When I received the above cartoon from Bill Day, it caused me to go look for Robert Ariail‘s latest on the subject (more or less).
There’s an interesting area of agreement there — interesting because, given their political predilections, Bill would welcome the idea of the GOP being led into obsolescence, while the idea of Obama being the beneficiary would be distressing to Robert.
Politics aside, I hope this New Year will be a great one for both of these guys. Which reminds me: It’s past time Robert and I got together again at Yesterday’s. I need to find out when he’ll be in town…
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Monday she can’t back up claims that half of the people wanting work at the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site failed drug tests and half of the remainder couldn’t pass reading and writing tests.
Haley said in an interview with The Associated Press that she’s learned a lesson and is going to be more careful.
“I’ve never felt like I had to back up what people tell me. You assume that you’re given good information,” Haley said. “And now I’m learning through you guys that I have to be careful before I say something.”
Haley said she’d probably repeated “a million times” the story that about the test failures before being questioned about the assertions after a Lexington Rotary Club on Sept. 8. Her spokesman has been asked almost daily since then whether the claim could be substantiated…
Hey, if she has truly “learned a lesson,” I think that’s wonderful. And if she’s going to be more careful (and, dare we hope, thoughtful), that would be even better.
Don’t know whether you’ll be able to actually read this Greenville News editorial online (they make it hard), but here are excerpts:
Stop bashing state’s unemployed
The state’s more than 236,000 unemployed workers deserve better treatment than they have gotten in recent days from Gov. Nikki Haley. In her rush to score points with voters who mistakenly believe the unemployed have done something to earn their unkind fate, Haley used careless language to push a fundamentally flawed idea.
“I so want drug testing,” Haley was quoted as saying last week when discussing South Carolina’s stubbornly high unemployment rate that has gotten worse on her watch. “It’s something I’ve been wanting since the first day I walked into office.”…
Haley’s campaign mirrors those being run in a couple dozen states where some politicians are trying to convince people that drug-testing of the unemployed is needed to improve the nation’s wretched unemployment numbers. It’s an approach that simply defies the reality of what has happened over the past few years as the worst economy since the Great Depression has resulted in unemployment stuck near double digits.
This politically driven campaign ignores an important fact. Until the day they were handed their pink slip by companies looking to shore up their bottom lines, unemployed people actually had a job. And in much of America, those jobs came with a mandatory drug test before the job was filled and with other opportunities for random or for-cause drug tests during employment….
… Drugs were a factor in only about 1,000 of more than 400,000 unemployment claims, according to an Associated Press story from earlier this year.
Gov. Haley and other state leaders should focus on bringing more jobs to South Carolina and nurturing a system that better matches employers with workers. And they should stop this unseemly crusade of beating up on unemployed people just to score political points.
I’ll add a thought to that…
Who ARE these people with whom you can make political points by saying stuff like this? Who ARE these people who think of the unemployed as the undeserving “other”? It’s unimaginable to me. Well before I lost my 35-year newspaper career, I knew plenty of people who were out of work, across the economy, and plenty of others who were worried, and with good reason? Who lives in such a bubble that they don’t know all of these worthy, smart, hard-working people?
Oh, I know the answer to those questions. But I’m still incredulous that anyone could be so lacking in perception, and so mean-spirited. And I continue to be stunned that people such as Nikki Haley can appeal to such lowest common impulses and succeed in elections. And I’m sick and tired of this being the case. I want to live in a rational world.
And that’s the bottom line, really. I suppose it’s entirely about compassion in the case of people who are way nicer than I am. But I’m more about recognizing the things that are actually wrong with our economy, seeing how they affect us all, and seeing how even rational self-interest (altruism aside) requires us to address these problems realistically instead of acting like hermit crabs and reaching desperately for stupid excuses to dismiss what’s actually happening.
I didn’t have much to say about South Carolina’s 11.1 percent unemployment rate, beyond these two thoughts: 1) I really hope this isn’t a double-dip recession (and if we actually got out of the first one, which I can’t tell; can you?), and 2) boyohboy am I sick of this stuff.
The disorienting thing for me about all this is that I can’t tell what’s happening. Outside of the newspaper business, I have trouble telling how things are going. I understood the economics of that, so I could tell as we went along: I can see things are bad. OK, now they’re worse. Now they’re WAY worse. Uh-oh, the PACE of getting worse just accelerated, dramatically. Whoa! The bottom just dropped out!
Not so much a roller-coaster ride as a fall down a well.
But out here in the world, where I’m immersed in the thing I was held away from, as a matter of policy — the thing called business — I’m disoriented, and have trouble telling what’s going on. Because it’s going on all around me, above me and below me and inside of me. It’s like… I read once that each man’s experience was totally different on Omaha Beach in the early hours, trapped on a limited scrap of sand that was all pre-sighted by the Germans, as death of various kinds rained down. You would experience one battle, and a guy 15 feet from you would experience something dramatically different.
This is like that, in the business world. Since I wasn’t supposed to touch business in the newspaper world, I could see it unfolding in front of me — like watching it on a screen. Now, I’m in it, and it’s much harder to see the real picture.
So some days I think things are going well, and the economy as a whole is picking up (based on what I see at ADCO and through the lenses of our various clients), and other days… not well at all. And it’s hard to make out the trend, the pattern.
Is it that way for you? Whether it is or not, I can tell that the unemployment rate climbing further is not one of the good signs. Not for any of us.
So that’s what I have to say about it. Someone writing in Salon decided to dig into the numbers, and this is what he had to say:
But a look inside the numbers, at the five worst and five best states, is unhappily revealing. The states with the five highest unemployment rates are Nevada (13.4 percent), California (12.1 percent), Michigan (11.2 percent), South Carolina (11.1 percent) and Florida (10.7 percent.) Nevada, California, Michigan and South Carolina all registered unemployment increases in August, compared to July. Florida held even.
The states with the lowest unemployment rates are North Dakota (3.5 percent), Nebraska (4.2 percent), South Dakota (4.7 percent), New Hampshire (5.3 percent) and Oklahoma (5.6 percent.)…
What does the geographical distribution of the hardest hit areas tell us? Again, not a whole lot that’s new. California, Florida and Nevada were among the three states hit hardest by the housing collapse, with Nevada getting the extra negative bonus of depressed Las Vegas tourism. Michigan, battered by globalization and the woes of the auto industry, has long been near the top of the unemployment charts. (Although the state had been improving quickly until about four months ago, when unemployment started rising again.) South Carolina’s high unemployment rate hasbeen something of a mystery for years. Perhaps the most that can be said is that as a relatively low-tax state dominated by some of the most conservative Republican politicians in the country, it is certainly no advertisement for conservative orthodoxy, at least as far as boosting employment goes.
Of course, that’s about what you’d expect to read in Salon. Next time I see Salon saying anything positive about Republicans, it will be my first time.
They do have a point, though. We have pursued a certain course in South Carolina, in rather dramatic contrast to neighboring states such as Georgia and North Carolina, which decided to build up the kind of infrastructure — especially human infrastructure — that has made their economies stronger than ours.
I’ve lived all over in my life. And in my adult life, I’ve worked — and closely observed politics — in three states (the other two being Tennessee and Kansas). And I’ve never seen any place in this country more afflicted by self-destructive ideology than my home state of South Carolina.
So, you’ve heard what I think, and what some guy writing for Salon thinks. What do you think?
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) wants thejobless to pass a drug test before they can receive benefits, but she seems to have an exaggerated sense of drug use among the unemployed…
Haley said scads of job applicants flunked a drug test at the Savannah River Site, a nuclear reservation along the Savannah River.
“Down on River Site, they were hiring a few hundred people, and when we sat down and talked to them — this was back before the campaign — when we sat down and talked to them, they said of everybody they interviewed, half of them failed a drug test, and of the half that was left, of that 50 percent, the other half couldn’t read and write properly,” Haley said….
Jim Giusti, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, which owns the River Site, told HuffPost he had no idea what Haley was talking about with regard to applicants flunking a drug test.
“Half the people who applied for a job last year or year 2009 did not fail the drug test,” Giusti said. “At the peak of hiring under the Recovery Act we had less than 1 percent of those hired test positive.”
The River Site doesn’t even test applicants. “We only test them when they have been accepted,” Giusti said.
A spokesman for Gov. Haley did not respond to requests for comment…
That’s some good reporting by HuffPo, although the headline was weak. If the body type was right, this was more than an “exaggeration.” Also, I’ve never heard SRS referred to on second reference as “River Site,” but whatever.
Gee, maybe if I’d given up some of those really heavy-duty drugs, I wouldn’t have been out of work for most of 2009, huh?
When I told Robert Ariail I had cartoon for Sunday from Bill Day and asked for one from him, he was glad to share, as always.
He decided to go back to black-and-white for this one, which I (and I think he) both prefer. I think color looks great on a lot of things, but this medium is stronger, has more gravitas, in black and white.
He mentioned that this was one he had thought of several years ago, and when he described it over the phone, I remembered it from when we were at the paper. So often, Robert had strong cartoon ideas (usually, several in a day), but came up with something he liked better for that day and set the first ones aside. I’m glad this isn’t one that ended up thrown away.
Which makes me think of something. Ten years ago, Robert, and Bill, and my old friend Richard Crowson, all had steady, good jobs at newspapers. So did I, for that matter, although I didn’t have their sort of talent.
One of the doughnuts Chris left me back when some of the King's loyal subjects still worked at newspapers.
This rubble used to be the Krispy Kreme Chris went to in Tuscaloosa. Took a direct hit...
When we worked together at The State, Chris Roberts used to bring me a jelly doughnut every Aug. 16 in honor of the King.
He’s not in a position to do that now — he’s in Alabama — but he did show he was thinking of me by sending this:
He went on to say that he would have tried to get a doughnut to me, but the local Krispy Kreme got knocked down by a tornado back in April.
So I sent him a picture of one.
Chris knows how special this day is to me, because I was one of the first people in the world to hear the awful news in 1977:
MY GOOD FRIEND Les Seago was the man who told the world that the King was dead. But before he told the world, he told me.
I’ve always appreciated that, even though it didn’t do me much practical good at the time.
On Aug. 16, 1977, Les was the chief Memphis correspondent for The Associated Press. I was the slot man on the copy desk of The Jackson Sun, which meant I had been at work since 5:30 a.m. By early afternoon, the paper was on its way to readers. I had also been a stringer for Les for years, and I was used to his calls to see what was going on in our area. But he didn’t have time for that this day.
Was it too late to get something in? he demanded. Well, yeah, it was, just barely, but why…?
It looks like Elvis is dead, he said, explaining quickly that he had a source, an ambulance driver from Baptist Hospital, who told him he had just brought Elvis in, and he was pretty sure that his passenger had been beyond help. Gotta go now, ‘bye.
He must have broken all speed records getting it confirmed, because I had just begun to tell my co-workers when the “bulletin” bell went off on the wire machine as it hammered out the news.
Les himself was found dead at his home two years ago [this column ran on this day in 2006], at age 61. Though his career had spanned many years and he had covered Martin Luther King’s assassination, The Associated Press identified him in his obituaryas the man “who filed the bulletin on the death of Elvis Presley.” His ex-wife Nancy said “He wasn’t wild about Elvis, but he was glad that he did break the story.” That was Les…
A packed house watches "Page One" at the Nickelodeon last night.
Last night, I went to see “Page One: Inside The New York Times” at the Nickelodeon. I had been asked to watch the movie, a 2010 documentary, and then stay to be a panelist for a discussion — along with Charles Bierbauer of USC and Dan Cook of the Free Times.
As I arrived, I felt a pang of guilt that yet again, I was making a public appearance and forgetting to tell you, my readers, in advance, in the remote chance you’d like to attend. But I needn’t have worried. The show was sold out. The audience included a lot of familiar faces, such as my old boss Tom McLean, who hired me at The State and was my predecessor as EPE, and the paper’s long-time attorney Jay Bender.
On the way in, I ran into Bill Rogers, head of the state Press Association. He said he was sorry he wouldn’t be able to hear me, because the show was sold out. I told him they had given me two tickets, and my wife was at a book club meeting instead, so he could be my guest. When he sat next to me at the back of the theater (I couldn’t sit at the front because of my neck thing, for which I’m going to get another shot next to my spine today), I took advantage of his slightly owing me to make a pitch: Look Bill, I see that the Press Association is offering online, multi-publication ad packages, and advocacy-ad packages as well. Why not throw come blogs in? It might add some value for the buyer, and I need somebody to sell ads for me.
Shameless, huh? Well, that’s the state of news media in America today.
In fact, one of the most meaningful lines in the film, to me, was spoken by David Carr, who was essentially the star. He’s a great character. A former crack addict, he’s now a media columnist for the NYT — a brilliant reporter, and an awesome bark-off spokesman for why a dying industry matters. (Favorite momentThe movie wasn’t so much about the Times as it was about the horrific troubles of the MSM, using the media desk of the NYT as a window on that world.
Great Carr moment: He’s interviewing the founder of Vice, and said founder is going through the usual mantra about how the MSM don’t cover the real story, so you need the gutsy, edgy fringe guys to tell you what’s really going on and Carr interrupts:
Just a sec, time out. Before you ever went there, we’ve had reporters there reporting on genocide after genocide. Just because you put on a fucking safari helmet and looked at some poop doesn’t give you the right to insult what we do. So continue.
Excuse the language, but one of the things this movie does is show the way people talk in newsrooms. And Carr was talking to a guy who pumped that up to the nth degree to show how hip and edgy he is, so Carr used his own terminology to put him in his place. By the way, here’s the story Carr wrote from that interview.
But that wasn’t his most meaningful line to me. That came when he had been researching an in-depth story about how the boorish Sam Zell had run the Chicago Tribune the rest of the way into the ground, and had done the obligatory interview with the Trib’s spokesman in which you say, Here’s what I’ve got; what’s your reaction? After the ritual comments about “hatchet job” and “I’ll get back to you,” Carr hangs up the phone. Sometime later, after communications from the Trib’s lawyers, he says,
The muscles of the institution are going to kick in at some point. It’s not up to me.
Exactly. And that’s one of the virtues of working in the MSM. There’s somebody to sell the ads, and you’re not even supposed to talk to them (usually, you don’t know them). There’s somebody else to worry about threats of legal action. You just worry about getting your story, and getting it right. And people who’ve never worked at such an institution — or even the somewhat smaller ones like it, across the country — have no idea how liberating and empowering that is.
Frequently, people ask me today whether I find I have greater freedom as a blogger than I did as editorial page editor of the state’s then-largest newspaper. That’s a really stupid question, although I don’t say that, because the asker has no way of knowing that.
Part of the stupidity of the question is based in the notion that when you work at a newspaper, “They tell you what to write.” I’m not entirely clear on who “they” are, but I suppose it’s the owners of the paper. I suppose, and I’ve heard, that when you work at a locally-owned paper where your masters are intricately tied into the community you cover, there are sacred cows, and positions you are told to take and others you are told not to take. But that doesn’t happen when you’re a part of a publicly-traded corporation. In all my years as editorial page editor, only once did anyone at corporate made even a suggestion about editorial content: Tony Ridder tried to make the case to Knight Ridder editorial page editors that the company’s papers should not endorse in presidential elections. His reasons for saying that appeared to be a) that we needed to concentrate on local issues; b) that what we said on our local levels about national politics didn’t matter; and c) that such endorsements only made about half of our readers furious at us. That last reason was, as I recall, more implied and stated; he really concentrated on reason a).
I thought that was a fine theory for a guy who lived and worked in California, but a pretty silly one for an editor in the home of the first-in-the-south primaries. For months before a primary, I had media from all over the country, and from abroad, contacting me to know what I, and we, thought about the candidates. I wasn’t going to tell our readers what we thought? How absurd. I ignored Tony’s suggestion. So did most of the other editors, to the best of my knowledge — I didn’t check, because I didn’t care what they did.
There’s another comment I used to get from people a lot, when I was at the paper. They used to commend me for my “courage” for taking a certain stand. That, too, was ridiculous. I got paid no matter what I wrote. I wasn’t taking any risk, beyond the inconvenience of maybe a source not talking to me any more. So I might as well take stands that mean something rather than write pap, right? I had that whole institution standing behind me, that warm blanket of security.
Here’s what I wrote a while back about the “liberating” effect of no longer working for the MSM:
The first casualty of unemployment is the truth.
OK, maybe not the first. First there’s the blow to one’s bank account. Then the loss of self-confidence. But truth is right up there. Especially for me. Until I was laid off in March, I was editorial page editor of South Carolina’s largest newspaper. A colleague once said to me, accusingly, “You don’t think this is the opinion page. You think it’s the truth page.” I just looked at her blankly. Of course it was the truth page.
Readers expected me to tell everything I knew, and plenty that I only thought I knew – about South Carolina’s feckless politicians (Mark Sanford, Joe Wilson – need I say more?), or whatever struck me, without reservation. And I delivered.
My reputation survives my career. Recently, a friend warned me that people feel constrained in talking to me, because their confidences might turn up on my blog. After all, bloggers tell all, right? Ask Monica Lewinsky. Ask ACORN.
“HAH!” say I.
As a blogger who answers to no one, I am not nearly as frank and open as I was as a newspaper editor who thought he had a secure job.
I haven’t disclosed whom I have worked for on consulting gigs since leaving the paper, because my clients haven’t been crazy about the exposure. Every word I write, I think: Might this put off a prospective employer? And I know it has, despite my caution.
There are things I have not written – pithy, witty, dead-on observations on the passing parade, I assure you – because I think, “Do you have to write that and run the risk of offending this person who MIGHT point you to a job? Can’t you just write about something else?”
And where am I applying for jobs? Well, I’m not going to tell YOU, am I?
People used to praise me for my courage for taking on powerful people at the paper. But I was taking no risk whatsoever. As long as I was supported by advertising, a transaction I was ethically barred from even thinking about, I had impunity.
But an unaligned blogger still trying to function as a journalist stands naked and alone, and is not nearly as free and honest as he was writing from the once-impregnable citadel of an editorial page. At least, this one isn’t. Keep that in mind, citizen, as newspapers fall around you.
Watching that movie launched me on many different streams of thought; I could have talked about them all night. What I just told you describes part of my reaction to a single line. As Tom McLean said after one long-winded response I gave as a panelist, I always needed an editor.
Markets Stumble as Factories, Hiring Slow Down; Biggest Drop in Stocks in a Year
The drumbeat of bad news about the U.S. economy got louder on Wednesday, rattling financial markets and driving stocks to their biggest drop in a year.
The U.S. factory sector, which has been an engine of the recovery, notched its biggest one-month slowdown since 1984 as companies hit the brakes on hiring and production. Another report showed private-sector hiring dropped precipitously in May, prompting economists to ratchet down their expectations for the closely watched nonfarm payrolls report due on Friday.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 279.65 points, or 2.2%, to 12290.14, its biggest point decline since June 4 of last year. Investors piled into the safety of Treasury bonds, sending yields on the 10-year note below 3% for the first time this year. Yields move in the opposite direction of price….
Sheesh. I’m not going to go on and on about my own unified field theory of the economy (after all, I couldn’t even get y’all to watch that hilarious Keynes and Hayek rap video), but in a nutshell it is this: All the bad economic indicators result, at some point down the line, from someone having a lousy attitude.
That applies whether you’re talking the stock market, or manufacturing figures, or retail sales, or jobs, what have you. We start tightening up, and things get as bad as we thought they were, or even worse.
So snap out of it, people! I’m a veteran of the front lines of this singularly monotonous war, and have no glory or medals to show for it. Just a lot of PTSD. Don’t need any more, thanks…
The last couple of days, I’ve been getting compliments about my performance on Michael Feldman’s “Whad’Ya Know?” over the weekend — two or three people at Rotary yesterday mentioned it, and I just got a Facebook message from Bill Day in Memphis.
That would be sort of interesting to hear again. I might go back and listen online sometime. That was in the first weeks after I was laid off, during the period that Mark Sanford was trying to deny South Carolina the stimulus money we would all be eventually paying for (and before he went to Argentina), and as I recall we talked about those things. I imagine that now it would sound kind of like a time capsule.
Did you see the Steven Mungo op-ed in The State Sunday? In it, he explains why he and his family are such staunch supporters of Harvest Hope Food Bank and its vital mission of feeding the increasing numbers of hungry folks in the Midlands and beyond. And they don’t just do it as a feel-good thing:
We all do this not just because it sounds like a worthwhile cause, but because we believe Harvest Hope gets the job done. It’s efficient and effective.
Harvest Hope is a very lean organization, as I have learned from closely observing it. It actually does better than give a dollar’s worth of aid for a dollar’s donation. If everybody ran their business the way Harvest Hope does, a lot fewer of us would have gotten in trouble when the recession hit.
Don’t know if you heard (even though I was Tweeting it out every day), but the $150,000 match offered by the Mungos was double-matched as of April 1. And that’s a tremendous response by the community. Of course, it gets Harvest Hope less than a fourth of the way to the $2 million it needs.
So it’s great to see that another prominent local business has stepped to the fore to make an offer identical to that of the Mungos:
Harvest Hope Announces New Matching
Campaign by Southeastern Freight Lines
(Columbia) Harvest Hope Food Bank announces the beginning of a new matching campaign sponsored by Southeastern Freight Lines. The generosity of Southeastern Freight Lines will result in a $150,000 contribution to Harvest Hope once the food bank reaches $300,000 in donations.
Southeastern Freight Lines is headquartered in Lexington and has more than 6,600 employees. “Our commitment to employees has enabled the company to build a culture of customer service excellence over our 60-year history, and we are just as committed to the communities we serve,” said Tobin Cassels, president of Southeastern Freight Lines. “We recognize the enormity of Harvest Hope’s mission and want to do our part in making sure hungry families in our community have a safety net to give them hope. We are proud to work with Harvest Hope in an effort to put food on the tables across 20 counties.”
In March Harvest Hope announced that the combination of an increase in service demand and operating costs combined with a decrease in donations had resulted in a financial crisis and they issued an appeal to the public for funding help to raise $2 million. Almost immediately, Mungo Homes staked a $150,000 matching campaign if Harvest Hope could double that amount in donations.
On Friday, April 1 Harvest Hope’s donations reached $306,293.67 which qualified them for Mungo Home’s $150,000 matching donation. With over $450,000 in donations, Harvest Hope is now almost ¼ of the way toward their $2 million goal.
Harvest Hope wishes to thank Mungo Homes for their continued generosity, and is pleased to announce that Southeastern Freight Lines has stepped up to help them achieve their funding goal. With the completion of Southeastern Freight’s generous matching campaign Harvest Hope will have achieved half of its $2 million dollar funding goal.
About Southeastern Freight Lines
Southeastern Freight Lines, a privately-owned regional less-than-truckload transportation services provider founded in 1950, specializes in next-day service in the Southeast and Southwest and operates 76 service centers in 12 states and Puerto Rico. Southeastern has a network of service partners to ensure transportation services in the remaining 38 states, Canada, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Mexico. Southeastern Freight Lines provides more than 99.35% on-time service in next day lanes. A dedication to service quality and a continuous quality improvement process that began in 1985 has been recognized by more than 300 quality awards received from customers and associations. Southeastern Freight Lines subsidiary, Southeastern Logistics Solutions, provides expedited service and multi-modal transportation services across the nation through strategic capacity partnerships. For more information, please visit www.sefl.com.
For more information about Harvest Hope’s mission to feed the hungry in 20 South Carolina counties, visit www.harvesthope.org.
That was announced last week, and since then $42,405 has been contributed toward the $300,000 needed to match. This is good progress, but we as a community have a long way to go to meet the huge need.
Behind and to the right of Lindsey Graham -- Jim Hammond, Page Ivey, Jeff Wilkinson.
At the energy conference the other day at USC with the UK Minister of Energy and Climate Change and Lindsey Graham and Steve Benjamin and a bunch of other folks (that thing I haven’t written about yet, except in passing), I found myself standing with some other scribes, and one of them — Page Ivey of the AP, I think — noted that all of us were formerly of The State. That is, except for Jeff Wilkinson, who actually still has a job there. Which makes him the rarity. (That Wilkinson’s a survivor. He used to work at The Nashville Banner, which doesn’t even exist anymore.)
But this sort of thing happens a lot, you know. It’s a big alumni club. Hey, at least Page and Jim Hammond of SCBiz still have actual paying news media jobs. Unlike some people I could name.
See? I can find time for this kind of nonsense, but not for an actual, serious post on the thing we were covering. Hey, I’ll get to it, OK…?
The quixotic demonstration at the State House yesterday by citizens sick of seeing our state’s infrastructure rapidly eroding under the stewardship of shortsighted politicians was of course an exercise in futility.
But I’m no stranger to that. A few minutes ago, looking for a link for a previous post that needed one, I went back to the last week of posts on my old blog I had at the paper, and ran across this forgotten item — which, as it happens, was day after the post in which I announced that I had been laid off:
Good job rejecting the tuition caps
This might sound strange coming from a guy who was already counting pennies (or quarters, anyway — I miscounted how many I had this morning in my truck, and ended up with a parking ticket because I didn’t have enough for the meter), with my two youngest daughters still in college. And now I’m about to be unemployed.
But I’m glad the House rejected tuition caps at S.C. colleges and universities. I have an anecdote to share about that.
Remember the recent day when college students wandered the State House lobbying lawmakers on behalf of their institutions. They wanted the state to invest in higher education the way North Carolina and Georgia have. Either that day, or the day after, I had lunch with Clemson President James Barker, and he told me an anecdote he had witnessed: He said the students were pressing a lawmaker NOT to support the tuition caps, because they were worried about their institutions being even more underfunded — they hardly get anything from the state — some are down below 20 percent funding by the state, and the rest has to come from such sources as tuition, federal research grants and private gifts. Eliminate the ability to raise tuition, and the institution’s ability to provide an excellent education is significantly curtailed. If we want lower tuitions, the state should go back to funding higher percentages of the schools’ budgets, the way our neighboring states with better higher ed systems do.
The lawmaker listened to the kids, and then said with great condescension, maybe you kids don’t care if tuition goes up, but I’ll bet your parents would like a cap. He thought he had them there, but the kids set him straight: None of their parents were paying the bills. These kids were working their way through schools and paying for it all themselves. And they didn’t want to see the quality of what they were working so hard to pay for be degraded by an artificial cap on tuition. The lawmaker had not counted on getting that answer.
I wish I had been there to see it, because I’ve been in a similar place before. Back in 95 or 96, Speaker Wilkins had brought his committee chairs to see us, and I started challenging the wisdom of their massive rollback of property taxes paid for school.One of them allowed as how he bet I was glad to get that couple of hundred dollars I didn’t have to pay. And I answered him that I was ashamed that I was paying so little through my property tax to support schools that I knew needed more resources. He said smugly that he was sure I wouldn’t want to give it back. I told him I didn’t see as how there was any channel for doing that, but if he could point me to the right person who would take my money and see it gets to the right place, I would pay the difference. He didn’t have a good answer for that.
It would be great if our lawmakers would stop assuming that all of us in South Carolina are so greedily shortsighted that we can’t see past our personal desire to pay less money, and that we are corruptible by a scheme to starve colleges of reasonable support.
Reading that now, with all that’s happened since — the rise of the Tea Party, the eagerness of Republicans, demoralized after their 2008 defeat, to embrace destructive extremism (and of course, what happens to the Republican Party as happens to South Carolina, which it dominates), the election of Nikki Haley over more experienced, less extreme candidates of both parties — it reads like thoughts from another century. And, of course, another place.
Imagine, even dreaming of our state caring enough about education to invest in it the way our neighboring states have, much less suggesting that we do so. How anachronistic can one get? All that’s happened since then is that South Carolina has run, faster every day, in the opposite direction — with out elected leaders firmly convinced that that is not only the right direction in which to run, but the only one.
Just an update on Harvest Hope Food Bank’s urgent appeal for operating funds, which I told you about back here.
Since that Tuesday press conference, which ADCO was honored to help with, the media reaction has been gratifying. All four local commercial TV stations showed up and reported — some of them doing followups. As for print — Harvest Hope’s appeal got the lede position on the front page of The State Wednesday, and on Thursday The Greenville News (Harvest Hope also has a significant presence in Greenville) played the story as its front-page centerpiece.
There will be follow-up coverage. But going forward, the ball is in the court of potential donors — some of whom have responded already to the initial repeal to double-match the generous $150,000 match pledge from Mungo Homes.
As of today, the cash raised since Tuesday was $37,477. And I was gratified to hear from Harvest Hope staffer Bryan Rurey that:
We also had an online gift that directly referenced Brad’s Blog!
Cool. Now which one a you crazy lugs did that? Whoever it was, good on you.
Now 37 grand is a great start, but just a start toward the $2 million that’s needed by June. In fact, it’s just a start toward double-matching the Mungo grant. So tell everyone you know, we need this thing to start snowballing.
To recap the salient points:
Each year since the economic crisis began, the need has been greater than the year before. Harvest Hope is now feeding 91 percent more families than it did in 2008.
Fixed costs, aside from food and capital needs, have risen dramatically. It now costs $3,100 a DAY to fuel the vehicles that distribute the food, and that’s only going to go up.
As the need and costs have risen, cash donation have dropped over the last few months. Some regular donors, people who used to give monthly, have even told Harvest Hope that they are just a step away from having to avail themselves of the charity’s services.
For the first time ever, the “giving season” donations that tend to flow in from September to December were not enough to pay off the line of credit that carries HH through the lean spring and summer. Always in the past, that operating debt was paid off by Jan. 1. At the start of this year, the organization was a million dollars in the hole — this despite operational expense cutbacks.
All of that adds up to an urgent need for $2 million to fill that hole, and to cover the expected increase in operating expenses for the next few months.
This is not just Harvest Hope’s problem; it’s a significant challenge to the 22 counties it serves. Because other entities that feed the hungry in those communities — churches, secular nonprofits, what have you, 450 member agencies in all — depend on Harvest Hope to supply the food. This, folks, is South Carolina’s version of an organization that is “too big to fail.”
Finally, I’ll reiterate the political angle. We hear a lot of talk from the dominant political faction in South Carolina about relying on government less and the private sector more when it comes to providing a safety net for the “deserving poor.” Well, folks, in this part of South Carolina, Harvest Hope IS the private sector’s means of feeding the hungry.
Oh, and at Harvest Hope you don’t find the “culture of dependency” problem that certain politicians like to go on about. Typically, if Harvest Hope is able to take care of a family’s emergency food needs for three months running, it gets them through the crisis so they can get back on their feet. And only 1 percent of clients are on TANF (what remains of “welfare as we knew it”) benefits.
So what are you waiting for? Time to step up, and give. Here’s how:
Director Denise Holland and Harvest Hope board members issue an urgent appeal for funds at a Tuesday press conference.
Running behind today, still catching up on stuff I wanted to write about yesterday…
Such as Harvest Hope Food Bank‘s urgent appeal for operating funds. You may have read about it already in The State today. It was hard to miss, since it was the lede story. That was gratifying not only because Harvest Hope, and the people it serves, need the communities in its 20 counties to know about the situation, but because ADCO was helping the agency get the word out. (When I saw that was the lede this morning, I thought, “Idiot! Why didn’t you put that on your Virtual Front Page yesterday? The reason — I was so close to it, it didn’t even occur to me.)
The situation is this: Harvest Hope needs our help, as it never has before in its 30-year history.
HH is the food safety net for 20 counties in South Carolina – the Midlands, Florence and Greenville. It is a regional food distribution organization that collects, stores, and distributes food and related items. Its 450 member agencies that feed the hungry in these communities – churches, private charities, others – depend on Harvest Hope to provide the food.
The increase in need recently has been startling. In the last six months, the number of families HH has fed has increased by 42 percent over the same period a year earlier. Harvest Hope served 91 percent more families in 2010 than it did in 2008. Another way to put it is that the private nonprofit served 2,037,496 individuals throughout the service area in 2010.
With double-digit unemployment in our state, HH sees no sign of this need abating soon.
While the need has increased, so have unavoidable expenses: Just fueling the fleet of vehicles that deliver food throughout the 20 counties costs $3,100 a day. With unrest sweeping the Mideast, fuel prices are expected to rise, not drop, for the foreseeable future. Harvest Hope has food in our warehouse, but if they can’t deliver it, it does no one any good.
Yet in this time of increasing need and expenses, over the last four months, donations to Harvest Hope have dropped.
Here is how Harvest Hope’s funding cycle typically works: Most of its cash donations come in during the last four months of the year. It gets through each spring and summer by tapping a $400,000 line of credit. HH pays off that line of credit with the money that comes in from September-December. Each year in the past, HH has paid off the line of credit by January 1.
This year, because of the drop-off in financial donations, HH has been unable to pay off the line of credit.
HH has cut most of the expense items it believes it can cut while still serving the needs of the hungry. It has cut back on mailings, switching to e-mail; reduced casual labor to help sort food, bringing in more volunteers for additional shifts on nights and weekends; tried to get food more from within the region to avoid shipping costs; eliminated travel to conferences and staff training; reduced the use of operational supplies. Next, if necessary, would be staff reductions.
Why has giving dropped off? Because regular donors, friends and neighbors who have been so generous in the past, are also hurting in this economic crisis. Some who have given regularly have told Denise Holland and HH staff that they are themselves just a step away from needing Harvest Hope’s help in order to eat.
Harvest Hope needs $2 million between now and the end of June, and as much of it as possible as soon as possible. This number arises from a combination of factors, including the accelerating increase in need, the rise in unavoidable expenses, and the drop-off in cash contributions. In asking for this money, HH is not only trying to pay off the line of credit, but also anticipating a continued greater monthly operating expense going forward. Another way to put it: HH is about a million in the hole now, and extrapolating forward, sees itself going in deeper and deeper if it keeps meeting the need — which it fully intends to do.
Some have already stepped up nobly to help meet this need. Mungo Homes has offered to donate $150,000 if it is matched by twice as much from the community. This is in keeping with a long tradition in the Mungo family of providing material support to Harvest Hope.
But even when that match challenge has been met, HH will need much more, and is hoping other major donors will follow the Mungos’ example and offer similar challenges.
Donations to Harvest Hope are of course tax-deductible, and 98 cents out of every dollar it receives goes directly to feeding hungry families in our area.
By the way — Harvest Hope does not foster a culture of dependency. Typically, if it is able to feed a family for three months in succession, it gets them through their crisis so that they are able to be self-sufficient going forward. During those three months, Harvest Hope frees them from worrying about food so that they can concentrate on the other things they need to do to get themselves out of financial difficulty.
Over the last three years more than 484,000 individuals came to HH for help through its two full-time emergency food pantries, and of those, 86,000 came for the first time. The top reasons? Unemployment, underemployment, and the high costs of shelter.
Less than 1 percent of our clients receive TANF (commonly called “welfare”) payments.
When this economic crisis first hit the nation in 2008, we heard a lot about financial institutions that were “too big to fail.” For the communities it serves, Harvest Hope is the institution that is too big to fail. The hungry of these communities, and the various agencies that feed them, depend on Harvest Hope too much.
And Harvest Hope is not failing. It is not going away. It is getting the job done, despite the challenges before it. But for the first time, it has gone into a financial hole doing so, and needs our help to get out of it, and continue the mission.
• If you have received a mailing from Harvest Hope, please use the reply envelope that came with it.
• Send a check to Harvest Hope, 2220 Shop Road, Columbia, SC 29201.
OK, THAT SORT OF ENDS THE OFFICIAL MESSAGE. The above is an adaptation of the talking points that I helped Denise put together before Tuesday’s news conference. In fact, I changed so little of it that I may have missed a couple of places where it says “we,” though I meant to change it to “it” or “they” or “Harvest Hope.” Forgive me; I’m running behind and am in a hurry.
Now, allow me to add an editorial comment of my own:
We hear a lot from folks who subscribe to the ideology that keeps winning elections in our state that they don’t want government taking care of the needy, that they think private charities should take up the slack.
Well.
THIS is how private charities feed the hungry — the “deserving hungry,” for those of you who make such distinctions — in this area. You may see a church or other agency feeding people, but like as not, that entity got the food from Harvest Hope. That’s sort of what I meant about the “too big to fail” thing. This IS the private sector’s response to the existence of hunger in our communities.
Started writing a response to comments on my last post, and it just got longer and longer, so I’m turning it into a separate post…
Responding to what several of you have said: Yeah, I’m almost positive we DON’T, and CAN’T, have public-employee unions in SC, and normally I would just say that flat-out. But something I read not long ago confused me on that point.
VanHouten and three other police officers have formed a chapter of the Southern States Police Benevolent Association, and their first public act was to endorse Steve Benjamin’s candidacy for mayor…
The police officers say they want to model their organization after the Columbia Firefighters Association, which doesn’t practice collective bargaining or negotiate contracts with the city but does call itself a union. That organization has been active since the 1960s but only recently has begun to flex its political muscle….
This is enough to send me on a whole new rant. Let me see if I have this straight: A few city policemen are forming an organization that will certainly NOT be a union, because there’s no collective bargaining. But they say they want to model it on the firefighters’ organization, which does CALL itself a union, but isn’t one, because of course there’s no collective bargaining.
This boggles the mind: Why on Earth would anyone in South Carolina want to CALL their organization a union — which brings all sorts of calumny and resentment down upon their heads in this right-to-work state, which means they get all the BAD PR from being called that — when they get none of the ADVANTAGES of actually BEING a union, i.e., collective bargaining? You got me.
Anyway, though, I think I can go back now to saying confidently that we DON’T have public employee unions in South Carolina. My point is, we don’t have ’em, and don’t need ’em.
As for Kathryn’s suggestion that you only get lousy employees if you don’t have unions, I disagree: We have many very fine, dedicated, smart people in state government in South Carolina. You just don’t hear much about them because they keep their heads down and do their jobs and try not to draw the attention of the crazies at the State House — the people you DO hear about.
However, let me say that I DO share Tired Old Man’s concern about the fact that in state government, we’ve had a ” series of digressions from past personnel policies that protected state employees.”
I believe strongly in good pay, good benefits and good working conditions for public employees. I think, as an expression of the values of society, we should treat them better in many cases than employees are treated in the private sector (I hear tell that sometimes they even get laid off, ahem). And in the past, we had a consensus for that, in SC and elsewhere in this country — before despising people who dedicate their lives to public service became a political movement. Their pay was never good, but the benefits were, and so was the job security, so there was a balanced tradeoff. Personally, I want any society I’m a party of to treat its employees far better than private companies who lay people off to get an uptick in the stock price. (In fact, I’m marveling at what’s happened to our society that private companies are unashamed to do that. I remember when executives took pride in taking care of their employees. But then, I’m getting long in the tooth.)
That’s what worries me about the proposed pension changes — which I plan to question Nathan Ballentine (a sponsor) about when I see him later this week. There are some public benefits I think are TOO generous — such as full retirement after 28 years. But in general, I want the people loyally working for ME and my fellow citizens to get a decent, fair deal. The last thing I want is to have a union turning that relationship into an adversarial one. Which is what unions do.
By the way, I used to work for a publisher who had a saying, which went something like this: “Companies that get unionized usually have asked for it.” (It was therefore his strategic aim never to give employees such motivation.) I agree. Ditto with public entities, going back to Tired Old Man’s point. To me, when you get to the point that a union comes into your company, something that is essential to civil society is lost. Yes, I realize that the bosses usually started the downward slide in civility, but the formation of a union is to me the last nail in that coffin.
I think it would particularly be tragic for state employees in SC to become unionized. There is already suspicion, and sometimes hostility, between them and the Republicans who run this state. My God, can you imagine how that would be escalated if the anti-government ideologues were actually able to call them, accurately, UNIONS? Warring camps, that’s what we’d have, and the ugliness in the air (already pretty unpleasant after 8 years under a governor who despises the state employees who worked for him for the simple fact that they WERE state employees) would be far worse than anything we’ve ever seen here. The very air of Columbia would smell and taste of bile, permanently. Oh, and for my liberal Democratic friends who think that’s worthwhile, let me clue you in on something: The unionized state employees would LOSE that bitter, adversarial battle. Over and over and over again.
I believe in treating public (and private) employees right, to the point that they don’t want a union. I think that’s smart, but I also think it’s the right thing to do.
It’s been awhile since I’ve shared one of Robert Ariail’s cartoons with you (I’m mindful that you are free to check them out on robertariail.com, and I hate to be repetitive). But this one cracked me up, so here you go.
And as is often the case, I may disagree with Robert’s dismissal of the importance of the health care issue, but I don’t judge a cartoon by whether I agree with it. It’s just a good cartoon.
And I can laugh even though, as you know, Robert and I know all about needing a job. You have to be able to laugh. I’ve used unemployment for comic effect myself.
And I have to say, I was appalled at what I found there… I don’t mean this stuff:
During the recent fight over extending unemployment benefits, conservatives trotted out the shibboleth that says the program fosters sloth. Sen. Judd Gregg, for instance, said added unemployment benefits mean people are “encouraged not to go look for work.” Columnist Pat Buchanan said expanding these benefits means “more people will hold off going back looking for a job.” And Fox News’ Charles Payne applauded the effort to deny future unemployment checks because he said it would compel layabouts “to get off the sofa.”
The thesis undergirding all the rhetoric was summed up by conservative commentator Ben Stein, who insisted that “the people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities.”
The idea is that unemployment has nothing to do with structural economic forces or rigged public policies and everything to do with individual motivation. Yes, we’re asked to believe that the 15 million jobless Americans are all George Costanzas — parasitic loafers occasionally pretending to seek work as latex salesmen, but really just aiming to decompress on a refrigerator-equipped recliner during a lifelong Summer of George…
I mean that gross, unfair, insensitive photograph. As a guy who spent close to a year unemployed, I deeply resent such a depiction. It’s totally unrealistic. My gut is nowhere near that big. In fact, mine is much better suited structurally to balancing the remote control on while snoozing in front of the Boob Tube. I can prove this. I have demonstrated this, time and again. And besides, I was just monitoring C-SPAN, waiting for Congress to extend my benefits…
If that is Andre, then, as a guy who was unemployed for nearly a year, I’m all for what he’s doing. To quote Don Corleone, “I want to congratulate you on your new business and I’m sure you’ll do very well and good luck to you. Especially since your interests don’t conflict with mine.”
Actually, I don’t know if it’s a new business. I seem to recall that Andre started a business when he was in college having something to do with Gamecock memorabilia, but I had idea he was still doing it.
And the thing is, if there’s a fortune to be made in souvenir photos, Andre will make it. He styles himself the hardest-working man in SC politics, and the hustle he’s always shown on the hustings backs it up. I’ll bet if HE were trying to sell blog ads, he’d do better than I have…
Spotted Lt Gov Andre Bauer hawking framed photos after USC game. Hid himself behind one of his photos when I tried to shoot a pix. 
