Category Archives: Taxes

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.

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.

I don’t deserve the credit

13 Replies

Gas1

After noting that one or two of my correspondents were — and I’m sure they were doing it for convenience’s sake — referring to the gasoline tax hike as "Brad’s taxing scheme," or using similar terms, I thought I’d better set the record straight.

I deserve neither the credit nor the blame. In fact, before I embraced the idea, I went through all the objections that y’all raise — disproportionate burden on the working class, cooling effect on the economy, etc. But I believe this is the best, clearest way to:

  • Spread the burden of fighting terror among ALL of us; it’s obscene that we’re not asked to do a thing beyond being inconvenienced at airports. (And while I worry about the poor as well, it’s interesting that David Brooks seems to think that raising the gas tax is more progressive than the SCHIP program. He must be correlating SUV ownership to wealth, or something.)
  • Cut off funding to some of the worst enemies we have in this world, who are made a little richerGas3
    every time we top off the tank.
  • Push us toward alternative fuels that are not only strategically smarter, in terms of making us less dependent, but much, much friendlier to this endangered orb. It would do this partly by making gasoline less marketable, but it would also…
  • Provide a lucrative new revenue stream to — take your pick — pay for the war, fund our neglected infrastructure, build public transportation (I’ll take light rail, please) and develop better fuels. My pick would be all of the above, if the stream were big enough.

I did not arrive there by myself. I was influenced by an array of other writers, who have hit this theme again and again over the last couple of years.

To answer the question asked by Jimmy Rabbite of prospective band members in "The Commitments," here are my influences, and links to their works:

Robert J. Samuelson
As the economist in the bunch, he presents the idea most credibly, thoroughly and convincingly. If a guy like Samuelson were against the idea, I’d be worried. His being for it gives me confidence in something that I arrive at in a more intuitive manner.

  • An Oil Habit America Cannot Break — October 18, 2006 —…Our main energy problem is our huge dependence on imported oil. For years, some remedies have been obvious: Tax oil heavily to spur Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and to drive a bit less, raise sharply the government’s fuel economy standards so those vehicles are available, and allow more oil and gas drilling. In recent years, we’ve done none of these things. It’s doubtful we will anytime soon…
  • Greenhouse Guessing — November 10, 2006 — …In rich democracies, policies that might curb greenhouse gases require politicians and the public to act in exceptionallyGas2
    "enlightened" (read: "unrealistic") ways. They have to accept "pain" now for benefits that won’t materialize for decades, probably after they’re dead. For example, we could adopt a steep gasoline tax and much tougher fuel economy standards for vehicles. In time, that might limit emissions (personally, I favor this on national security grounds). Absent some crisis, politicians usually won’t impose — and the public won’t accept — burdens without corresponding benefits…
  • Seven Tough Choices We Will Not Make — January 17, 2007 — …Enact an energy tax equivalent to $2 a gallon on gasoline — introduced over six years, or about 33 cents annually. The purpose: to increase tax revenue and induce Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles….
  • Blindness on Biofuels — January 24, 2007 — …The great danger of the biofuels craze is that it will divert us from stronger steps to limit dependence on foreign oil: higher fuel taxes to prod Americans to buy more gasoline-efficient vehicles and tougher federal fuel economy standards to force auto companies to produce them. True, Bush supports tougher — but unspecified — fuel economy standards. But the implied increase above today’s 27.5 miles per gallon for cars is modest, because the administration expects gasoline savings from biofuels to be triple those from higher fuel economy standards….
  • A Full Tank of Hypocrisy — May 30, 2007 — …Today’s higher gasoline prices mostly reflect supply and demand. "Holiday travelers ignoring fuel costs," headlined USA Today before the Memorial Day weekend. Gasoline demand is up almost 2 percent from 2006 levels. Meanwhile, gasoline supplies have tightened. More refineries than usual shut this spring for repairs — some outages planned, some not (from accidents or dangerous conditions). In April and May, refineries normally operate well above 90 percent of capacity; in 2007, the operating rate was about 89 percent. Imports also declined for many reasons: higher demand in Europe; refinery problems in Venezuela; more gasoline demand from Nigeria. It’s true that oil companies will reap eye-popping profits from high prices. Still, the logic that steep prices, imposed by the market or by taxes, will encourage energy conservation is irrefutable. At the least, high prices would curb the growth of greenhouse gases and oil imports….
  • Prius Politics — July 25, 2007 — …But we’ve got to start somewhere

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."

Where to find the income tax comparisons

14 Replies

You can find the state-by-state income tax comparison by S.C. Chief Economist Bill Gillespie that Cindi Scoppe wrote about in her column today by following this link. If that doesn’t work, you can go here and select State Individual Income Tax Comparisons for Tax Year 2005 on the left.

And here’s the draft of a less-complex analysis from the state treasurer’s office.

That’s all. Now you can go back to looking at fun stuff.

Wonkish offerings from Romney, Obama

2 Replies

And for all you substantive-policy freaks out there, here are two appropriately dense offerings, which came to me in back-to-back e-mails today.

First, I got this note from William Holley, a very nice young man with the Romney campaign:

Good morning everyone –

 Please take a moment to look at Governor Romney’s newly
released Strategy for a Stronger America – a compilation of  more than 50 policy
proposals covering everything from fighting radical jihad to achieving energy
independence to ending illegal immigration to controlling federal spending.  You
can even download your very own copy, absolutely free of
charge.


Introducing the Strategy for a Stronger America, Governor
Romney wrote: "Our future depends on our willingness to hold to the principles
that have guided and built our nation.  It depends on the character and
sacrifices of the American people.  And it depends on leadership to craft and
implement a Strategy for a Stronger America." 

— Will

Right next to that was another earnest release from Barack Obama, which I invite y’all to read and tell me what you think of it. I MIGHT be able to wade through the highlights of a strategic-vision document, but it’s more than I can bear to obsess over tax policy — although I have great respect for Obama for doing so, because there’s a world full of folks out there who care about such:

Obama
Announces Major Middle Class Tax Relief Plan
Embargoed
Remarks Provided Below

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Barack Obama today announced a bold and innovative plan to reform America’s tax code so that it works for the middle class in a speech to the Tax Policy Center in Washington, DC. Obama’s plan would provide a substantial tax cut for nearly all working Americans, for homeowners, and for low- and middle-income seniors.   

Obama made the case that our current tax code reflects the wrong priorities by rewarding wealth instead of work, and he pledged to restore fairness to the tax code to strengthen the American economy.

Obama’s middle class tax relief plan would provide $80-85 billion in tax cuts to America’s workers, seniors and homeowners by:

  • Cutting taxes for 150 million Americans and their families,
    allowing them to get a tax cut of up to $1000.
  • Easing the burden on the middle class by providing a
    universal homeowner’s tax credit to those who do not itemize their deductions,
    immediately benefiting 10 million homeowners, the majority of whom make under
    $50,000 per year.
  • Eliminating the income tax for any American senior making
    less than $50,000 per year, eliminating income taxes for about 7 million
    American seniors.
  • Simplifying tax filings so millions of Americans can do
    their taxes in less than 5 minutes.

Obama would pay for his tax reform plan by closing corporate
loopholes, cracking down on international tax havens, closing the carried
interest loophole, and increasing the dividends and capital gains rate for the
top bracket.

The plan can be viewed in full HERE.

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."

Here’s how we fail to understand each other

33 Replies

I got a very nice e-mail from a very nice person who was complimentary of my column Sunday, but then it went on to say something that seemed to perfectly illustrate the point of the column. Here’s the message:

Dear Brad,

I very much enjoyed and agree with your editorial
"Policy isn’t about personalities". However, is
this not the reason why The State (and the media
in general) ignores the FairTax?  This plan will
unburden American citizens and businesses and
create economic prosperity by making US-made
products globally competitive. The benefits to our
country are enormous, so I must ask, is it the
proposal itself or is it because Neal Boortz
co-wrote the FairTax book and the legislation is
sponsored by a Republican? (This is what I have
been led to believe). As your column suggests,
ideas should not be judged based on who supports
them.

I welcome your comments.

And here was my response:

No and not. And now I have to ask you:
— Who is Neal Bortz? I’ve never heard of him.
— Why on Earth would you or anyone else have the impression that we would ignore something "because … the legislation is sponsored by a Republican." That’s bizarre.
With all due respect, I think your note is another illustration of my point. Only someone who thinks very differently from the way I do could think my interest in something could be turned on or off by an individual or the party associated with it. Those are alien concepts to me.
As far as the "Fair Tax" is concerned, is that the thing Jim DeMint was pushing back when he ran for the Senate? If so, we examined it pretty carefully at the time, and weren’t too crazy about it. No one has brought it up to me since then. I’ve been vaguely aware there was an effort out there to revive the idea — I think there was a meeting or something at the same time that everybody was busy with the GOP debate, and I saw a banner about it at the luncheon that Fred Thompson spoke at. That’s about all I know.

— Brad Warthen

So now I guess I’ll have to look up this Fair Tax thing at some point, and this Neal Bortz guy too (I mean "Boortz," Google corrected me, sorry for not reading the message more carefully), and I have no idea that I will find either particularly interesting. But I’ll look, when I get time. Right now, I’m processing e-mail. I provide the links so you can look, in case you have time today.

(Tomorrow Mike comes back, and I go back to being only a couple of people, instead of three or four.)

One happy beach bum

2 Replies

Collins

This forwarded message was waiting for me this morning. As I begin another long Friday, it’s good to know that somebody out there is happy and satisfied:

This photo is titled “Tax Change Worries Officials.”  I am holding the March 18th, 2007, edition of The State on the beautiful shores of Cherry Grove.  School systems no longer can rely on residential property taxes; instead they are at the mercy of the State: more pleasing words I have never read in The State.   

Please forward this email & photo to Cindi Scoppe for me.
Many thanks for your prompt courtesy and intelligent attention.  Best wishes for a long, hot summer.

Robert Collins
Irmo SC

Party on, Robert.

Don’t forget — tomorrow’s our anniversary!

33 Replies

Received this e-mail from one of the folks working against the tide to raise the cigarette tax:

Dear Brad,
        This Sunday, July 1 marks the 30th anniversary since South Carolina’s last cigarette tax increase. (July 1, 1977)
        The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is very appreciative of the editorial support that The State has lent to this issue for many years, and particularly this year. I know that John O’Connor is already working on a story about the cigarette tax to run this Sunday, and I’d like to ask you to consider writing an editorial to accompany that article and to highlight this unfortunate anniversary. Obviously, we had hoped that we could get this legislation passed before the July 1 date, but we are certainly thankful to be closer to an increase than we have been in 30 years.
        As you know, the SC Tobacco Collaborative and our member organizations (American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, South Carolina Cancer Alliance, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, etc) strongly support an increase that would bring our state’s cigarette tax to the national average. When we started this legislative session, the national average had just reached $1.02. While our legislature was in session, four other states passed cigarette tax increases, meaning that the national average has climbed to $1.06. We’re not just falling further behind each year that we fail to pass this tax — we are literally falling further behind each month that we fail to pass this tax. Most notably, Tennessee passed a 42-cent tax increase, which will bring their cigarette tax to 62 cents per pack, and increase the southeastern average.
        The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative will continue to build our grassroots support over the next six months. We are greatly optimistic that the Senate will pass this tax very early next session and will do everything we can to keep this issue in front of legislators and the citizens who vote for them.

    Don’t hesitate to call if you have any questions!

    Thanks,
    Kelly

    Kelly Davis
    Cigarette Tax Campaign Coordinator
    SC Tobacco Collaborative

This message was sent on Thursday, but I’m just reading it at a little before 9 p.m. Friday. Sunday’s page is gone, and I can tell you it contains no editorial on this subject (although I do make a passing reference to it in my Sunday column). I haven’t the slightest idea whether the newsroom will have a story on this or not Sunday. One can only guess about such things. In fact, such outside sources are more likely to know what the newsroom’s doing than I am (by design), but they can’t possibly know for sure.

But I do know this — as the memo says, no action can be taken for another six months. Time enough to write about it between now and then.

Marvin’s take on his festival

17 Replies

Here’s an e-mail Marvin Chernoff sent out giving his assessment of how his Columbia Festival of the Arts went:

Here’s my take on the festival.

It was a great success.

The two bookends, the gala at the beginning and the closing concert at
the end, were treasures. Ask anyone who was there (besides, Jeffrey Day), and they will
tell you that this town has never seen anything quite like them, and probably
won’t, for a long while.

Artista Vista this year was a success with good attendance, especially on
Saturday, according to most of the gallery owners.

There were a couple of mistakes that were made because this was the first
year. The biggest was the
timing. It probably should have
been held during the regular season for performance companies so they wouldn’t
have had to expend big dollars for an additional show and could have depended on
subscription attendees to build the audiences.

Nonetheless, As
You Like It, at Theatre USC was an outstanding performance and general
admission sales, that is tickets sold to people outside the university, increased over normal by over 100%!

Opera USC’s Postcard from Morocco was wonderful,
however, attendance was normal.

Palmetto Opera’s Marriage of
Figaro was an outstanding success, including attendance, considering that it
was a new venture without a large following.

Attendance at Marionette Theatre was outstanding.

The three theatres, Trustus, Workshop and Town virtually
sold out during the festival. But more importantly, each of them told
us that there were lots of new attendees, people who were
unaware of the theatres and what they could perform. And all those new people were impressed
with the really fine performances of Nunsense Amen, Ain’t Misbehavin’ and Cats.

USC Dance performed magnificently to a good house.

Attendance at the USC Symphony pops concert with Marvin Hamlisch was a
disappointment. Don’t ask me
why. Sol Hurok once said, “If
they’re not coming, you can’t hold them back.”

The Philharmonic concert was wonderful and, considering that it was not a
subscription part of the season, sold to a good house of 1,400.

Barry, from Mac’s on Main, told me it may have been the best
10 days he ever had.

We’re proud that the Columbia Arts Hall of Fame is now on permanent
display at the Koger Center.

Marina Lamozov, Joseph Rackers, The Capital City Chorale and Skipp
Pearson rocked the Brookland Baptist Church at their free concert. It was a real treat.

First Thursday Jazz Concert at the Zoo
during the festival more than tripled its usual
attendance and the artists who showed their work, virtually, sold out.  The
people at the Zoo were "blown
away."

The Columbia City Jazz Dance Group and the Columbia City Ballet both did
amazing performances to moderate houses.

Washington Street Methodist Church’s schedule of events was
outstanding for them, and they are delighted with the
attendance. So was the
Jewish Cultural Arts group who presented Tel Aviv Café to a good audience at the
Jewish Community Center.

Then there was the Open Studio Tour. Every artist I’ve encountered in this town
has thanked me profusely for helping make the Open Studio Tour
happen. We think that the
artists had over 8,000 visits and that they sold between $35,000 and $40,000 in
art, much of it to people who came in from out of town to visit their
studios. And the people, who
attended, from all over the region, loved it.

Our web site had over 15,000 visits. And we sold over 450 tickets to events
on line during the festival amounting to over $11,000 in sales. We think those are mostly sales to
people who would not have
otherwise gone to the individual box offices or sites to purchase their
tickets. Experts told
us that this was an excellent result for a first time
event.

The bottom line…our goal was to make people in and around
Columbia more
aware and proud of the arts scene here.

DOES ANYONE WHO WAS ALIVE AND BREATHING IN THIS TOWN OVER
THE PAST FEW WEEKS DOUBT THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED?

Marvin

Cigarette tax: Whoop-te-doo

29 Replies

So the House decided to increase the cigarette tax to about a third of the national average? Well, whoop-te-doo.

Of course, at least it’s something. And if you’re going to cut a tax with the money, the grocery tax is a far better choice than the income tax, because the former is actually comparatively high, while the latter is not. It also funds a youth smoking cessation program, so on the  whole it’s pretty decent legislation, certainly better than doing nothing.

There was a lot of fuss made about lawmakers not using all the money for Medicaid or some such. This did not bother me. As I’ve said before, I don’t really care what happens with that money, you could burn it and still accomplish the most significant goal that has motivated me to want to raise it all these years: Study after study has shown that if you raise the price per pack, fewer kids become nicotine addicts.

Anyway, Medicaid costs — just like the costs of those of us who are in private health insurance plans — are climbing so fast that even if you had devoted all the money to that, it would only cover one year’s increase in the expense. Then what do you do? The answer to rising Medicaid costs is the same as the rising private health care costs: We need to overhaul the entire system, and that is one of those few things that might have to be done on the federal, not the state, level.

For details on exactly what happened on this vote, I share with you this memo that my colleague Cindi Scoppe prepared for me. Enjoy:

On Wednesday, the House voted 78-37 to increase the cigarette tax by 30 cents and reduce the sales tax on groceries by 1.6 cents. (H 3567) The tax increase is projected to bring in about the same amount of money as the tax decrease, around $100 million.

There were actually two major questions concerning the cigarette tax: whether to increase it and, if it was to be increased, what ELSE to put in the bill.

The Ways and Means Committee bill increased the cigarette tax by 30 cents, reduced the sales tax on groceries by 1.5 cents, expanded Medicaid coverage, funded a youth smoking prevention program and paid for a couple of other programs. It was designed this way in order to satisfy two separate constituencies in the House: those who would only vote for a tax increase if it was offset by an equal or larger tax decrease, and those who wanted money from a cigarette tax increase to go to Medicaid and other health initiatives. The problem was that this meant the bill would have actually cost the state about $100 million.  To see the details of that package, go to the April 20 version of the bill and scroll down until you see the Fiscal Impact statement.

After initially sticking by this plan, the House eventually changed course and voted 64-52 to strip out nearly all of the spending and make the bill a straight swap: a higher cigarette tax for a lower sales tax on groceries. Here’s that vote, followed by the vote to pass the bill:

Voting to strip out the Medicaid spending:
Ballentine             Bannister              Barfield
Bedingfield            Bingham                Bowen
Brady                  Cato                   Chellis
Clemmons               Cooper                 Crawford
Delleney               Duncan                 Edge
Frye                   Gambrell               Gullick
Hagood                 Haley                  Hamilton
Hardwick               Harrell                Harrison
Herbkersman            Hinson                 Huggins
Kelly                  Kennedy                Kirsh
Leach                  Littlejohn             Loftis
Lowe                   Lucas                  Mahaffey
Merrill                Mulvaney               Perry
Pinson                 E. H. Pitts            M. A. Pitts
Sandifer               Scarborough            Shoopman
Simrill                Skelton                D. C. Smith
G. R. Smith            J. R. Smith            W. D. Smith
Spires                 Stewart                Talley
Taylor                 Thompson               Toole
Umphlett               Viers                  Walker
White                  Whitmire               Witherspoon
Young

Voting to keep the Medicaid spending in the bill:
Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anderson               Anthony                Bales
Battle                 Bowers                 Branham
Brantley               Breeland               G. Brown
R. Brown               Ceips                  Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cotty
Dantzler               Davenport              Funderburk
Hart                   Harvin                 Hayes
Hiott                  Hodges                 Hosey
Howard                 Jefferson              Jennings
Knight                 Limehouse              Mack
McLeod                 Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Rice                   Rutherford
Scott                  Sellers                G. M. Smith
Stavrinakis            Vick                   Weeks
Whipper

—————————————-
The House passed the bill by a vote of 78-37:
Those who voted in the affirmative are:

Agnew                  Allen                  Anderson
Anthony                Bales                  Ballentine
Bannister              Bingham                Bowen
Bowers                 Brady                  Branham
Brantley               Breeland               Ceips
Chellis                Clemmons               Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter            Coleman                Cotty
Crawford               Dantzler               Delleney
Funderburk             Gambrell               Gullick
Hagood                 Hamilton               Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Harvin
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hosey
Howard                 Huggins                Jefferson
Jennings               Kelly                  Knight
Limehouse              Littlejohn             Lucas
Mack                   Mahaffey               McLeod
Merrill                Miller                 Mitchell
Moss                   J. H. Neal             J. M. Neal
Ott                    Owens                  Parks
Perry                  Pinson                 E. H. Pitts
M. A. Pitts            Rice                   Rutherford
Sandifer               Scarborough            Simrill
Skelton                D. C. Smith            G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith            Stavrinakis            Stewart
Taylor                 Toole                  Vick
Walker                 Whipper                Whitmire

Total–78

Those who voted in the negative are:

Alexander              Barfield               Battle
Bedingfield            G. Brown               R. Brown
Cato                   Cooper                 Davenport
Duncan                 Edge                   Frye
Haley                  Hart                   Hayes
Hinson                 Hodges                 Kennedy
Kirsh                  Leach                  Lowe
Mulvaney               Neilson                Scott
Sellers                Shoopman               G. M. Smith
W. D. Smith            Spires                 Talley
Thompson               Umphlett               Viers
Weeks                  White                  Witherspoon
Young

Total–37

Tax cuts for the right sort of people

21 Replies

You might have assumed, after reading fellow blogger Joshua Gross’ op-ed in Tuesday’s paper, that the Ways and Means budget he praised as one that "actually resembles a responsible document" (that’s high praise, coming from him) devoted a lot more money to tax cuts than the current year’s budget.

An excerpt:

When the budget was debated last year the appropriators, flush withGrossjoshua $1.1 billion in new
revenues, decided to spend the vast bulk of the money, much of it on pet projects, while reserving a small fraction of the new funds for a property tax reduction that had a negligible impact on job creation in our state. The final budget was a monstrosity so bad the governor chose to veto it in its entirety, knowing full well that the Legislature would still override his veto and spend the money.

Those nasty, monstrous Republican legislative leaders! What were they thinking? But wait! The facts get in the way of Joshua’s interpretation.

  • This year’s Ways and Means proposal, which the House is debating this week, devotes $81 million to an income tax cut.
  • Last year’s budget, so horrible, so monstrous that the governor had to veto it, devoted $92 million to a sales tax cut on groceries and a second sales tax holiday.

That’s right, the bordering-on-responsible budget devotes $11 million less in new revenue to tax cuts than the toss-it-in-the-rubbish, big-government’s-gonna-eat-your-children current budget.

Granted, $14 million of last year’s tax-cut money was a one-time tax reduction, for the silly after-Thanksgiving sales tax holiday that we will not have again this year. But even if you discount that, last year’s budget still included a permanent tax cut of $77 million.

Now I understand that supply-siders don’t like to cut the taxes that ordinary people pay. But let’s at least give a nod to reality here.

The budget they’re debating over there this week is $600 million bigger than the one we’re operating under now (or maybe $1 billion more if you use Sanford math). This money thing is not my forte, but that seems to suggest that even if you ignore the $14 million sales tax holiday, the wild-and-crazy budget from last year actually devoted a nearly identical portion (not to mention amount) of money to new tax cuts as the almost-responsible one on the table right now.

But give my buddy Joshua a break; his piece is accurate in one respect: It’s an accurate representation of the Club for Growth world view.

What do you mean by ‘choice?’

96 Replies

So you’re for ‘school choice.’
What do you mean by that?

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
EVERYBODY likes “school choice,” it seems. S.C. Superintendent of Education Jim Rex is for it. Gov. Mark Sanford is for it.
    Even my bishop, Robert Baker of the Diocese of Charleston, favors it, as he said in a letter
thatBishop
appeared in our bulletin at St. Peter’s Catholic Church 14 days ago.
    But look just a bit closer at what “school choice” means to each of them, and you find profound differences.
    Personally, I’m suspicious when any policy issue is summed up as a matter of “choice.” It often means that the people advocating the given position can’t sell it on its merits. They may be avoiding less palatable, but more descriptive, terms such as “abortion,” or “public subsidies for private schools.”
    But not always.
    Of course, the governor is pushing public subsidies for private schools.
    Mr. Rex seems to be clothing his proposed liberalization of school attendance rules in the “choice” mantle, at least in part, in order to head off the folks on the governor’s side.
    In last year’s election, he essentially said to the school privatization crowd: You want choice? I got your choice right here, in the public schools.
    Then, he trotted out his proposals in a press conference the day before the usual crowd unveiled its usual private-school-subsidy plan last week.
    Not that I don’t think Mr. Rex is sincere. He really does want to make it possible for parents to send their kids to the public schools of their choice. It’s an attractive idea.
    But the idea has its limitations. Richland District 2 — which already has a generous intradistrict “choice” policy — can’t make enough room when every child in Fairfield County wants to come on down. How will the state pay to transport those children, when — as is too often the case — their families can’t afford a car?
    The other side has the same problems. Even if we fantasize that an excellent, welcoming private school even exists in a poor, rural child’s county, and has space for him and his voucher — how’s he going to travel the 10 miles each day?
    I know Mr. Rex has thought about those things, by contrast with the private-school choice advocates. We’ll see how well he addresses them.
    The governor is sincere, too. He really does want to use tax money to pay people to desert public schools.
    I know my bishop is sincere. He believes parents should determine what sort of education their children receive, and that it’s important to provide an option for them that teaches Christian values. I agree completely.
    Where we differ is on whether it’s right to ask state taxpayers to subsidize Catholic education. I say no. We shouldn’t do that any more than we should ask the state to fund a new steeple for us.
    The bishop’s letter pretty much freaked me out, because it used rhetoric of the more extreme advocates of privatization. Worse, it urged Catholics to attend a rally those folks are holding at the State House on Tuesday.
    Since then, the bishop has assured me that he did not mean to back any movement that criticized or attacked public schools. And while he’s not withdrawing his support for the Catholic “choice,” you won’t see him at that rally.
    “I apologize for the tone of my letter,” he said, referring to portions that repeated the “South Carolinians for Responsible Government” mantra that “most of our children are not receiving a sound education” from public schools. “I would reword it” if he had it to do over, he told me Friday. He “would like to be seen as a respectful partner in dialogue” with public educators.
    He just wants people to be able to afford the Catholic option. The diocese closed a number of schools that served poor and minority communities back before he became bishop, and he’d like to reverse that trend.
    He would only seek state subsidies “for the working poor and people who are economically at the poverty level.” That’s just what Mark Sanford said he wanted when he ran for governor in 2002. But when out-of-state libertarian extremists started funneling vast sums of money into the state, he embraced their far more radical agenda, which has its roots in the notion that “government schools” are essentially a bad idea.
    My bishop doesn’t embrace that. Of course, I oppose even the more limited funding of Catholic schools with public money. If we Catholics want to provide education to the less fortunate — which we should do — we need to dig into our pockets and pay for that ministry ourselves.
    Jesus didn’t fund his ministry with the money St. Matthew had squeezed from the public as a tax collector. He didn’t take from the world; he gave. He told us to do likewise. We Catholics are far too stingy when the collection basket comes around, and that should change. We shouldn’t force Baptists, Jews, agnostics or anyone else to make up for our failing.
    Uh-oh; I’m preaching again.
    Another eminent Charlestonian told me he was concerned about the bishop’s letter, and kept meaning to say something to him, but hesitated because of his reluctance as a lifelong Catholic to tell his bishop what he ought to do.
    As a convert baptized at Thomas Memorial Baptist Church in Bennettsville, I was not so inhibited. I sort of went all Martin Luther on the bishop. That’s OK, he said: “You’re free to say you disagree.” Which I do. But not entirely. I’m glad we spoke.
    Bottom line: When somebody says they’re for “school choice,” ask for details. The differences are huge, and of critical importance to what kind of state we’re all going to live in.

For the bishop’s letter, my letter to him, and more, go to  http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

Out with the UnParty, in with ENERGY!

57 Replies

Nobody’s proposing a comprehensive energy plan, so I guess we’ll have to do it ourselves.

I’ve had this idea percolating lately that I wanted to develop fully before tossing it out. Maybe do a column on it first, roll it out on a Sunday with lots of fanfare. But hey, the situation calls for action, not hoopla.

So here’s the idea (we’ll refine is as we go along):

Reinvent the Unparty as the Energy Party. Not the Green Party — it’s not just about the environment — but a serious energy party. Go all the way, get real, make like we actually know there’s a war going on. Do the stuff that neither the GOP nor the Dems would ever do:

  • Jack up CAFE standards.
  • Put about a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline.
  • Spend the tax proceeds on a Manhattan project on clean, alternative energy (hydrogen, bio, wind, whatever), and on public transportation (especially light rail).
  • Reduce speed limits everywhere to no more than 55 mph. (This must be credited to Samuel Tenenbaum, who bent my ear about it yet again this morning, and apparently does the same to every presidential wannabe who calls his house looking for him or Inez).
  • ENFORCE the damn’ speed limits. If states say they can’t, give them the resources out of the gas tax money.
  • Build nuclear power plants as fast as we can (safely, of course).
  • Either ban SUVs for everyone who can’t demonstrate a life-or-death need to drive one, or tax them at 100 percent of the sales price and throw THAT into the win-the-war kitty.
  • If we go the tax route on SUVs (rather than banning), launch a huge propaganda campaign along the lines of "Loose Lips Sink Ships" (for instance, "Hummers are Osama’s Panzer Corps"). Make wasting fuel the next smoking or DUI — absolutely socially unacceptable.
  • Because it will be a few years before we can be completely free of petrol, drill the ever-lovin’ slush out of the ANWR, explore for oil off Myrtle Beach, and build refinery capacity — all for a limited time of 20 years. Put the limit in the Constitution.

You get the idea. Respect no one’s sacred cows, left or right; go all-out to win the war and, in the long run, save the Earth. Pretty soon, tyrants from Tehran to Moscow to Caracas will be tumbling down without our saying so much as "boo" to them, and global warming will slow within our lifetimes.

THEN, once we’ve done all that, we can start insisting upon some common sense on entitlements, and health care. Change the name to the Pragmatic Party then. Whatever works, whatever is practical, whatever solves our problems — no matter whose ox gets gored. Leave the ideologues in the dust, while we solve the problems.

How’s that sound? Can any of y’all get behind that?

TABOR: Outside money part III

31 Replies

Oh, now this is interesting. If you follow this link from my last Howard Rich post, you get a bunch of other links, one of which explains something called TABOR, or the "Taxpayers Bill of Rights." It’s been the ruin of many a poor state, and God, I know, we’re one.

Does this seem familiar to you? I’ve written about it before, at least tangentially. You see, a modified version of the idea was the basis of the governor’s outrageous veto of the entire state budget earlier this year. I say "modified," but the fact is that both are based upon the ludicrous idea that you can have a formula that tells you in advance that the state budget should be no more than precisely a certain amount.

Of course, maybe this would save us money. We could replace the entire state Legislature with a cheap pocket calculator, seeing as how coming up with a budget is the biggest thing they do most years. It would mean doing away with that old-fashioned idea of representative democracy, but what the hey?

Grover never lets you go

85 Replies

You have no doubt heard of the infamous "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" that Grover Norquist uses to browbeat Republican legislators (and a Democrat here and there) across the land into doing his will instead of the voters’.

Example of the effect it has in the real world is that it paralyzes the S.C. Legislature on the issue of tax reform. They can’t do real, comprehensive tax reform — which would mean taking our whole system and making it more fair and logical — because you can’t do that without somewhere, along with all your tax cuts, raising some other tax to balance things out (even if you’re going for a net reduction in the tax burden, not every tax would go down, if you’re approaching it responsibly).

To be more specific: It’s why we haven’t had an increase in our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax, even though it would reduce teen smoking, and be multiplied by a federal match that would ease the burden of paying for Medicaid, and even though 70 percent of South Carolinians want the tax raised.

All that matters to signers is that Grover doesn’t want the tax raised, so it doesn’t happen. So much for our system of representative democracy.

Anyway, the news is that ATR yesterday released its official list of South Carolina signers.

You will no doubt read the list with some interest, searching for names of folks facing election next month — either because you think this pledge is a good idea, or because you believe, as I do, that promising never to raise a tax in the future is as insanely irresponsible as promising to raise every tax you see. (And before you anti-tax folks say that’s what legislators always do, remember that our General Assembly has not instituted a general tax increase since it bumped up the gasoline tax a couple of pennies in 1987.)

And indeed, you will find such names as that of Rep. Jim Harrison, the House Judiciary chair who is facing energetic opposition in the 75th District. Oh, and there’s Denise Jones, who had second thoughts about signing in our interview, and said she thought her reply to Grover probably got lost in the mail or something anyway. Well, Ms. Jones, it got there.

But don’t put too much stock in this list. Bill Cotty‘s on it, too. Bill Cotty DID sign the list, years ago, but has come to regret that decision profoundly, and has not only refused to sign it in subsequent elections, but withdrawn his original pledge demanded that ATR cease claiming that he’s one of the lawmakers in their pocket. ATR has ignored his pleas, even as its anti-government allies pound Mr. Cotty for being a moderate.

That’s the trouble with this thing. You’re not allowed to wise up and have second thoughts. To Grover, it’s like the Mafia — once you’re a made guy, you’re in for life.

(Oh, and by the way — you might think it unfair that I link to a Mother Jones article to explain to the uninitiated who Grover is. Rest your troubled mind. I learned about that article because when he came to visit our editorial board, Grover passed out copies of it, along with several other press clippings, by way of introducing himself. He’s proud of that piece.)