Category Archives: This just in…

Lott won’t charge Phelps

14 Replies

Just thought I'd provide y'all with a place to comment on the latest on this local story that's made international waves. An excerpt:

    Michael Phelps will not be charged with marijuana possession, though
the Olympic champion swimmer admitted to being pictured holding a
marijuana pipe at a Columbia house party in November, Richland County
Sheriff Leon Lott announced today.

Me, I think the sheriff did the right thing. You?

Clyburn says SC to get $8 billion

34 Replies

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

South Carolina will receive nearly $8 billion in federal investments to get people back to work and help turn the economic crisis around.  Below is a list of specific program funding included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which passed the House this afternoon.  NOTE: The $8 billion figure doesn't include some tax breaks or FMAP funding. 
 
Here is a link to an interactive map http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/02/compromise_map.html

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

Joe sez it’s all that dope we’re doing

16 Replies



The Sanford administration keeps looking for explanations for the fact that we have too much unemployment in South Carolina. First, when the Employment Security Commission ran out of money for jobless benefits (the function of the tax being cut awhile back, combined with — duh — dramatically rising unemployment), he said it's gotta be the ESC's fault; they must be inefficient or something.

Now, his Commerce Secretary's come up with an alternative explanation: It's all that dope. From the AP:

South Carolina Commerce Secretary Joe Taylor has added a new wrinkle to the nation's third-highest unemployment rate by saying drug use is keeping people from getting jobs.

Taylor briefed Gov. Mark Sanford and his Cabinet on today about why he pushed the Employment Security Commission to document why people are out of work and how frequently they claim jobless benefits.

Taylor says the state needs to teach people that failed drug tests will keep them out of work for months. He says recruiting businesses to places with high drug test failure rates doesn't help.

The commission's three members face a Monday deadline to turn over information to Sanford or risk being fired. Sanford says his office will review the data before he decides their fate.

South Carolina's jobless rate was 9.5 percent in December.

Call it the Michael Phelps theory…

Of course, this has the state spin cycle up at full throttle. I first heard of the Taylor comment when I got this response from the S.C. Democrats:

Fowler Calls for Apology from Sanford for Commerce Secretary Slurs

COLUMBIA, S.C. – South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler on Monday called upon Gov. Mark Sanford to apologize for Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor's slurs against South Carolina’s unemployed workers.

According to The Associated Press, Taylor who Sanford appointed as Secretary of Commerce in 2006, told the governor and others attending his cabinet meeting Monday that South Carolina workers are having trouble finding jobs because of their drug use.

“Instead of looking for real solutions to our state’s unemployment crisis, the governor and his cabinet are flailing around desperately, looking for any excuse that will divert blame during this time of crisis. The Secretary of Commerce is supposed to be the state’s ambassador for recruiting new businesses, but Sanford’s pick has been a failure.  Taylor’s comments reflect Gov. Sanford’s desperation to distract attention from South Carolina’s deep unemployment problems, and demonstrate his own poor management skills in supervising the Department of Commerce, which is part of his cabinet,” said Fowler.

“Sanford would rather slur the reputation of South Carolina workers than own up to his own failings and risk his ambition to be president. He and Taylor seem to have no evidence backing up the accusations of drug abuse, they just throw it out there in hopes it will stick.”

South Carolina’s unemployment rate was lower than the nation’s almost every year from 1975 through 2000. But the state’s average yearly jobless rate has been significantly higher than the nation’s since Sanford took office. In December it stood at 9.5 percent – the nation’s third highest, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I can't wait to hear the rest of this story…

(And no, that's not a photo of Joe demonstrating, a la Ross Perot, how drug use and unemployment converge on a chart. It just looks like it. That's a file photo.)

People like that re-form — maybe we should get us some

21 Replies

Thought y'all might find these two press releases, both having to do with a bill to put the Employment Security Commission under the governor, edifying.

First, we have one from Speaker Bobby Harrell, who manages to damn the governor's performance as an economic developer while faintly praising the notion of putting him in charge:

    "This is just another example of the House’s many efforts to restructure and
streamline government. Given recent events, we feel this is the right thing to
do and the proper time to do it.  Moving
the Employment Security Commission under a Department of Workforce will increase
efficiencies and the sharing of crucial employment data but this move alone will
not solve our state’s third worst in the nation unemployment rate, that solution
depends more on job creation not job placement. 
That being said, placing both job creation and job placement agencies
under the executive branch should provide another tool the Governor can use to
take the steps necessary to lower our state’s 9.5% unemployment rate."

… since he obviously hasn't been able to do it yet, he doesn't quite say. As you know, Bobby's never thought a whole lot of the performance of the gov's Commerce Department.

But as much fun as it may be to pick that statement apart, the Speaker's right both ways — South Carolinians are worse off since Mark Sanford became governor, and there's no good reason why the governor should not be over the ESC. In a properly balanced system of government, separate branches of government — legislative vs. executive, executive vs. judicial, etc. — need to have separate bases of power and different lines of accountability. Two entities within the executive branch do NOT.

But the ESC does not agree, and put out this release today:

SCESC Commission Responds to Legislative "Reform" Bill

For Immediate Release                                                                           February 4, 2009

    An economic recession, a high unemployment rate and an unprecedented number of people receiving benefits have led the Governor and several legislators to question the integrity of the S.C. Employment Security Commission.
    The problems currently affecting the system are economic, not systemic, as attested by the fact that other states with similarly high unemployment are also borrowing money to pay benefits.
    The Employment Security Commission’s main concern continues to be addressing the critical the needs of the over 100,000 unemployed citizens of our state through the administering of unemployment benefits, helping individuals to find available jobs and providing a variety of Labor Market Information to both employers, jobseekers and the general public.
    At the same time, the agency is working to provide additional jobs data that the Governor has requested. We will also work closely with the state legislature to assist them in any way possible.
    We have faith in our employees and in the integrity of our system, which has continued to provide excellent employment service to the people of this state for over seventy years.

Don't you love the touch of putting "reform" in quotation marks? In bringing this release to my attention today, a colleague said, "Yes, it's tame. But I find it rather extraordinary that an agency would put out a news release essentially attacking a bill that was introduced to restructure it. Even DHEC doesn't do THAT." If you'll recall, DHEC Commissioner Earl Hunter confined himself to an internal memo — and apparently some informal networking that persuaded allies to back away from reform (or so I infer from the pattern of events).

Here's the thing, folks: The ESC is right to say that the governor's criticism is largely off-base, and willfully ignores the reality of mounting unemployment in this state (preferring to blame it on inefficiency in the agency, because he believes gummint is to blame for everything, and can never be the solution). But the governor's right to gripe when the ESC stonewalls him on information.

The bottom line is that there shouldn't be any political space for these two sides to be fighting. The ESC ought to have to do what the governor says, and the governor shouldn't be able to shirk his responsibility to the people of this state by blaming climbing unemployment on those people over there.

That's why we need to get us some of that re-form, Daddy.

Thank you, Simone… (No problem whatsoever!)

30 Replies

Apparently, someone at Vermont University didn't want Ben Stein there talking about "the great What?…. Depression," or anything else:

    In other venues, Stein has expressed opinions critical of evolutionary theory and in favor of intelligent design, for which he has been sharply criticized in academic circles. He has also offered views on the role of science in the Holocaust that some have found offensive. Fogel said he had been only "vaguely aware" of these controversial views.
    After UVM announced Stein's selection Thursday, Fogel said in a written statement, "profound concerns have been expressed to me by persons both internal and external to the university about his selection." Fogel said he received hundreds of e-mails beginning Saturday — including only about a half-dozen from people at UVM — contending, generally, that Stein's views of science were "affronts to the basic tenets of the academy."
    "Once I apprised Mr. Stein of these communications, he immediately and most graciously declined his commencement invitation," Fogel's statement said.

And the culture wars go on and on and on… Bueller? Bueller?

McCain, Graham support Obama on Gitmo

45 Replies

FYI, I just got this release from Lindsey Graham's office:

JOINT STATEMENT FROM U.S. SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JOHN MCCAIN ON GUANTANAMO EXECUTIVE ORDER

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and John McCain (R-Arizona) today issued the following statement regarding the executive order put forth by President Obama calling for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo:  

“We support President Obama’s decision to close the prison at Guantanamo, reaffirm America’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions, and begin a process that will, we hope, lead to the resolution of all cases of Guantanamo detainees,” said Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator John McCain.  “The executive orders issued today constitute an important step in the right direction but leave several major issues unaddressed.”
“Numerous difficult issues remain,” Senator Graham and Senator McCain continued.  “Present at Guantanamo are a number of detainees who have been cleared for release but have found no foreign country willing to accept them.  Other detainees have been deemed too dangerous for release, but the sensitive nature of the evidence makes prosecution difficult.  The military’s proper role in processing detainees held on the battlefield at Bagram, Afghanistan, and other military prisons around the world must be defended, but that is left unresolved.  Also unresolved is the type of judicial process that would replace the military commissions. We believe the military commissions should have been allowed to continue their work.  We look forward to working with the President and his administration on these issues, keeping in mind that the first priority of the U.S. government is to guarantee the security of the American people.”

            ####

… which seems to me an appropriate stance for the loyal opposition. They support their commander in chief because they share his concerns that our nation live up to its highest ideals — which is completely consistent with their advocacy during the Bush administration. (And remember, McCain said that he, too, would have closed the Gitmo facility if elected.) At the same time, they make sure they get on the record the unresolved problems inherent in this move. Smart, principled and appropriate.

President Obama’s been a very busy bee today

24 Replies



About midafternoon yesterday, I remarked to someone that by that time, Barack Obama had to be pretty tired — and that was before he and the missus stayed out until 1 a.m. at the parties.

Who could have blamed him if he'd chosen to sleep in today? But that's not his style. Here's what he's done so far today:

{BC-Obama-Day One, 12th Ld-Writethru,1110}
{Obama's Day One: recession, war, ethics}
{Eds: UPDATES with Obama quote from open house; restores dropped} 'billion' in 23rd graf. Moving on general news and financial services. AP Video.
{With BC-Inauguration-Poll, BC-Guantanamo-Sept 11 Trial}
{AP Photo DCJH101, DCCD102, DCJH105, DCJH103, WHRE107, DCSA101,} WHRE108
{By JENNIFER LOVEN}=
{AP White House Correspondent}=
   WASHINGTON (AP) — In a first-day flurry of activity, President Barack Obama set up shop in the Oval Office, summoned advisers to begin dealing with war and recession and ordered new ethics rules for "a clean break from business as usual."
   He also froze salaries for top White House staff members, placed phone calls to Mideast leaders and had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year.
   "The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable," Obama said as he unveiled ethics rules that he portrayed as the fulfillment of a major campaign promise. He said the action was necessary "to help restore that faith in government without which we cannot deliver the changes we were sent here to make."
   Devoting swift attention to the Mideast turmoil, Obama prepared to name George Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic leader, a special envoy to the region.
   In his phone calls to Israeli, Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders, Obama emphasized that he would work to consolidate the cease-fire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, said the new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs.
   Gibbs said Obama expressed "his commitment to active engagement in pursuit of Arab-Israeli peace from the beginning of his term."
   The enormity of Obama's challenge on the economy was evident in the mixed messages coming from Capitol Hill.
   Rep. David Obey, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, expressed doubt that the currently planned $825 billion economic stimulus package would be enough, calling the proposal "no silver bullet." At the same time, House Republicans requested a meeting with Obama to air their worries that the plan was too big.
   A multi-denominational prayer service at Washington National Cathedral and an open house at the presidential mansion were also on the schedule of the 44th president, taking office on a promise to fix the battered economy and withdraw U.S. troops from the unpopular war in Iraq on a 16-month timetable.
   At the open house, Obama and his wife, Michelle, shook hands with a line of guests streaming through the Blue Room, some of them moved to tears by the experience.
   "Enjoy yourself, roam around," a smiling Obama told one guest as he passed through the room. "Don't break anything."
   The shift in administrations — former President George W. Bush was back home in Texas — was underscored in far-off Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where a judge granted Obama's request to suspend the war crimes trial of a young Canadian. The judge issued a one-sentence order for the 120-day continuance without so much as a hearing, possibly the beginning of the end for the former administration's system of trials for alleged terrorists.
   A draft executive order made clear the new president intends to go further. It called for closing the facility within a year, releasing some of the 245 detainees still there and transferring others to different sites for trial.
   Pushing back pre-emptively, House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the draft order raises difficult questions.
   "The key question is where do you put these terrorists?" he said. "Do you bring them inside our borders? Do you release them back into the battlefield? … Most local communities around America don't want dangerous terrorists imported into their neighborhoods, and I can't blame them."
   Among Obama's executive orders:
   —A freeze on salaries for White House staff earning $100,000 or more — about 100 people in all.
   —New Freedom of Information Act rules, making it harder to keep the workings of government secret.
   —Tighter ethics rules governing when administration officials can work on issues on which they previously lobbied governmental agencies, and banning them from lobbying the Obama administration after leaving government service.
   Obama and first lady Michelle Obama sat in the first row for Wednesday's invitation-only prayer service. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, joined them, as did former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., awaiting confirmation as secretary of state later in the day.
   "Grant to Barack Obama, president of the United States, and to all in authority your grace and good will. Bless them with your heavenly gifts, give them wisdom and strength to know and to do your will," prayed the Rev. Andy Stanley, one of numerous clerics from several religions to speak.
   Obama's first White House meetings as president meshed with quickened efforts in Congress to add top Cabinet officials to the roster of those confirmed on Tuesday and to advance the economic stimulus measure that is a top priority of his administration.
   Treasury Secretary-designate Timothy Geithner, appearing before the Senate Finance Committee for a confirmation hearing, said enactment of the new president's economic stimulus was essential. He also said the Senate's decision last week to permit use of the second $350 billion installment of a financial industry bailout "will enable us to take the steps necessary to help get credit flowing."
   He said Obama and he "share your belief that this program needs serious reform."
   Geithner also apologized for his failure to pay personal taxes earlier in the decade, calling the omission a mistake. The taxes were repaid in stages, some after an IRS audit and the rest after a review of his returns late last year by Obama's transition team.
   Obama and his wife arrived at the White House around 1 a.m. after attending 10 official inaugural balls.
   Several hours later he walked into the most famous office in America for the first time as president.
   The new White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said in a statement that Obama spent 10 minutes alone and read a note left for him by Bush that was in an envelope marked "To: 44, From: 43."
   He was then joined by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and, several minutes later, the first lady.
   Wednesday's meeting with economic advisers was coming at a time when 11 million Americans are out of work and millions more feel the loss of savings and face the prospect of foreclosures on their homes.
   Last week, Congress cleared the way for use of the second installment of financial-industry bailout money, a pre-inaugural victory for Obama.
   Democratic leaders hope to have the $825 billion economic stimulus measure to his desk by mid-February.
   The war in Iraq that he has prom
ised to end featured prominently in Obama's first day as well.
   Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, were among those called in for the meeting as the new president assumed the role of commander in chief.
   In his inaugural address on Tuesday, Obama said his goal was to "responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan."

If he were a cubicle worker, the guy in the next cubicle would be saying, "Pace yourself, dude; you're making the rest of us look bad." Think Jon Lovitz in "Big."

But I guess this is one of the advantages to having a young president. Just chock full o' energy.

Charles Austin calls it quits

9 Replies

Two days after our editorial "evaluation" of Columbia City Manager Charles Austin — in which we gave him a failing grade — and the same day as our editorial hitting his bosses, the city council, for their part in his failures, Mr. Austin announces that he will retire at the end of March. Here's what our colleagues down in the newsroom have about it:

Embattled City Manager Charles Austin announces retirement

From Staff Reports

Columbia City Manager Charles Austin announced his retirement today, effective March 31.

"Over
the past weeks, especially over the holidays, I have had the
opportunity to reflect my plans for the future," Austin said in a
statement. "After many discussions with my family and a great deal of
thought about this stage of life I now am in, I have decided to
announce my plans to retire as city manager on March 31.

"I have enjoyed my years of service with this great city and wish city council and staff my best."
Austin has been publicly criticized for more than a year for his handling of both the police department and city finances.

City
Council members would not comment but released this statement: "Today
the city manager informed us of his intention to retire at the end of
March. We appreciate his many years of service to our city as police
chief and city manager and accept his decision. We stress that it was
his decision with which city council concurred."

Austin took over as interim city manager on March 15, 2003, after City Council fired former city manager Leona Plaugh.

Plaugh
was fired for targeting certain high-ranking employees for demotion or
marginalization. She was sacked after it discovered she created a
four-page document that described employees as "hatchets," "beavers,"
"alligators" and "moats." It also listed them under categories
"destroy" and "conquer."

Plaugh lasted for 18 months.

Her predecessor, Mike Bierman, was manager for four years before walking out in frustration during his evaluation.

Miles Hadley managed the city for eight years before retiring.

And Gray Olive, Columbia's first manager, was in office for 19 years.

Steve Gantt will be the interim city manager.
More to come

That's all I know; just thought some of y'all would be interested.

S.C. voters back increasing cigarette tax to national average — more than ever

33 Replies

The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative released its new poll today showing support for increasing the state's lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax to the national average is higher than ever:

Overwhelming
Majority of

South
Carolina

Voters

Favor Increase in
Cigarette Tax

 

New Poll
Shows Overwhelming Support for Cigarette Tax

To Reduce
Youth Smoking and Address the State’s Healthcare
Needs

 

Columbia
(January 14, 2009) – Nearly
three-quarters of South Carolinians (74 percent) favor a proposal to raise the
state cigarette tax by 93 cents per pack to help fund programs to reduce tobacco
use among kids as well as programs to increase access to health care for South
Carolinians, according to a new poll released today. A majority of voters (60
percent strongly favor the 93-cent
increase.

 

The poll found that there is no
difference in support between a 93-cent and 50-cent increase. Support for both
specific cigarette tax increases is broad-based, and cuts across party, regional
and ideological lines.

Danny
McGoldrick

, Vice President for

Research

at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids noted,
“From a political standpoint, it’s clearly
‘in for a penny; in for a pound.’ This is because opposition to the cigarette
tax is low and essentially identical at the two levels, while the revenue and
other benefits dramatically increase with the higher
tax.”

 

The survey
of 500 registered

South
Carolina

voters, who are likely to vote, was released
today by the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative in conjunction with the
Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Cancer Society. In announcing its results, the
campaign declared the cigarette tax a win-win-win for

South Carolina

. An
increase in the state’s cigarette tax is a win for public health because it will
reduce smoking, particularly among kids; it’s a win for the state’s fiscal
health because it will raise more than $175 million in new annual revenue for
the state; and it’s a win for lawmakers who support it because of overwhelming
voter support.

 

Strong voter
support is evident among virtually every political and demographic subgroup of
voters in the

Palmetto

State

, as large majorities of Democrats
and Republicans, men and women, young and old, and residents of all parts of the
state support the tax. “The cigarette tax is clearly not a partisan issue,” said
McGoldrick. “The proposal has tremendous support across party lines and across
the state.”

 

Tobacco-caused
costs add more than $960 million per year to tax bills in the state – or more
than $560 for each

South
Carolina

household. “By increasing the cigarette tax,

South Carolina


will reduce smoking, save lives and help offset the health care costs caused by
smoking,” said Dr. Anthony Alberg of the Medical University of South
Carolina.

 

“Youth
smoking is an epidemic, and increasing the cigarette tax is a proven strategy to
protect thousands of

South
Carolina

kids from tobacco addiction,” said Alberg.
“

South
Carolina

has the nation’s lowest cigarette tax rate at
just 7 cents per pack and the lowest funding for prevention programs. We have
failed to take this important step to fight the epidemic. Among the options that
are on the table, increasing the cigarette tax is clearly a preferred solution
to making sure the state can balance the budget while funding important
priorities.”

 

 

In this
difficult economic environment, there is no support for any type of tax increase
in

South
Carolina

, with one exception – an increase in the state
cigarette tax. All other spending reductions or tax increases tested fall
flat.

 

Support for
a 93-cent increase in the state cigarette tax crosses party and ethnic lines,
with 73 percent of base GOPers, 86 percent of white Democrats, and 72 percent of
African Americans backing an increase in the state cigarette tax. Regionally,
support for a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is also strong across the state.
Support is stronger in the Lowcountry (80 percent favor) and Midlands (78
percent favor), but is also high in the Upstate (71 percent favor) and

Pee Dee

regions (67 percent favor). The
“weakest” subgroups – African American women and

Pee
Dee

voters, still back a cigarette tax increase by more than a 60
percent level.

 

In terms of
the specific cigarette tax increases tested by Public Opinion Strategies,
intensity is stronger for the 93-cent tax increase (60 percent strongly favor)
than for the 50-cent tax increase (54 percent strongly favor). Both proposed
increases receive strong support across party and ideological
lines.

 

The poll
found that a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is politically safe for legislators.
More than half (53 percent) of voters are more likely to support a candidate who
supports a cigarette tax increase, while just 14 percent are less likely.
Support remains high among base GOPers (50 percent more likely) as well as among
very conservative voters (51 percent more likely). Opposition among these groups
is low – just 12 percent of base GOPers are less likely, as are just 14 percent
of very conservative voters.

 

When asked
to choose, a significant majority of voters agree that revenue from a cigarette
tax increase should be used to reduce tobacco use, especially among children,
and to expand access to health care (62 percent), rather than to reduce other
state taxes (34 percent). Fully 83 percent of the electorate say they are
concerned about the problem of smoking and other tobacco use among young people
in South Carolina, with more than half (55 percent) of the electorate very
concerned about this issue.

 

Large bodies
of economic research, numerous expert panels, experience in other states, and
even reports from the tobacco industry have concluded decisively that price
increases effectively reduce smoking, especially among youth. The U.S. Surgeon
General, in the 2000 report, Reducing Tobacco Use, concluded that raising
cigarette taxes is widely regarded as one of the most effective tobacco
prevention strategies and that cigarette tax increases would lead to
“substantial long-run improvements in health.”

 

According to
the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 93-cent increase in

South Carolina

’s cigarette tax would prevent more than
63,600

South Carolina

kids alive today from
becoming smokers and prompt 33,500 adult smokers to quit, saving 29,200

South Carolinians

from a premature,
smoking-caused death. The additional revenue from 93 cents per pack would
provide the state with an immediate boost of more than $175 million in revenue
in the first year alone.

 

“The
evidence is clear that increasing the price of cigarettes is one of the most
effective ways to reduce smoking, especially among children and pregnant women,”
said Jim Bowie, Executive Director of the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative.
“Preliminary evidence confirms that every state that has significantly increased
its cigarette tax in recent years has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue,
even while reducing cigarette sales.

South Carolina

has nothing to lose and
everything to gain from raising its cigarette tax.”

 

The South
Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is a coalition of health, education, community,
business and faith organizations dedicated to raising the state excise tax on
cigarettes and other tobacco products to protect our kids. The Collaborative’s
more than 30 member groups, including the American Cancer Society, American
Heart Association, American Lung Association of South Carolina, South Carolina
Cancer

Alliance


and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, support the 93-cent increase
in the cigarette tax to help prevent kids from starting to smoke and to fund
healthcare programs.

 

The survey
was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies. The statewide poll has a random
sample of 500 registered likely

South
Carolina

voters and was conducted December 9 and 11,
2008.  The poll has a margin of error of
+/- 4.38 percentage points.

So I guess I'm not the only one getting impatient on this.

Meanwhile, we had our lunch with the governor today. This subject came up, and basically he backs the idea of going a third of the way to the national average — if it's offset with a tax cut he wants. If it's NOT offset by the tax cut, he'll veto it again. But you probably knew that without my telling you.

Lunch was nice, by the way. Joel saw to it I had a nice grilled fish fillet with salad, and that the dressing didn't do me in. I appreciate it.

S.C. Policy Council pleased, too

3 Replies

Nikki Haley isn't the only previous critic pleased by the House action today. The S.C. Policy Council, her ally on the roll-call voting issue since last session, has also praised the latest move:

For Immediate Release

Contact: Bryan Cox

January 14, 2009

HOUSE EMBRACES TRANSPARENCY, REQUIRES VOTING ON THE RECORD

    The South Carolina House unanimously voted to amend its rules today to require recorded votes on a wide variety of legislation including each section of the state budget, conference committee reports and amended legislature returned from the Senate. The comprehensive rules change passed by the House is even more stringent than the rules approved yesterday by the Senate, which did not include each section of the state budget.
     Policy Council President Ashley Landess said the new House rules show the General Assembly understands the importance of transparency in government.

     “Today’s action is exactly the type of accountability measures the citizens of South Carolina have demanded for the past six months. This is a clear example of what can happen when citizens get involved in the democratic process,” said Landess.
     “Reformers in the House, particularly Representative Nikki Haley, deserve credit for fighting political pressure and standing up for the taxpayers. Today the public won a major victory and we are especially pleased to see transparency brought to the state budget process. The House deserves credit for fixing what was broken and taking a major step toward real reform. This is just the beginning of a movement toward fully transparent and accountable government and we look forward to continue working with reform-minded lawmakers to bring about much-needed change to our state.” …

###

So let's see — Nikki's happy. The Speaker's happy. The Policy Council is happy. I guess I'm happy, too, although I haven't really studied what happened yet — I'm just passing it on to you as fast as it comes in…

Nikki Haley applauds House action on roll-call voting

3 Replies

OK, well, this message, received moments ago, through me for a bit of a loop:

The Haley E-Newsletter – On The Record Voting passes the House

Dear Friends,

We Did It!  On-the-Record Voting just passed on the floor of the South Carolina
House of Representatives by a vote of 115-0!
 
Click here to read my blog which has more details as well as my thoughts about this significant
accomplishment.

Are you as surprised as I am? I had no idea that Nikki had a blog.

There's also, of course, the fact that I thought what the House had been planning to do on roll-call voting did not meet Nikki's, or Nathan Ballantine's standards, which is what all that fuss was about that led to the Speaker booting them off their committees, etc.

But Cindi tells me that the House moved in Nikki's and Nathan's direction on this today. So all's well, I suppose. I haven't had time to sort it out yet; I just bring it to your attention.

Meanwhile, here's what the Speaker's office put out on the subject today:

Office of the Speaker

SOUTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                   

January 14, 2009                                                                                                       

Contact: Greg Foster    

House Strengthens Requirements for Roll Call Votes
Adds to list of required transparent votes

(Columbia, SC) – During December’s organizational session, the House adopted a rule strengthening the requirements in which roll call votes are taken.  Today, House members added to this accountability requirement more instances in which an automatic roll call vote will be required.
     House Speaker Bobby Harrell said, “Strengthening our transparency rules in December was the right thing to do.  Since then, a number of members said they would like to see a few more items added to the required roll call list.  This measure – unanimously adopted by the House – provides for even more true accountability on the major issues taken up by the House of Representatives.”
     Measures requiring a roll call include:

  • Amendment to the Constitution of South Carolina
  • Legislation ratifying a proposed amendment to Constitution of South Carolina
  • Bills raising or reducing a tax or fee
  • Adoption of the Budget
  •  ***Adoption of each section of the Budget unless unanimous consent is given
  • Adoption of a state or congressional reapportionment plan
  • Bills increasing or decreasing the salary, benefits, or retirement benefits of members of the General Assembly, Constitutional Officers, or members of the Judicial Branch
  • Bills amending the Ethics and Accountability Act or the Campaign Finance Act;
  • ***Conference and free conference report
  • Any question for which the Constitution of South Carolina requires a roll call vote
  • Amendments to the Budget spending $10,000 or more
  • ***Adoption of bills returned to the House with Senate Amendments
  • Any election by the General Assembly or the House or Representatives except where the election is declared by unanimous consent to be by declaration
  • All vetoes from the Governor
  • Any questions for which 10 members of the House request a roll call vote

*** New requirements added to December’s rule Change
                  # # #

And they’re writing about a SC issue WHY exactly?

17 Replies

Here's one of those little things that come in over the transom that make you go, "Huh?", and then you realize that actually, they explain quite a lot:

OP-ED EDITORS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, January 09, 2009

South Carolina Unemployment Insurance Needs Reform, Not
Bailout

By Matthew Glans

As in many other states, South Carolina’s unemployment fund is nearing
insolvency due to the growing number of unemployed. The unemployment insurance
program is in dire need of reform, and proposals have been made to raise
employer premiums or cut benefits to help bring the fund back into balance. But
these reforms are a patch job at best.

Governor Mark Sanford (R) understands a federal bailout of the state fund
will inevitably lead to a hike in businesses taxes to cover the rising cost of
unemployment insurance. Some projections predict a possible doubling of the
current tax rate. But increasing the cost of doing business in that way will
suppress economic growth and drive more businesses out of the state—thereby
increasing the burden on the unemployment fund even further.

Tax increases and government bailouts won’t address the systemic deficiencies
but instead will allow the existing problems to survive and continue to grow.
Real reform that fundamentally re-examines the state’s role in providing
unemployment benefits is what’s needed.

With its unemployment rate reaching 8.4 percent in November and payouts of
around $14 million a week depleting the unemployment fund to nothing, the state
recently requested a supplemental line of credit of $15 million from the federal
government to keep the fund afloat through the end of the year. Unemployment
officials are requesting an additional $146 million for the first quarter of
2009.

Sanford approved the request only after the Employment Security Commission
agreed to an independent audit of the program—which should have been done long
ago. The Commission initially resisted this push for increased accountability,
preferring an internal audit instead. To his credit, the governor stuck to his
guns and demanded the Commission be held accountable for its role in the
depletion of the fund.

For the past seven years, South Carolina’s unemployment fund has faced a
fiscal imbalance, with more being taken out through claims than was received
through premiums paid by employers. South Carolina’s unemployment fund has seen
a steady decline since 2001, dropping from $800 million seven years ago to being
virtually exhausted today.

Sanford is being unfairly attacked both in the media and by fellow
legislators for not blindly reaching into the government bailout trough. His
proposal to audit the Commission as a prerequisite for a federal loan is a
positive step that will provide solid evidence to encourage citizens and
legislators to support change.

Given the state’s record of poor management of the funds, privatization
through individual unemployment accounts may be the best option. Individual
unemployment accounts are a mandatory and portable individual trust to which the
employer and employee contribute. These accounts shift control and
responsibility for unemployment coverage from the employer and the state
government to the employer and the employee. They offer the flexibility and
individual choice many employees currently lack, allow individual employees more
control over their money (which follows them from job to job), and lessen the
administrative burden on the state.

Before injecting another $146 million in taxpayer dollars into an ailing
system, it’s important to know where the tax revenue is currently going, whether
adequate measures are in place to ensure applicants are moving through the
system and finding new jobs, and whether there is a concentrated effort to
combat fraud. Sanford’s request for an independent audit is a prudent one, and
these efforts could lead to the identification of systemic deficiencies and
encourage real reform.

Matthew Glans (mglans@heartland.org) is a legislative
specialist for The Heartland Institute.

Basically, what this illuminates is that, as usual, our governor's focus is NOT on South Carolina and what it needs or does not need. It is on playing to these national libertarian groups — this one, the Club for Growth, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal and the like — for whatever national purposes he and they have.

These battles — over unemployment benefits, school vouchers — aren't actually FOR or ABOUT the people of South Carolina, whose actual lives are merely the pawns in these ideological posturings.

Who throws a shoe?

27 Replies

Bush_wart_2

Actually, that Austin Powers quote has little to do with the point of this post — although it was a weird thing to do, a la Random Task….

What I do mean to point out is the fact that across the Mideast, the "Arab Street" was out en masse demonstrating in favor of the guy who did his utmost (by Middle Eastern standards) to insult President W. in Iraq — less than 24 hours after the incident. From The New York Times:

Barely 24 hours after the journalist, Muntader al-Zaidi, was tackled
and arrested for his actions at a Baghdad news conference, the
shoe-throwing incident was generating front-page headlines and
continuing television news coverage. A thinly veiled glee could be
discerned in much of the reporting, especially in the places where
anti-American sentiment runs deepest.

In Sadr City, the
sprawling Baghdad suburb that has seen some of the most intense
fighting between insurgents and American soldiers since the 2003
invasion, thousands of people marched in his defense. In Syria, he was
hailed as a hero. In Libya, he was given an award for courage….

What occurs to me is that this is an impressive display — or many impressive displays, I suppose — of organizational ability. Just think — if the energy and effort that goes into these spontaneous (and sometimes not so spontaneous) expressions of indignation were channeled into building viable industries or — dare we hope — self-government or respect for the rule of law — we’d never have another bit of trouble from that part of the world. Trouble is, a lot of these cultures and systems don’t do "constructive." But they certainly do resentment. You betcha.

Iraq_bush_shoe_wart

Another view on Nikki and the Speaker

5 Replies

We’ve heard from different sides of the divide — or one of the divides — that split S.C. Republicans on the subject of Speaker Harrell’s heavy-handed treatment of Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine. Now I see that Tim Kelly, who is no kind of Republican, has also weighed in on Nikki’s behalf:

There are probably about six things in life that I agree with Mark
Sanford on – and it would still take me about a day-and-a-half to
figure out what they are – but his efforts to introduce more
transparency and accountability into South Carolina government is
definitely at the top of that list.  About the only argument I have
against his efforts to restructure government to give the governor
actual control over the executive branch is that we could end up with
Mark Sanford exercising that control….

So far, not a lot of votes out here in the real world for the Speaker on this…

At least we don’t have to worry about Sanford doing things the CHICAGO way…

13 Replies

Illinois_governor_wart

After more than three decades in this business, you can get sort of jaded. You hear that the governor of Illinois is arrested and charged with trying to sell Barack Obama’s Senate seat, and you think, here we go again. What’s new in the world? Hey, I’ve seen gubernatorial corruption. I was there in Nashville in January 2009 when they swore in Lamar Alexander several days early because Gov. Ray Blanton was expected to turn a bunch of prisoners loose in his last days in office.

And hey, this is Illinois we’re talking about, so what do you expect? They’re doing politics the Chicago way.

But then I saw that, among the nefarious things this Blagojevich was about to do is blackmail the troubled Chicago Tribune into firing the entire editorial board as the price of getting state aid. At that point I thought, now he’s gone to meddling! I mean, there oughta be a law, right? Fortunately, there is…

I’m still not sure exactly what happened. The NYT said:

The authorities also say Mr. Blagojevich threatened to withhold state assistance from the Tribune Company,
the publisher of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, which filed
for bankruptcy on Monday. According to the authorities, Mr. Blagojevich
wanted members of the Tribune’s editorial board, who had criticized
him, to be fired before he extended any state assistance.

What state aid, I wondered? Here I was thinking that my industry was the only one taking its lumps without asking for any government handouts. The WSJ described the plot differently:

Another incident that came from intercepted conversations involved
the Chicago Tribune.  The governor wasn’t pleased with the Tribune’s
coverage of him and its editorial content. According to the government,
the governor threatened to stall the sale of Wrigley Field if the
newspaper failed to fire certain members of the editorial board. Both
the newspaper and Wrigley Field are owned by Tribune Co.

According to Mr. Fitzgerald, the person who was targeted to be fired
is still at the newspaper. He wouldn’t offer specific names.

In a statement, Tribune said the actions of its executives and
advisers working on the Wrigley Field sale "have been appropriate at
all times." The company also said, "No one working for the company or
on its behalf has ever attempted to influence staffing decisions at the
Chicago Tribune or any aspect of the newspaper’s editorial coverage as
a result of conversations with officials in the governor’s
administration."

Apparently, the gov was upset about editorials such as these:

Hey, isn’t that the way a newspaper is supposed to write about its governor?

Anyway, we’ve got nothing to worry about. Aside from the fact that our governor is NOT a crook — and remember, you read it here — our governor doesn’t believe in the gummint getting involved with bailouts anyway, so what kind of leverage could he have if he DID go bad…

By the way, the photo above is of the Illinois gov arriving at da scene of da crime — Tribune Tower — on Monday. In the perp-drive photo below, that’s his (allegedly) naughty face peeping out from behind the cop’s headrest at extreme left.

Blagojevich_corruptio_wart_4

 

Hillary at State: Bad call, Barack

36 Replies

You know the thing we talked about earlier in the week, the thing that David Broder and Tom Friedman and I all said was a bad idea?

Well, apparently it’s happened:

WASHINGTON  —  Hillary Rodham Clinton
has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of
secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the
administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential
nomination, two confidants said Friday….

That’s bad news for the simple fact that Barack Obama needs to be "the public face" of U.S. foreign policy, because he starts off with most of the world having such a great impression of him. Why squander that by putting Hillary Clinton between him and the world?

His secretary of state needs to be someone who is HIS agent and seen as no more than that, not a larger-than-life rival. The office of secretary of state is far too important to be anyone’s plum or concession prize.

This is Obama’s first significant mistake.

We’re lining up for soup

9 Replies

Soupline

Maybe it’s not the 1930s yet. I haven’t seen more people than usual lining up for free soup.

But apparently, a lot more of us are buying soup, the cheaper the better:

According to a November survey of Wal Mart stores focusing on canned foods by
Longbow Research analyst Alton Stump, the canned soup category is gaining
momentum, and within the category, Cambell’s Soup (CPB) is
gaining share against rival Progresso, made by General Mills (GIS)
as consumers look for less expensive meal
alternatives.

According to the survey, volumes in the soup
category expanded at a rate of 10% annually in November, up from the 7%
to 8% gains registered so far during most of 2008.  “The category volume boost
of late resulted in part from an apparent shift in consumer demand towards
takehome food items, which benefited soup in particular as a less-expensive meal
alternative,”  Mr. Stump said.

That’s from a relief from an outfit known as Longbow Research.

Graham likes Obama’s 1st pick

29 Replies

Thought y’all might find this interesting:

Graham Statement on Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of
Staff

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham
(R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the news Illinois Congressman
Rahm Emanuel has accepted the job as White House Chief of Staff.  Graham spoke
by phone with Emanuel earlier today.

Graham said:

“This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama. 

“Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political
skills.  He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work
together.  He is well-suited for the position of White House Chief of Staff. 

“I worked closely with him during the presidential
debate negotiations which were completed in record time.  When we hit a rough
spot, he always looked for a path forward.  I consider Rahm to be a friend and
colleague.  He’s tough but fair.  Honest, direct, and candid.  These qualities
will serve President-elect Obama well. 

“Rahm understands the challenges facing our nation
and will, consistent with the agenda set by President-elect Obama, work to find
common ground where it exists.  I look forward to working with him in his new
position and will continue to do everything I can to help find a pathway forward
on the difficult problems facing our nation.”

            #####

After reading of Mr. Emanuel being a hard-ball operative from Clinton days, and how he was expected to play "bad cop" to Obama’s "good cop," I was prepared not to like him. I mean, didn’t we choose Obama over Hillary Clinton to get away from that stuff? But if Lindsey likes him, I need to reconsider.

By the way, I’d have included a picture of Graham from our recent interview with him, but MY LAPTOP GOT STOLEN, so all those pictures are gone!

Just in case you didn’t know.

Ozmint wants to let prisoners go — what else can he do?

17 Replies

This just in from the AP:

{BC-SC—State Budget-Prisons,0113}
{SC prison chief preps inmate-release plans}
{Eds: APNewsNow. Will be updated.}
   COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina’s prison chief says he has a plan to release inmates early because of a budget shortfall.
   Prison agency director Jon Ozmint told the state’s financial oversight board Thursday he’s prepared to submit an early release plan to the Legislature to ease a deficit of more than $14 million. Earlier this year, legislators rejected Ozmint’s proposal to cut time off the end of sentences.
   The Budget and Control Board is monitoring Ozmint’s shortfall. Gov. Mark Sanford heads the board and says he’s not ready to endorse that kind of plan. He says people committing crimes should know sentences will be carried out.

That’s a short item, but it raises several points:

  • The governor is not the "head" of the Budget and Control Board, in the sense of controlling anything. He’s one of five votes.
  • He IS, however, the boss of Jon Ozmint. Meaning that any plan Mr. Ozmint comes up with that doesn’t have his blessing seems unlikely to see the light of day. Of course, maybe some of those lawmakers who give Ozmint such short shrift because he’s Sanford’s man will actually pay attention if they think it would irk the governor. But the smart money would be on lawmakers doing what they always do — continue to shamefully neglect Corrections, when they’re not pointlessly persecuting it.
  • Sanford picked Ozmint because he was a very conservative, small-gummint sort of Republican. So why would they disagree on this point? Because Mr. Ozmint has for several years had the responsibility, day after day, of actually trying to run the prisons and keep the prisoners inside them with a budget that has shrunk year after years. And faced with that reality, he knows he can’t keep doing it. Mark Sanford’s opinions regarding what it costs to run government properly are entirely theoretical, and immune to practical reality.
  • I recall Mr. Ozmint showing me a while back exactly how thin security was at the time — this many people per that many prisoners, THIS part of a perimeter covered but not THAT part. It was very alarming. And that was several budget cuts ago.
  • We’ve said this many times; perhaps someday the folks at the State House will listen: As much as we need to appropriate more for prisons, the REAL solution is to stop locking up so many people we don’t NEED to lock up — a category that covers most non-violent offenders.
  • Henry McMaster needs to back off on the "no-parole" stuff, and ramp up his efforts to push alternative sentencing.

Today’s drop in the Dow: 733 points

6 Replies

bud wants to talk about the stock market today, so here you go:

NEW YORK — Despair over the economy sent Wall Street plunging again Wednesday, propelling the Dow Jones industrials down 733 points to their second-largest point loss ever. Stocks fell on a combination of disheartening economic data, including a big drop in retail sales and a Federal Reserve report that said tight credit conditions are hurting businesses across the country.

The government’s report that retail sales plunged in September by 1.2 percent – almost double the 0.7 percent drop analysts expected – made it clear that consumers are reluctant to spend amid a shaky economy and a punishing stock market.

The Commerce Department report was sobering because consumer spending accounts for more than two-thirds of U.S. economic activity. The reading came as Wall Street was refocusing its attention on the faltering economy following stepped up government efforts to revive the stagnant credit markets…

Me, I just get tired of the same stuff over and over. Stock traders must have the attention span of goldfish. Seems to me we already decided there was going to be a bad recession, and that the unemployment rate was going to go up, and consumers were unlikely to spend (because, if they’re like me, they ain’t got no money, not because they’re "reluctant"), and credit would be really tight at least until the rescue money started circulating around.

But the guys on the stock market seem to wake up every morning and go, "What? Bad financial news? I had no idea! Let’s all panic!"

And that gets tiresome.