Category Archives: The Nation

WSJ slaps DeMint

This morning, The Wall Street Journal set out to say disparaging things about Arlen Specter in this editorial, but at the end turned and gave a slap to Jim DeMint (and, by implication, other impractical ideologues such as the Journal‘s own darling, Mark Sanford):

On the other hand, Republicans shouldn’t follow South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint and welcome Mr. Specter’s defection as an ideological cleansing. “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs,” Mr. DeMint said yesterday.

We believe in all of those things, but 30 Senate votes merely gets you the same fate as the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae, without the glory. A minority party that wants to become a majority needs convictions, but it also needs coalition builders.

It’s the old debate I’ve written about a number of times before, regarding Sanford and in other contexts: Should one strive to be right, or to be effective? For my part, I’ve always tried to dodge the question and insist one can be both. But Mark Sanford unhesitatingly chooses being “right,” by his lights, and doesn’t give a fig for being effective.

One big difference between the Journal and me, of course — aside from their admiring Sanford for all the wrong reasons — is that they actually CARE whether the Republicans hold power or not. For me, the only thing wrong with the GOP drying up and blowing away is that the Democratic Party shows no signs of doing the same.

But they are right about Sen. DeMint — he has become the zampolit of the Senate — it’s all about ideological purity for him. Maybe because that’s all he’s got left; I don’t know.

So Obama WON’T be the Energy Party president

Remember last year when I wrote about the fact that, although I really liked both Barack Obama and John McCain, unfortunately neither of them measured up to Energy Party standards? Well, I did, whether you remember it or not:

JOHN McCAIN and Barack Obama are lucky there’s such a thing as Republicans and Democrats in this country, because neither would be able to get the Energy Party nomination.

Well, I wish I’d been wrong, but I was (yet again) right. I can’t help it; it’s like a curse.

Just as the last administration was too focused on “drill, baby, drill” and wanted nothing to do with conservation and little to do with alternative sources, the Obama administration is looking like a typical, old-school, Democratic “no-nukes,” we-can-do-it-all-with-wind-and-solar bunch of ideologues.

At least, I get that impression from this release I got yesterday from Lindsey Graham:

FERC Chairman Says U.S. May Not Need Any More Nuclear or Coal Power Plants
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today responded to the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Jon Wellinghoff, who said our nation may not need to construct any new coal or nuclear power plants.  Wellinghoff deemed nuclear energy “too expensive” and said he saw no need to build coal or new nuclear power plants to meet future electricity needs.
Wellinghoff was named Chairman of FERC, the agency that oversees wholesale electric transactions and interstate electric transmission and gas transportation in the United States, by President Barack Obama on March 19, 2009.
Graham said:
“I’m afraid if we follow his advice we may be marching into darkness.
“To suggest a few sources of alternative energy alone could handle our future energy needs — in place of new nuclear or coal plants — defies reality.  I support capitalizing on all of our energy options, including deploying more alternative sources of energy.  However, the public is ill-served when someone in such a prominent position suggests alternative energy programs are developed and in such a state that we should abandon our plans to build more plants.  How the Chairman of FERC arrived at such a conclusion — and one which really no one else has arrived at – is not reassuring.
“I am writing Chairman Wellinghoff and want him to explain to me how America can meet its energy needs and remain competitive in the global economy without new nuclear or coal plants.  I hope he was taken out of context because what he has reportedly said is breathtaking.”
#####

Marching into darkness, indeed.

For those of you who are not sufficiently indoctrinated, we in the Energy Party believe you have to do EVERYTHING that will make us energy-independent, with the primary strategic goal of freeing us from the whims of some of the world’s worst thugs, and the side benefits of transforming our economy and saving the planet (without being all ideologically anal retentive about it). Yes, drill. Build nuclear plants. Open frickin’ Yucca Mountain. But push like crazy for electric cars (and, eventually, hydrogen). Support public transit, to get people out of their cars (and besides, I love subways, and it’s my party). Support innovation and experimentation. Lower speed limits to 55, and enforce them. And so on and so forth. Read the Manifesto, so I don’t have to repeat myself so much.

But all we ever get out of Washington in EITHER-OR. And neither ideologically limited approach is going to get us where we need to go.

More security breaches

Just now got to looking at this morning’s Wall Street Journal, and I see they have another disturbing report about U.S. counterintelligence fecklessness.

Last week, it was Chinese and Russian spies probing our electricity grid to figure out how to shut in down in case of war.

This week, the WSJ reports that Chinese (probably) hackers have done the following:

WASHINGTON — Computer spies have broken into the Pentagon’s $300 billion Joint Strike Fighter project — the Defense Department’s costliest weapons program ever — according to current and former government officials familiar with the attacks.

Similar incidents have also breached the Air Force’s air-traffic-control system in recent months, these people say. In the case of the fighter-jet program, the intruders were able to copy and siphon off several terabytes of data related to design and electronics systems, officials say, potentially making it easier to defend against the craft.

The latest intrusions provide new evidence that a battle is heating up between the U.S. and potential adversaries over the data networks that tie the world together. The revelations follow a recent Wall Street Journal report that computers used to control the U.S. electrical-distribution system, as well as other infrastructure, have also been infiltrated by spies abroad…

The good news, to the extent that there was any, was that “while the spies were able to download sizable amounts of data related to the jet-fighter, they weren’t able to access the most sensitive material, which is stored on computers not connected to the Internet.”

Well, duh. So we actually took steps to defend SOME of our most sensitive national security data. Yay for our side.

But beyond that, we’re looking pretty pathetic.

You don’t want to know what I think

Somebody wrote me an e-mail today saying,

Brad-

No blog post on yesterday’s tea parties?  Shame on you.

Tom Willett

Now that doesn’t give me much to go on, but I’m sort of guessing that Tom thought I’d have something NICE to say about these demonstrations. That’s usually the case with such nonspecific comments. Which brings to mind the old Bugs Bunny line, “He don’t know me very well, do he?”

And you know, I don’t want to say anything snide. I did say something snide at the actual event yesterday, and felt bad about it, because those folks were all pretty well behaved and probably sincere and it was a beautiful day, but sometimes you can’t help yourself. But I’m not going to repeat it. I mean, my rep’s bad enough already. In fact, when I ran into Andy Haworth from thestate.com, who was shooting video of the event, he joked (I think it was a joke) that he’d better get away from me lest he catch a stray bullet.

Ironically, he said that not far from the spot when the first editorialist for The State, N.G. Gonzales, was shot down in broad daylight by the lieutenant governor, James Tillman. Y’all know the story: Tillman shot him in cold blood in front of multiple witnesses, including a cop — and the Lexington County jury (there was a change of venue) acquited him, on the grounds that N.G. had written all sorts of mean, nasty ugly things about the killer, causing him to lose an election, and therefore had it coming. That was in 1903.

He got shot, and I only got laid off. So times are better for editorialists, although getting laid off lacks the romance of the way N.G. went out. He did it with style, too. Remember what he said as he fell? “Shoot again, you coward.” Editorialists had a lot of sand in those days.

Oh, but I was supposed to be writing about the anti-tax thing. Look, y’all know how I am about this subject. I’ve always thought the fuss that some whiny people make over what they call “Tax Day” is ridiculous, and a demonstration such as this just doesn’t connect with me. I don’t get it why people resent paying their taxes so much. But they do go on about it, don’t they? (When I see all these folks walking around with “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and such, on a beautiful day in the freest country in the history of the world, I wonder how they would react if they actually were oppressed? What if they lived in a country where you got shot or locked up for protesting? Would it matter enough to them to do so? What if they actually lived in a country that HAD no government to tax them — say, Somalia? Would they like that better? Or worse? I don’t know.)

Go on as they did, even they had a limit. I missed most of the rally because I had an appointment at noon. I arrived at about 1:30, expecting it to go until 2 as announced. But it ended at 1:41. I guess they didn’t have as much outrage as planned, or something.

I shot the above video with my phone. As you can see, what I captured was pretty vanilla stuff, not much to write home about. Maybe the parts I missed were more exciting. Probably not to me, but to someone.

Alternative reality

You know, setting the record straight on the bizarre things Mark Sanford says could be a full-time job. If only I could figure a way to get paid for it.

Basically, to continue to hold the positions the governor does, you have to cling to an alternative version of reality. Take some of the things he has said over the last day or so:

He told Sean Hannity that in joining these tax protests today, he is speaking for a “silent majority.” He should leave the Nixonian expressions alone. Does anyone on the planet Earth think that the anti-gummint types have been “silent” about their resentment toward paying their taxes? Ever? Certainly not in this state. They whine constantly, and the Legislature grovels at their feet and gives them whatever they whine loudest about at a given moment, which is a big reason why our tax structure is such an irrational, patchy mess. They are the reason why lawmakers hardly ever let a session go by without a major tax cut, but have only raised a general tax once since 1987 — and that was the sales tax increase that was passed to offset the virtual elimination of school taxes on owner-occupied homes (perhaps the whiniest of all tax whiner groups). Whether they are the majority remains to be seen. But they have never, ever been silent for even a moment. And they are always heard.

Then, he put out this statement:

“Today it’s worth noting the fact that we are at a truly frightening tipping point with regard to federal spending, and the consequences it will have for every current -and especially future – taxpayer here in South Carolina. This year, government spending will account for more than a quarter of the entire economy, a level not seen since our country was fighting for its survival against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Federal debt is nearly the size of our yearly economy, and is about four times the size of the economy when you add in other government promises like Social Security and Medicare.

“That’s why this stimulus debate we’re having in South Carolina is so important. Though today’s taxpayers are the ones who benefit from the so-called ‘stimulus,’ they’re not the ones paying for it – it will be their children, their grandchildren, and likely their great-grandchildren. We continue to believe that in the midst of this spending, it’s important to leave a dividend for those future taxpayers in the form of debt repayment.”

Ahem. We are not having a “debate” on the stimulus. The debate occurred in Washington. Sanford’s point of view lost the debate. South Carolinians WILL be paying for the stimulus, which WILL be paid out to the states. If South Carolina is insane enough (and we never do quite give up trying to prove wrong the axiom that we are too large to be an insane asylum) not to
take its share of the funds, that amount will be paid to other states and territories.

There’s no debate. There can’t be a debate, because the governor does not have a position that can be rationally argued — except, of course, by pretending that the facts are other than what they are. Which is what he continues to insist on doing.

Obama looking appalled in the Corridor of Shame

obama-photo-bud

Bud Ferillo and I had lunch today for about two hours and 40 minutes, which is something we unemployed people can get away with (although it doesn’t touch my all-time personal best, a three-hour lunch with the late Gov. John C. West at the Summit Club, sometime around the year 2000, when I actually had a job).

Anyway, we spoke of many things, and one of them was this photograph he shared with me of Barack Obama last year when he first beheld J.V. Martin Junior High in Dillon. Bud urged me to note the president-to-be’s look of disgust that children were still attending class in a structure so old. (Or is he just squinting in the sunlight? You be the judge.)

Bud is the director of the acclaimed “Corridor of Shame,” by the way.

Meanwhile, over in the real world…

Laurin raises a question over at Indigo Journal (and by the way, it was nice seeing Laurin, if only for a split-second, at the rally last week): She wonders why Columbia City Council would be meeting to be talking stimulus with Gresham Barrett, an opponent of the stimulus who has no obvious political connection to the Midlands other than running for governor.

Well, I don’t know exactly. But it didn’t strike me as all that odd. After all, Mayor Bob mentioned to me several weeks ago, about the time I was doing this column, that Jim DeMint’s office was being helpful to the city in its effort to get in line for stimulus funds. And there’s nothing strange about that.

Here’s the thing that I have to keep reminding folks on both the right and the left about: The stimulus passed. It’s now time for those who are elected to represent the people to make sure their constituents (and, in Barrett’s case, those he would LIKE to be his constituents) get their share of it. After all, we will all be paying for it (as will our children).

This is the thing that Mark Sanford’s dwindling cadre of supporters still fail to grasp: This isn’t a left-vs.-right or Democrat-vs.-Republican thing now. Every public servant who takes his responsibilities seriously, who believes in doing the job, will usually make SOME effort to make sure the people they work for don’t get shortchanged. Rhetoric’s one thing; doing the job is another.

Mark Sanford is the only significant officeholder I know for whom ideology and rhetoric are the only reality. Now watch — Doug and others will say that’s him being consistent and principled! But they’re not following me. Sanford never notices when his ideology is at odds with reality. He doesn’t care.

For instance, just to mention something routine that illustrates my point, take the hydrogen conference last week. Any other governor in the country would have been proud to have that going on a couple of blocks from his office, and would have broken through barricades to make SOME sort of appearance at it. I’m talking about basic courtesy here, not political opportunism. Something like that comes to your state, to your capital, and you acknowledge it. You encourage it. You care about it. Our governor doesn’t give a damn about it, so he ignored it. What he cares about is taking ideological stands that get him into the national news.

Any other governor, one who was serious about the responsibility of the job, would make it clear that he had problems with the stimulus, if that’s his point of view. But once the debate was over (and at most, the viewpoint of a governor on such a congressional matter is peripheral), he would go ahead and facilitate the flow of the funds, to keep his state from losing out on a benefit that it was going to pay for.

That’s at the least, the very least. What Mark Sanford is doing, acting deliberately as an obstacle, is so far beyond the pale of what any public servant who believed in serving would do that it is inexcusable. And this governor is the ONLY officeholder I have ever run into who would do anything like this.

Welcome to ‘Sanfordville’

Have you reserved your space at the “Sanfordville” tent city set to go up tomorrow at Finlay Park? Here’s where to sign up, and here’s the release I got about it today:

South Carolinians to protest Sanford’s refusal to use stimulus money for education and law enforcement with “tent city” near Governor’s Mansion

On Tuesday, April 7, concerned citizens from all over South Carolina will erect a “tent city” in Finlay Park (Taylor and Gadsden Street) near the Governor’s Mansion in Columbia. The “tent city protest” will run from 10:00 AM until midnight. The symbolic protest is in response to Governor Mark Sanford’s continued refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus money meant for public education and law enforcement. State leaders from both political parties predict that Sanford’s actions could lead to the firing of thousands of teachers and hundreds of prison guards.

South Carolina’s unemployment rate is currently the second highest in the nation and education and law enforcement budgets have already endured deep cuts.  Sanford has consistently ignored pleas from teachers, parents and law enforcement officials to use this funding to prevent disastrous consequences.

Special guests will visit the “tent city” throughout the day. A list of guests will be distributed by tomorrow morning.  Contact Brady Quirk-Garvan for more information at 843-743-5453 or Sanfordville@gmail.com

——————–

###

Yes, you’ve seen this before.

Halevi on chance to work with Israel

This morning, I read with particular interest the piece in the WSJ headlined, “Bibi and Barack Can Unite on Iran.” That’s because it was written by Yossi Klein Halevi, who made an impression on me when he was here to deliver the Solomon-Tenenbaum Lecture in Jewish Studies in 2002.

Here’s the main thing I remember about him: He said that he had always voted for the winner in Israeli elections. When he was feeling a little Likud, the conservative party won. When he was in more of a lefty mood, Labor won. Therefore, whatever Mr. Halevi is thinking, it’s going to come pretty close to expressing the Israeli mainstream at a given moment. I don’t know whether he voted Likud this time or not, but he speaks like a guy who still believes he has his thumb on his nation’s pulse when he writes:

The Israeli Jewish public that voted overwhelmingly for right-wing parties did so primarily for security reasons. The Israeli right of 2009 is a mood, not an ideology. And Mr. Netanyahu understands the expectations of his voters. During the election campaign, he spoke incessantly about stopping a nuclear Iran and the jihadist threat generally — not about settlement growth. However grudgingly, Mr. Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition partners will likely accept some limitation on settlement building. And the presence of the Labor Party in the coalition will ensure moderation on the settlement issue. Indeed, the small National Union party is the only right-wing party that places massive settlement building at the top of its agenda, and it will not be part of this coalition.

For all their differences over the nature of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, Mr. Netanyahu and Labor leader Ehud Barak have set those aside to focus on the most urgent issue facing the Middle East in the coming months: preventing the emergence of a nuclear Iran and the imposition of an irreversible blackmail on the region. Dealing with that threat will define this Likud-Labor coalition.

Mr. Halevi’s point is that Palestinian statehood and settlements aside, Israel and U.S. need to concentrate on the main strategic issue of the moment — preventing the emergence of a nuclear Iran. He sees the opportunity of working with Egypt and the Saudis, who don’t want Tehran to have that kind of clout, either. He also sees the chance to isolate Iran’s surrogates in the region by building up the economy and “civil society” in the West Bank, which “would present the Palestinians with a stark choice between their two territories: the beginnings of prosperity in a peaceful West Bank, or devastation in a jihadist Gaza.” Which makes sense.

Anyway, I recommend the piece.

McMaster confirms the worst

… or, at least, does so to the extent that a mere Attorney General’s opinion can do. Basically, Henry says the Clyburn amendment can’t bypass Gov. Sanford, on account of the 10th amendment.

There also seems to be some separation of powers stuff going on. Here’s a copy of Henry’s letter, which says “the General Assembly itself may not coerce the executive branch to act in accordance with the legislative will.

James Clyburn, meanwhile, is ticked:

ECONOMIC RECOVERY DEBATE: CLYBURN STATEMENT ON McMASTER OPINION
WASHINGTON, DC—House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn today responded to an opinion released by South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster about the interpretation of the so-called “Clyburn workaround amendment,” Section 1607 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Today the State of South Carolina added another chapter in its ongoing effort to maintain a standard of minimally adequate education.  For over 100 years, the last 20 in state courts, leaders in our state have fought to uphold that standard.  Over the last several weeks and without even going to court—the proper venue to determine constitutionality of federal laws—Attorney General McMaster, Governor Sanford and Senator Graham have gone out of their way to ensure that South Carolina continues its long history of providing a minimally adequate education.

“Rather than renewing the age old debate over States’ Rights and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution our leadership should be seeking common ground to provide our schools the funds they need to retain teachers and maintain healthy, safe buildings in which our students can learn.

“What makes ‘state stabilization’ funding different from the funding Governor Sanford has authorized to rebuild highways or increase unemployment checks?  Why aren’t Attorney General McMaster and Senator Graham calling on Governor Sanford to use the very same pen to accept the state stabilization money—which our taxpayers are providing—to retain teachers and give our state’s schools the opportunity to move beyond their minimally adequate legacy?”

-30-

If you ask me, there’s a lot more going on here than some sort of Democrat-vs.-Republican tug of wills over “minimally adequate” schools. But then, Rep. Clyburn didn’t ask me.

Neither, obviously, did the governor. So what do we do now? I don’t know. Maybe y’all have some ideas.

Drowning time for state government

Maybe y’all can explain this to me, since I have no morning editorial board meeting at which I would ask Cindi and Warren to answer this question: “In what sense is this alleged ‘deal’ Mark Sanford is offering on the stimulus a compromise?”

Let’s see — he doesn’t want the $700 million spent to “grow government,” which is the phrase used on his home planet for what English speakers call “restoring some of the cuts to essential services.” He wants to devote the money instead to “paying down debt,” which means many things in Sanfordese, including paying “debt” that won’t even be incurred for a generation — anything, absolutely anything, other than spending the money on immediate needs.

And the Obama administration said no, then when he absurdly asked the same question again (the governor is not bothered by repeating himself; he doesn’t get bored), it said hell no with added language to the effect of, “what part of ‘stimulus’ don’t you understand?”

So now he’s offering a “deal” whereby the Legislature spends that money, but sets aside an equal amount from other sources — which means money that we taxpayers paid for state services we expect — to “pay down debt.” So he gets, let’s see, everything that he wants, and the state doesn’t get anything it needs from that part of the stimulus.

Oh, and by they way, you have to go ahead and make every cut in spending that HE wants, and you can take your deliberative process and stuff it down the oubliette.

That’s my understanding, anyway.

By the way, for those of you who don’t understand the governor’s thinking on all this, let me explain it to you. You’ve no doubt heard that the governor’s ideological ally Grover Norquist wants to shrink government “to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” (Oh, and if you follow that link and think, “Mother Jones! What do expect from a left-wing rag?”, allow me to explain that when Grover came to visit with our editorial board a few years back, he brought at copy of that article with him to make sure we’d seen it. He’s proud of what they wrote about him.)

The recent drastic cuts to state agencies are just catnip to the governor and Grover and their ilk. Once you get government down to where services suffer, they can point to it and say, “See how ineffective government is! What did I tell you?” That gives support to their argument that we “waste” even less money on gummint, thereby making it even less effective… and pretty soon, it’s drowning time.

Our governor isn’t about to let some meddling Obama administration drain the tub right when state government is going down for the third time. This is the moment he’s been waiting for.

Leatherman’s letter to Sanford

Folks, here’s a copy of the letter that Hugh Leatherman wrote to Sanford about the stimulus. Don’t know what to add except that his point, that South Carolinians will pay for this stimulus whether we get the money or not, is one that I heard Republican senators making yesterday at the State House.

Hardly seems worth mentioning because it’s so painfully obvious. To everyone but Sanford. Did you read the short item in the paper today about what Bobby Harrell had to say?

COLUMBIA, S.C. — House Speaker Bobby Harrell said Wednesday South Carolina lawmakers should prepare a budget without using federal stimulus cash unless Gov. Mark Sanford reverses himself and decides to seek the money.

“We’re probably not going to have that money with the governor not requesting it,” Harrell, R-Charleston, said. “It is time to write a budget that does not include that money.”

But Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said it is time for legislators to sit down with the governor and come up with a budget plan that uses $700 million stimulus cash the governor will control during the next two years to pay down state debt or forgoes the federal cash altogether through budget cuts. “So far, they’ve not indicated a willingness to do so.”…

That comment from Joel really gets me. He might as well say, “The governor has invited lawmakers to poke every citizen of South Carolina in the eye with a sharp stick, but so far, they’ve not indicated a willingness to do so…”

Asking Sanford to reconsider

So here is what we’re reduced to, after Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman raised the alarm that the Clyburn amendment notwithstanding, the Legislature might not be able to bypass him to get the stimulus funds: Asking Mark Sanford to reconsider.

Which, I’ve got to say, is not much of a plan.

The senator said, in the story in The State this morning, that he plans to ask the governor to reconsider his quixotic stand against common sense. And at a Senate Finance subcommittee hearing that I attended this morning (to hear the three research university presidents make their budget pitches — more about that later) several other senators urged the presidents, and their trustees, and students, and the small army of alumni attending Carolina Day at the State House, to make their concerns known to “the man downstairs,” as Sen. Darrell Jackson referred to him, even though he was speaking in the Gressette Building rather than the State House proper (and maybe he was talking about some “man downstairs” in the basement of Gressette, but I doubt it).

And what do you think the chances are that the governor will be moved by any of this? Essentially, zero. You have to understand that real-world consequences mean nothing to this governor, whose only reality is his ideological constructs. Especially when the consequences are felt by people other than Mark Sanford.

Maybe you can think of an argument that will cause him to see how nuts it is to refuse money that South Carolinians will have to foot the bill for later anyway. But I’m fresh out.

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

The tax on stupidity

30 Replies

I liked this analogy offered in a book review in The Wall Street Journal Thursday about why we so often call lotteries a "tax on stupidity:"

    'Imagine a standard NFL football field. Somewhere in the field, a student has placed a single, small, common variety of ant that she has marked with a spot of yellow paint. You walk onto the field, blindfolded, and push a pin into the ground. If your pin pierces the marked ant, you win. Otherwise you lose. Want to give it a go?"
    Thus did one mathematician describe the odds of winning a Powerball lottery. Is it any wonder that economists deride state-run lotteries as a tax on stupidity? Bad enough that the government is encouraging gambling; all the worse that it is encouraging such a bad bet.

You betcha.

DNC takes on Sanford

30 Replies


Thought y'all might be interested in this release, and the video above:

New DNC Ad Calls on Mark Sanford
to Stop “Playing Politics” With South Carolina Jobs and Recovery
Money

Click Here to See the DNC Ad “Playing Politics” Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqTkk9t4sec

 

Washington, DC – The
Democratic National Committee today released a new television ad entitled
“Playing Politics” that calls on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to stop
playing politics with federal job creation and economic recovery funds.  The ad,
which will begin airing in Columbia on Monday, outlines the deepening economic
challenges facing South Carolina’s working families.  Despite record
unemployment and soaring foreclosures, Governor Sanford is kowtowing to the Rush
Limbaugh-led obstructionist wing of his political party by rejecting $700
million in money to create jobs, improve our health care system and improve our
schools. 

 

As the ad notes, a bipartisan
group of South Carolina leaders – including Democratic Congressman James
Clyburn, Republican Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, and Republican State House
Speaker Bobby Harrell – have criticized Governor Sanford for putting political
posturing ahead of job creation in South Carolina.   The ad can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqTkk9t4sec

 

“Mark Sanford needs to stop
playing politics with economic recovery and job creation in South Carolina,”
said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse.  “At
a time when his state is suffering from crippling unemployment and more and more
families are losing their homes, South Carolina’s working families cannot afford
for their governor to be distracted by empty political posturing.  If Mark
Sanford is worried about his political future, all he needs to do is focus on
working with leaders from both parties who want to use the economic recovery
funds to help create jobs, fix our schools, reform our health care system, make
America energy independent, and lay the foundation for long-term growth in the
21st Century.”

Here's a companion release, from the state Democratic Party:

SC Dems Applaud Sanford Ad

Columbia,
SC- Governor Mark Sanford will be getting a little more airtime on South
Carolina's cable  television networks next week, but the media attention won't
necessarily be positive.

The Democratic National Committee announced
today it will begin airing an ad criticizing Sanford for not accepting all of
the funds allocated for South Carolina under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. The 30-second ad will begin airing on Monday on cable
television in Columbia.

"South Carolina Democrats are very pleased with
the Democratic National Committee's television ad," said South Carolina
Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler.  "It helps us give Mark Sanford the type of
media attention he deserves. Over the last few months, our governor has shown us
that he is more concerned with being in the national spotlight than with the
well-being of South Carolina's working families. They deserve to have their
voices heard and this ad will encourage them to tell Mark Sanford to stop
playing politics."

Get a Social Security card NOW

16 Replies

I've spent much of today in a series of meetings learning about the various services that the S.C. Employment Security Commission and other state agencies offer to folks in my situation. Yesterday, when I made the appointments, I was told to bring my Social Security card.

Uh… I haven't had a Social Security card for about 35 years, since I was in college. I don't know what happened to it. (At first, I said 25 years, but my wife says I haven't had one as long as she's known me, and we've been married 34 years.)

And in all these years, this is the FIRST time anyone has asked to see it.

Oh, I've meant to get it replaced over the years — at one point years ago, it occupied a "to do" list slot on my old Palm Pilot for more than a year before cleaned the list up and deleted it. I thought it might be important to have one at some time — theoretically — so I should get one someday. But it was very, VERY easy to put off. I downloaded the form once or twice, and even filled it out, but never got it down to the Strom Thurmond Bldg.

A few words about that form, which you can find here:

  • The actual form is one page. But there are four pages of instructions preceding it.
  • You can't fill it out electronically. You have to print it out, and fill it out by hand (with a blue or black pen), which to my mind is just a step or two removed from having to chisel it on a rock.
  • Not all of the answers are immediately obvious — to me, anyway. For instance, they want your full name at the top. Fine. Mine is Donald Bradley Warthen. Then, near the end, it wants you to state your name as it appeared on your old card. Well, I don't have the slightest idea, after all these years, whether that original card said my full name, or "Brad Warthen," or "Bradley Warthen," or "Donald B. Warthen," or "D. Bradley Warthen," or "D.B. Warthen," all of which I have used for various legal purposes in the past.

On that last point — I asked the guy at the window at the Social Security office, and he said it was OK that I didn't fill it out. In any case, he was able to confirm that it was my full name. So I worried over that needlessly. But the thing is, I DO worry about things like that, which is why I really HATE filling out forms, especially if there is no one at hand to ask such questions of. And when there IS someone to ask questions of, I drive them crazy. Because I can always see way too many possible ways to fill out a form. That's how my mind works. When I'm writing a column, I see lots of ways that it could go, lots of possibilities for each word of it — but then I just pick the ones I want. With a form, you have to pick the ones THEY want. What if I screw up? They might do something awful to me — like make me fill out another form.

I did that blasted form three times. Once, I messed up and put my mother's married name instead of her maiden name. Then I filled out another copy, and did it fine, but left it at the office — and I planned to go by the SS office on my way to work this morning. So I printed it out last night at home, and did it again.

Then, I started obsessing about my passport. Near as I could tell from the instructions, I didn't NEED that, since I'd had a card before. I just needed a photo ID. But what if I got an extra officious clerk? Wouldn't it be nice to have backup? I think I was feeling guilty about having let this go for 35 years, and I felt like they would make me pay for my laxness or something.

So I tore up the house last night looking for my passport, finally finding it at the very bottom of a box full of junk I had filled one time when cleaning out my briefcase and clearing my desk. It had a five-pound note in it (in case I ever took it to Britain). I wondered whether leaving the five quid in the passport my grease the skids when I presented it, but decided I'd better not.

When I got to the federal building this morning, my papers clutched in my hand, I emptied my pockets into a little tin plate before going through the metal detector. The guard looked at the itty-bitty Swiss Army knife on my keychain, and said "You can't bring that in here." I asked if I could leave it with him. He said no. I asked what was I supposed to do — I had had to park a block and a half away. He said it didn't matter what I did, as long as I left it OUTSIDE the building. So I went outside, took the knife off, and stashed it under a concrete bench. Then I went back in, and in those few seconds, a line of four or five people had formed at the metal detector.

One of them was a homeless guy (I'm assuming here), who had to take off two layers of coats and other stuff, with a discussion about each layer, and then still set off the machine, and they had to use the wand on him.

So by the time it was my turn, I was ready. I put in my two cell phones, my weaponless keys, my belt I was told to take off, a pen, and four quarters I had for parking meters.

As I was stepping onto the elevator to go to the 11th floor, my Blackberry rang, and it was Nikki Setzler, calling to express his condolences and support. I warned him that he might be cut off in the elevator, just before he was cut off.

Finally, I got upstairs to the SS office on the 11th floor. As you walk in, a security guard tells you to turn off the ringer on your cell phone(s), and if you have to make a call to do it out in the hall, then explains how to take a number. I waited in a short line to get my number, got it, and went to find a seat at the back of the room.

Seeing that there were several customers ahead of me, I did what I ALWAYS do when I have to sit still for a moment. I took out my Blackberry to get some work done — check e-mail, read this or other newspapers online, check my schedule for the day, etc. Trying to decide which was more urgent, it hit me that poor Nikki, my senator, had been cut off. So I called to apologize, and we talked for maybe 30 seconds, when the guard yelled across the room, "Sir! Sir! I told you no calls in here." I told Nikki I'd have to cut him off again, thanked him, hung up, and explained that I had misunderstood; I thought the problem was RINGING… then, as soon as I said that, I remembered the part about having to go into the hall if I needed to make a call.

I saw the sign saying no cell phones, and wondered why. Did it interfere with some delicate equipment, or did it just irritate someone? It's not like this was a restaurant or something (where I agree that phone talking is extremely rude). This was a busy waiting room. But I decided I was in enough trouble; no point asking "why."

So I started to check my e-mail, all the time wondering whether this would get me into trouble, too. And I glanced around my extremely institutional surroundings — saw the homeless guy and the other citizens, looked at the multiple windows and saw the electronic display with our numbers, heard the loudspeaker summoning the next number in harsh tones, and for some reason thought of the film version of 1984, with John Hurt and Richard Burton. I watched a big chunk of it one night recently online at Netflix. And I began to mutter inwardly to myself, "I love Big Brother. I love Big Brother…" Just to get my mind right, you know.

Then my number was called, and a very nice guy was helpful and assured me that I had filled it out fine. It was even OK that I had started to put my mother's maiden name AGAIN and scratched it out and corrected it. We talked a bit about music — he's really into it. And when he found out where I worked, he told me he had been trying to find something in old newspapers about a concert Led Zeppelin did in Tampa back in 1977. I offered to see what I could find for him, although urged him not to be too optimistic, since that was way before newspaper databases went online. He gave me his address. (And no, I wasn't currying favor with Big Brother; I do this kind of thing all the time. Over the weekend, my Dad and I played golf with a guy who flew jets in the Navy over Vietnam, who was asking my Dad if he knew how he could look up information on a guy he flew with who he thinks later went MIA. I interrupted to ask, "What's his name?" He told me, and I found a bunch of stuff about him — a Medal of Honor winner, by the way — on my Blackberry while we waited to tee off. I later e-mailed it all to him. I like doing stuff like that for people, and in this case it was truly an honor.)

Finally, my card was ordered. It'll take two weeks. In the meantime, the nice guy gave me an official document to prove my Social Security legitimacy, which came in handy later in the day.

Yes, there is a point to this story: If you've lost your Social Security card, go ahead and get it replaced. Don't wait until you need it. You don't want all that hassle at that time, no matter how much you love Big Brother.

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.