer the following as a clarification to our using a portion of the stimulus funds to paying down our state's sizable debt. With regard to the Education Stabilization Fund monies (ARRA § 14002(a)(1)) that must be used "for the support of * education," we think it would be consistent with statutory requirements to use this $577 million to pay down the roughly $579 million of principal for State School Facilities Bonds and Research University Infrastructure Bonds over two years. This would immediately free up over $162 million in debt service in the first two years and save roughly $125 million in interest payments over the next 13 years, which could then be directed towards other educational purposes – just as paying off a mortgage early frees up the typical monthly payment for other uses.

Regarding the $125 million in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund (ARRA § 14002(b)(1)) headed to South Carolina, we'd lay out a few options for your consideration: first, paying down debt related to the state's Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund that currently exceeds $200 million and would directly impact those currently out of work in this struggling economy; second, paying down debt related to state retirees, since that would seem to satisfy the statutory requirement that these funds be used for "other government services"; or third, paying down other bonded indebtedness at the state level.

We trust these alternative proposals fit both the statutory requirements and spirit of the stimulus legislation. Thank you again for your response, and we would again appreciate your opinion as soon as possible given that we believe this course of action will do more to ensure South Carolina's long-term economic strength than would other contemplated uses of the funds.

I also await your response on pulling down the attack ads. A good part of your candidacy was fueled by the hope for change in the way political debate is conducted in our country. On this, actions will speak louder than words – words you have been so gifted in delivering – in determining where you really stand, not as a candidate promising to deliver on change, but as a leader now capable of bringing this change. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Mark Sanford

cc: The Honorable Peter R. Orszag, Director
Office of Management and Budget

Good job rejecting the tuition caps

17 Replies

This might sound strange coming from a guy who was already counting pennies (or quarters, anyway — I miscounted how many I had this morning in my truck, and ended up with a parking ticket because I didn't have enough for the meter), with my two youngest daughters still in college. And now I'm about to be unemployed.

But I'm glad the House rejected tuition caps at S.C. colleges and universities. I have an anecdote to share about that.

Remember the recent day when college students wandered the State House lobbying lawmakers on behalf of their institutions. They wanted the state to invest in higher education the way North Carolina and Georgia have. Either that day, or the day after, I had lunch with Clemson President James Barker, and he told me an anecdote he had witnessed: He said the students were pressing a lawmaker NOT to support the tuition caps, because they were worried about their institutions being even more underfunded — they hardly get anything from the state — some are down below 20 percent funding by the state, and the rest has to come from such sources as tuition, federal research grants and private gifts. Eliminate the ability to raise tuition, and the institution's ability to provide an excellent education is significantly curtailed. If we want lower tuitions, the state should go back to funding higher percentages of the schools' budgets, the way our neighboring states with better higher ed systems do.

The lawmaker listened to the kids, and then said with great condescension, maybe you kids don't care if tuition goes up, but I'll bet your parents would like a cap. He thought he had them there, but the kids set him straight: None of their parents were paying the bills. These kids were working their way through schools and paying for it all themselves. And they didn't want to see the quality of what they were working so hard to pay for be degraded by an artificial cap on tuition. The lawmaker had not counted on getting that answer.

I wish I had been there to see it, because I've been in a similar place before. Back in 95 or 96, Speaker Wilkins had brought his committee chairs to see us, and I started challenging the wisdom of their massive rollback of property taxes paid for school.One of them allowed as how he bet I was glad to get that couple of hundred dollars I didn't have to pay. And I answered him that I was ashamed that I was paying so little through my property tax to support schools that I knew needed more resources. He said smugly that he was sure I wouldn't want to give it back. I told him I didn't see as how there was any channel for doing that, but if he could point me to the right person who would take my money and see it gets to the right place, I would pay the difference. He didn't have a good answer for that.

It would be great if our lawmakers would stop assuming that all of us in South Carolina are so greedily shortsighted that we can't see past our personal desire to pay less money, and that we are corruptible by a scheme to starve colleges of reasonable support.

Stem cells and the Kulturkampf see-saw

36 Replies

Here's a place for those of you who are so inclined to comment on the Obama administration's new policy on stem cells. That is to say, the latest tilt in the Kulturkampf see-saw. Republicans get in charge, it tilts one way. Democrats get in charge, it tilts the other. And so it continues, even in the "post-partisan" era.

I don't know what to say about it myself because … I don't know; I guess I haven't thought about it enough or something. The partisans seem REALLY sure of their sides, and personally, I don't know how they can be. But maybe it's something missing in me.

I suppose I was relatively comfortable with the Bush position because, near as I could tell, it was a compromise. But then, if I'm reading correctly, the Obama position is ALSO to some extent a compromise, because some restrictions will remain. And yet it is touted as a total reversal, which perhaps it is. I find it confusing.

It's not something we have a position on as an editorial board, because on these culture war things we are often genuinely conflicted. Many editorial boards are quick to sound off on these things because they are more ideologically homogeneous than we are. For us, it's not so simple, and we generally prefer to use up our political capital with each other struggling over the very difficult issues facing South Carolina, which are tough enough.

Anyway, if you read the editorials of most newspapers on the subject, you might think that there is no controversy at all, that the Obama position is of course the right and true one, and you need to be awfully backward to think otherwise — nothing short of a triumph of science over the forces of darkness. Some examples:

The New York Times: "We welcome President Obama’s decision to lift the Bush administration’s restrictions on federal financing for embryonic stem cell research. His move ends a long, bleak period in which the moral objections of religious conservatives were allowed to constrain the progress of a medically important science."
The Boston Globe: "We applaud President Obama's executive order reversing the ban on
federal stem-cell research, and the return of science unhobbled by
political or religious considerations." (Actually, that quote is not from the editorial itself, but from the blurb summarizing it online.)
The Philadelphia Inquirer: "Americans are understandably divided over President Obama's decision to lift restrictions on federal funding of human embryonic stem-cell research. But he took the course that promises the greater medical benefit. In reversing a funding ban imposed by President Bush, Obama yesterday also took a welcome step toward restoring the rightful place of scientific research in guiding public policy."
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "Federal funding is no guarantee that embryonic stem cell research will provide hoped-for cures to dreaded diseases like diabetes, let alone guarantee that any cures might come soon. But the executive order that Mr. Obama signed on Monday will clear away bureaucratic and procedural hurdles that have hampered that research. It provides an important new source of funding. Perhaps most important, it signals a new commitment to science ideals, free inquiry and open debate in American public policy."

The relatively "conservative" Chicago Tribune was more muted in its praise and even-handed in its presentation, but nevertheless expressed approval for the Obama move, saying the Bush policy had been too restrictive:

Sensible barriers to federal funding for cloning and the creation of embryos for research purposes remain in place. On Monday, Obama asked lawmakers to provide the support that will put the country at the forefront of vital stem cell research. It's now up to Congress to get behind the scientists. All Obama did was get out of their way.

And The Wall Street Journal? No editorial. But they did run an op-ed piece criticizing the new policy, headlined, "The President Politicizes Stem-Cell Research," with the subhead, "Taxpayers have a right to be left out of it."

That last point is one that one doesn't see emphasized enough, which is that this is not about whether research is allowed, but whether we the taxpayers will pay for it. And that's a legitimate conversation to have.

Another point that I would appreciate being updated on, and that seems to get ignored in the shouting matches, is the idea that the science has made the political argument moot, in terms of moving beyond the need for embryonic cells. That was the point made in this Krauthammer column a while back:

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan's Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.
Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Was that wishful thinking on Krauthammer's part? Did that turn out to be a dead-end? Maybe some of you who follow the issue more closely than I do can point to something I should read to that effect.

Anyway, I'll be interested to see what Krauthammer says about it, if he addresses it. He has an interesting perspective for someone wearing the "conservative" stamp. First, to my knowledge he's not anti-abortion. Also, he is a physician by training, and he served on the Bush administration's Council on Bioethics, which HE maintains (and I'm sure some of you will disagree, although I just don't know) was…

… one of the most ideologically balanced bioethics commissions in the
history of this country. It consisted of scientists, ethicists,
theologians, philosophers, physicians — and others (James Q. Wilson,
Francis Fukuyama and me among them) of a secular bent not committed to
one school or the other.

Anyway, that ought to be enough fodder to get y'all started, if you want to discuss this.

I spent everything I had for this hat

8 Replies

Finding myself at the Surfside Pier this afternoon, and having forgotten to bring a hat (having the sun glaring down in the gap over my shades drives me nuts), it occurred to me that I had never, in all these years, bought a hat that said "Surfside Beach."

And "all these years" is a lot of years. My grandfather bought two lots down here in about 1957. He built a little cottage on one of them. In about 1968, he built a house on the other lot, which is on a freshwater lake about two blocks from the ocean. He sold the other one to a friend of the family, and the lady lived there for about the next 30 years. Then it was sold and torn down to make way for TWO houses of the tall, skinny, stilted variety that started cropping up around here about 15 years ago. Here's a coincidence for you — Tim Kelly has stayed in one of those houses, which are right across the street from the "new" house. Very small world.

Anyway, needing a hat, I spotted this beauty. I hope you like it, because it cost $8.99 plus tax (see the price tag still on it, my little tribute to Minnie Pearl), and I only had a sawbuck in my wallet.

In fact, I had to take $2 out of my wife's purse to buy coffee at this coffee shop so I could come post this. I didn't want the coffee, but you have to have cover. Speaking of cover, as I've mentioned before, this coffee shop is actually sort of a front. The real business is a commercial bakery in the back. Zoning rules required that it be a retail business, so they put in the coffee shop as a sort of retail fig leaf. A few minutes ago, the young counterwoman said she was leaving, but I didn't have to leave; I should just let the guy in the back know when I leave. Very casual. I'm glad I'm not keeping her, the way the old man did the waiter in "A Clean, Well-Lighted Place." She had enough on her mind because she was trying to keep tabs on a little boy out in front of the cafe, in the bright sunlight. She had to keep telling him to get out of the street. She had been sitting in the sun in front of the place when I arrived, and it was easier to keep track of the boy that way, so I felt bad that she had to come in on my account. I felt worse that she had to brew decaf for me. She said she didn't mind. But it occurs to me that she would have been perfectly happy if I had just come in to use the internet connection rather than insisting on buying something. Since the main business is in the back and all.

She's getting married soon, so I congratulated her.

By the way, I didn't really come in just to post this. I came in to get my column ready to post tomorrow. What, you think I don't have better things to do?

$41 million for SC, and everybody’s in on it

15 Replies

You get used to press releases from congressional offices in which Rep. This or Sen. That announces that his district or state is going to get X amount of federal largesse. Even when the member had nothing to do with it, by announcing it, he gets credit. It's routine.

But this one was so big that the president and the veep had to get in on it, which is something new for me:

President Obama, Vice President Biden, U.S. Transportation

Secretary LaHood, Announce Availability of Nearly $41.2 million in Public Transportation Investments for South Carolina

More than $8 Billion Made Available
Across the Country for Mass Transit

President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced the availability of $41,154,218 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) for South Carolina in public transportation funding. The funding was part of $8.4 billion made available to repair and build America’s public transportation infrastructure.
    “All over the country, resources are being put to work not only creating jobs now – but also investing in the future. A future that strengthens our transit system, makes us more energy efficient and increases safety,” said Vice President Joe Biden. “With this recovery package, we will be creating jobs, saving jobs, and putting money in people’s pockets. And with these resources, we’ll not only be rebuilding roads and bridges and schools, we’ll be rebuilding America.”
    “Investments in public transportation put people to work, but they also get people to work in a way that moves us towards our long term goals of energy security and a better quality of life,” said Secretary LaHood. “That is why transit funding was included in the ARRA and why we think it is a key part of America’s transportation future.”
    The U.S. Department of Transportation has already committed $540 million in federally financed loans, about one-third of the total cost, for the intermodal center, which is proceeding on time and on budget.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation will monitor state compliance and track job creation. The projects will be web-posted for the public to see with information on projects accessible at www.recovery.gov.

###

une aide de 900 millions de dollars

13 Replies

One of the many, many groups that send me releases via e-mail every day — which I generally delete immediately, not because I'm not interested or the subject is unimportant, but because there's only so much time in the day — is one called The Israel Project.

Today's release from that group grabbed my attention, though, because — inexplicably — it was in French. Here's the headline and subhead:

Les États-Unis annoncent une aide de 900 millions de dollars pour la reconstruction de Gaza
L'argent aidera Gaza pour consolider l'Autorité palestinienne

… which reminds me: Night before last, I was downstairs working out for the first time this year (more about that later), when a report came on CNN about Hillary Clinton promising this aid to Gaza, with the stipulation that it had to be channeled through the Palestinian Authority.

Which of course raises the question, How on Earth do you get aid to Gaza through the Palestinian Authority when the Palestinian Authority doesn't control Gaza — where, in fact, being associated with the Palestinian Authority can get you shot by Hamas, the real power?

Wolf Blitzer didn't say, and I didn't think about it until I saw this headline. So merci for that.

And now a follow-up question occurs to me: What IS going to happen to this money, in reality?

And here's a follow-up to the follow-up: If this money isn't effectively going to go to relieve actual human suffering, or to further our interests in the region, either, aren't there a whole lot of better ways to spend this money in the world? I ask that because we have notoriously underfunded our diplomatic efforts around the world for years and years. What might this money — mere chump change by stimulus standards, but a respectable amount (I would think) if added on to the State Department budget — accomplish if we actually drew up a list of our international priorities, and funded them?

Down with team-building games

17 Replies

Count me among those who do NOT get worked up about city councils and other public bodies treating themselves to lunch. If you ask me whether taxpayers should have to pay for sandwiches for council members and staff during a meeting that stretches through meal time, I'll say no. But I'm not going to get worked up about it such petty-cash disbursements. It's the much larger spending decisions the elected officials make while they're chewing their pimento cheese sandwiches that matter.

I had to smile over Belinda Gergel's pot luck offering, and Mayor Bob's disclosure that he consumed two Life Savers, but paid for them himself. Mayor Bob can be a witty guy, in a dry sort of way.

But I DO get all worked up and indignant over learning that that same body, Columbia City Council, spent $3,000 on a "leadership seminar focused on team-building" at their retreat at the end of last week.

No, wait; I should clarify. It's not the $3,000 — excuse me, $2,950. It's the fact that they spent anything, including the precious time, on such an exercise. No offense to Juan Johnson, the H.R. whiz who led them through such vital activities as the one in which they had to "work their way through a maze without talking to each other," but what possible good did this do? I mean, pick an issue (say, homelessness), and the council members have already demonstrated amply that they can wander in a maze without talking to each other.

To confess, I have a deep-seated prejudice against team-building exercises. The senior staff here at the newspaper used to have to undergo these embarrassing ordeals. One year we went whitewater rafting in North Carolina. Oh, you think that's bad? Another time, we went to Frankie's Fun Park, where we — among other things — played laser tag. I was mortified at the thought that a reader would see and recognize me, and tell the world before I could zap him. Besides, my laser gun didn't work, and I kept getting killed, which did not help my morale a bit.

Now, I'll confess that I can get into a game as well as anybody, and after griping and moaning louder than anyone in the room, I might end up playing more enthusiastically than anyone. (My favorite team-building exercise ever, which I actually had to go to Miami for: We were shown the first part of "Twelve Angry Men." Then we had to guess in which order the 11 jurors would change their minds and agree with Henry Fonda. I got them all right except for like the eighth and ninth, which I had switched.) But I have never fooled myself into thinking I wasn't wasting time. I've always been aware that I had work that needed doing, and this foolishness was getting in the way.

We don't do these things any more. Why? Because we don't have the money to waste, that's why. If we DID have the money, though, and were bound to waste it, I'd vote that we spend it on paving our sidewalk in gold, or something — anything to avoid a team-building exercise. I'm not a curmudgeon about most things, but I am about this.

Do any of y'all have experience with these things? And have you, or your organization or its customers or anybody else EVER benefited from it? Maybe it's me; I've never had much trouble confronting people and telling them what I think, or working in teams, and have never seen any need for ice-breakers. Maybe they help some people. But I doubt it.

Links about S.C. and the stimulus

6 Replies

Something I forgot to do with my column Sunday about Midlands efforts to steer stimulus funds this way was to link to these two items that also ran on our pages Sunday:

Our editorial on what we think about Sanford's efforts against the stimulus (which you might I wrote, but I didn't). As we said in part, "Mr. Sanford has made his point about his disdain for federal borrowing
and federal intervention. It’s time for him to return to reality and
start acting like a governor."
The governor's own arguments about the stimulus, which he wrote for the op-ed page in response to a piece we'd run earlier in the week from two Democrats, Boyd Brown and Ted Vick, headlined, "Our occasional governor."

Anyway, I think it helps to have those additional reference points.

Going after the stimulus

58 Replies

By BRAD WARTHEN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

WOLF BLITZER: Should South Carolina take the money?
GRAHAM: I think that, yes, from my point of view, I — you don’t want to be crazy here. I mean, if there’s going to be money on the table that will help my state….
— CNN, Wednesday

LINDSEY Graham said that in spite of his strong opposition to the stimulus bill as passed. His aide Kevin Bishop explained the senator’s position this way: “South Carolina accepts the money, future generations of South Carolinians are responsible for paying it back. South Carolina refuses the money, future generations of South Carolinians are still responsible for paying it back.”
    Good point. And now it’s time to think about how South Carolina gets its share.
    A number of local leaders were already thinking about, and working on, that issue while debate raged in Washington. Columbia Mayor Bob Coble and University of South Carolina President Harris Pastides led a group of local leaders who came to see us about that last week. (It included Paul Livingston of Richland County Council; Neil McLean of EngenuitySC; John Lumpkin of NAI Avant; Tameika Isaac Devine of Columbia City Council; John Parks of USC Innovista; Bill Boyd of the Waterfront Steering Committee; Judith Davis of BlueCross BlueShield; Ike McLeese of the Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce; and attorney Kyle Michel.)
    The group, dubbed the “Sustainability and Green Jobs Initiative,” sees the stimulus as a chance to get funding for projects they have been promoting for the advancement of the Columbia area, from Innovista to riverfront development, from streetscaping to hydrogen power research.
    The idea is to make sure these local initiatives, which the group sees as synching perfectly with such national priorities as green energy and job creation, are included in the stimulus spending.
    Mayor Coble, who had already set up a “war room” in his office (President Pastides said he was setting up a similar operation at USC, concentrating on grant-writing) to track potential local projects and likely stimulus funding streams, saw little point in waiting around for the final version of the bill, saying we already knew what “90 percent” of it would be, whatever the conference committee came up with.
    Some specifics: Mayor Coble first mentions the North Main streetscaping project, which is already under way. President Obama wants shovel-ready projects? Well, says Mayor Bob, “The shovel’s already out there” on North Main. Stimulus funding would ensure the project could be completed without interruption.
    He said other city efforts that could be eligible for stimulus funds included fighting homelessness, extending broadband access to areas that don’t have it, hiring more police officers and helping them buy homes in the neighborhoods they serve.
    But the biggest potential seems to lie in the areas where the city and the university are trying to put our community on the cutting edge of new energy sources and green technology. With the city about to host the 2009 National Hydrogen Association Conference and Hydrogen Expo, Columbia couldn’t be in a better position to attract stimulus resources related to that priority.
    The group was asked to what extent Gov. Mark Sanford’s opposition to stimulus funds flowing to our state created an obstacle to their efforts. “There’s no use arguing with the governor,” the mayor said. But the local group’s efforts will be focused on being ready when an opportunity for funding does come — whether via Rep. James Clyburn’s legislative end-run, or through federal agencies, or by whatever means.
President Pastides says, “The governor has deeply held beliefs and philosophies and I respect him not only for having them,” but for being straight about it and not just telling people what they want to hear. At the same time, with the university looking at cutting 300 jobs and holding open almost every vacancy, “there are almost no lifelines for me to turn to” to sustain the university’s missions. An opportunity such as the stimulus must be seized. He sees opportunities in energy, basic science and biomedical research.
    As big as the stakes are for the Midlands regarding the stimulus itself, there are larger implications.
    A successful local effort within the stimulus context could be just the beginning of a highly rewarding partnership with Washington, suggested attorney Kyle Michel, who handles governmental relations for EngenuitySC. He noted that many provisions in the stimulus are the thin end of the wedge on broader Obama goals. This is particularly true of the effort toward “transitioning us away from… getting our energy from the people who are shooting at us,” which he describes as the administration’s highest goal. “What are we going to do over the next four years to play our part in that goal of the Obama administration? Because this 43 or 49 billion is just the start.”
    He also said what should be obvious by now: “If we don’t draw that money down… it doesn’t go back to the taxpayer. It goes to other states.”
    President Pastides said, “This is almost like someone has announced a race with a really big prize at the end,” and you don’t win the prize just for entering; you have to compete. That appeals to him, and he’s eager for the university and the community to show what they can do.
    This group is focused less on the ideological battle in which our governor is engaged, and more on the practical benefits for this part of South Carolina. It’s good to know that someone is.

For links and more, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

Clyburn says SC to get $8 billion

34 Replies

No sooner had I posted that last post than another e-mail came in from Jim Clyburn's office, and I think y'all might find this one more interesting:

South Carolina will receive nearly $8 billion in federal investments to get people back to work and help turn the economic crisis around. Below is a list of specific program funding included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which passed the House this afternoon. NOTE: The $8 billion figure doesn't include some tax breaks or FMAP funding.

Here is a link to an interactive map http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/compromise_map.html

Hope E. Derrick
Communications Director
Office of Congressman James E. Clyburn

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits