Category Archives: Legislature

Cindi Scoppe’s righteous rant this morning

5 Replies

Cindi had a column this morning on the new post of cybersecurity chief that the Legislature is adding to the state payroll (maybe the title could be, “Officer in Charge of Closing the Barn Door after the Horses have Run Off”) — or rather, on the outrageous fact that they want this person to be immune from firing by the governor.

As she correctly points out, we have too many state employees like that already — people who don’t really “work for” anyone, since no one can fire them.

There is zero reason to make this particular person independent — unlike, say, the attorney general or the inspector general. Arguments can be made for those. Not for this new post.

Cindi and I have been fighting the Legislature’s aversion to accountability for a lot of years now. So she can be forgiven for winding up into a bit of a rant at the end:

Frankly, I’m willing to trust that politics will keep the governor in line on this one. It’s tough enough for a governor to have to explain that 6.4 million individuals’ and businesses’ Social Security numbers and bank records were hacked because her agency director either didn’t know about or ignored concerns from his own IT people. She certainly doesn’t want to have to explain that we had another breach because she fired the state cybersecurity chief, or cowed him into backing off basic protections.

Truth be told, I’d be more concerned that a governor wouldn’t be aggressive enough if a cybersecurity chief gets out of control.

As much as some legislators are fond of saying that no price is too high to secure our personal information, the fact is that there is always, always more that can be done to provide security, be it for our computer networks or our cities or our businesses or our homes. The fact is that some prices are indeed too high, and it’s the job of our Legislature and our governor, or whoever a cybersecurity director reports to, to balance the risk against the cost, in money and in time.

If you’re going to give union-style job protections to the cybersecurity chief, then why not give them to the governor’s lobbyists — since she might not like it if they tell her that legislators don’t like her? Or to the prison director — since she might not like it if he tells her how much it’s going to cost to keep the prisons safe?

In fact, why not just go back to the way we did things when I moved to South Carolina, when the governor couldn’t fire the directors of any state agencies? When those directors reported to part-time board members who, even if the governor could appoint them, couldn’t be fired.

For that matter, if S.C. governors are that untrustworthy, maybe we ought to go back to the old system whereby the Legislature elected the governor. After all, what’s the point of bothering voters with the matter of electing a governor if the governor has no power to carry out the agenda those voters elected her to carry out?

Or maybe, just maybe, we could decide that government officials should be held accountable for their actions. Maybe we could decide that it’s better to trust that a governor won’t abuse her power over powerful officials than it is to risk that those officials will either get too comfortable in their jobs or else let their power go to their heads, and be less aggressive, or more aggressive, than they ought to be, because they don’t have a boss — and they know they’ve got a job for life.

Amen to all that.

Smith: Anti-Obamacare witness transported on state plane

24 Replies

Here’s an interesting release that just came in:

Rep. James Smith Responds to Use of State Plane by Right-Wing Radio Host

 

Today, some members of the South Carolina General Assembly learned that one of only two people to testify in favor of H.3101, otherwise known as the Obamacare Nullification Bill, at today’s subcommittee hearing, was given special travel arrangements by being flown to Columbia from Washington, DC on Palmetto 2, a state airplane.  Dr. Walter Williams, a professor at George Mason University and popular right-wing radio host, gave testimony in favor of H.3101 today in Columbia after his taxpayer funded flight was authorized by Spartanburg State Representative, and lead sponsor of H.3101, Bill Chumley. The other person testifying in favor of the bill was a prominent Tea Party activist Kent Masterson Brown, who admitted he was paid $7500 to testify.

Representative James Smith, a member of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Laws, released the following statement in response:

“This is the height of hypocrisy and politics at its worst.  For taxpayers to be forced to foot the bill so that an out-of-state political zealot can push his extreme agenda is not only a dereliction of his duties as a public servant, it is just fundamentally wrong.  During his testimony, Dr. Walter Williams espoused the abuses of government spending and intrusion while engaging in precisely the same behavior.  While we work to make health care more affordable and accessible to our citizens, Representative Bill Chumley, would rather frivolously spend tax dollars to fly Tea Party ideologues down to South Carolina on the state airplane. I call on Representative Chumley to immediately reimburse the taxpayers for his reckless and irresponsible decision to spend tax dollars to promote his own extreme Tea party agenda.”

####

Gee, I didn’t even know that a single member of the Legislature could authorize something like that…

‘It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House…’

69 Replies

Somehow I missed this when it was in the Charleston Business Review way back in January — until Burl, all the way from Hawaii, brought it to our attention today:

Rep. Kris Crawford, a Republican from Florence and also an emergency room doctor, supports the expansion but expects the Republican caucus to vote as a block against the Medicaid expansion.

“The politics are going to overwhelm the policy. It is good politics to oppose the black guy in the White House right now, especially for the Republican Party,” Crawford said.

Well, he certainly pegged that. The House did indeed do the totally irrational thing and reject Medicaid. Which makes this prophetic statement from a GOP lawmaker — and you did notice the part about him being a Republican, right? — particularly noteworthy.

Why is he so out of step with his caucus? Because he’s a doctor, so he knows better.

That’s chapter one of our story. Chapter two is that this week, Rep. Crawford fulfilled his own prophecy by voting along with his party on the issue. But then, so did all but one Democrat:

Crawford voted against accepting the money on Wednesday because it was proposed as part of the state’s budget — which he says is not the right place to do it. Instead, he wants to propose separate legislation later this year, and he worried that if he voted with the Democrats on the budget none of his Republican colleagues would support him…

Meanwhile, Dick Harpootlian has castigated Crawford for the wrong thing, referring to his “the racist and inexcusable comments by Rep. Kris Crawford regarding Medicaid expansion.

I tend to agree with Todd Rutherford, who said, “I am never bothered by someone stating the truth.”

Meanwhile, Crawford has baked down on the more inflammatory part of his comment, but not on the general thrust:

In an interview on Thursday, Crawford said his vote on the state budget was political, but said it had nothing to do with race — noting that if he had to do it over again, he “might pick different words.” But he stood behind the larger point of his comments, criticizing Haley and the House Republican Caucus for voting against the expansion purely because a Democratic president is for it.

Mia McLeod on Medicaid expansion in SC

9 Replies

Speaking of people who sort of seem like they’re running for higher office, here’s the latest missive from Mia McLeod:

Well…ladies & gentlemen, it’s time to “weigh-in.” And unlike her Republican counterparts in New Jersey, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, North Dakota and Michigan, your Governor is once again “flexing” her Tea Party muscles and refusing to support healthcare coverage for uninsured South Carolinians.Mia_leopard_jacket_1_217670

So what separates her from a growing list of anti-Obama Governors who have recently decided to expand Medicaid in other states? Common sense and compassion, for starters.
And if South Carolina refuses to expand healthcare coverage, here’s a glimpse of the impact on hard-working folks like you:

Higher medical costs – as the uninsured forego preventive care and are forced to seek medical care in the emergency room, hospitals will be forced to shift those costs to insured individuals and employers.
Less independence – as our seniors, veterans and disabled citizens forfeit access to home health and other medical care, it’ll be extremely difficult for them to lead independent lives.
Fewer options – as our state refuses federal funding to the tune of 100% for the first 3 years, neighboring states will gladly accept and use our federal tax dollars to cover their uninsured.
Poor quality of life – as hard-working folks forfeit medical care they need to live longer, healthier lives, our state misses opportunities to be more proactive, productive and economically sound.

But this is South Carolina. Obviously, expanding Medicaid makes sense, but don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Republican Governors (in other states, of course) are saying…

“No mother or father should despair over whether or not they can afford — or access — the health care their child needs. Quality health care services must be accessible and affordable for all — not just those in certain zip codes or tax brackets,” said outspoken Obamacare critic and Florida Governor, Rick Scott, as he reflected on the death of his mother and her struggle to raise five children with little money, while worrying constantly about having family health coverage.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer also made national headlines when she supported Medicaid expansion, acknowledging that it would lessen the impact of uncompensated care that drives up medical costs to hospitals and taxpayers.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has said, “Let me be clear, I’m no fan of the Affordable Care Act…” but it’s “now the law of the land,” acknowledging that rejecting it would mean that New Jersey’s tax dollars will be spent elsewhere.

While Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval was the first Republican governor to officially embrace Medicaid expansion, his decision seemed to be based primarily upon the recognition that it wouldn’t be wise to forego an infusion of federal dollars into his state’s economy.

The same is true for South Carolina. Are you listening, Governor Haley? (Oops! rhetorical question…)

Expanding healthcare coverage to people who can’t otherwise afford it should be a no-brainer. States can opt-in or out at anytime, “risk-free” for the first 3 years. That’s an offer Republican Governors across the nation believe is too good to refuse, because while expanding healthcare coverage is voluntary, picking up the tab for the uninsured, isn’t.

Our Governor has said that SC can’t afford to expand Medicaid. With 100% federal funding for the first 3 years and 90% thereafter, how can we afford not to? It creates over 40,000 jobs, covers over 250,000 uninsured South Carolinians, infuses our state’s economy and improves our quality of life and health.

So while she focuses on restricting foods purchased using federally funded programs like WIC and SNAP (in the name of obesity prevention) or “disease” designations for obesity, here’s an idea…

Let’s expand healthcare coverage so that South Carolinians who struggle with obesity and other medical conditions can get quality, affordable healthcare that focuses on prevention and treatment to help them live longer, healthier, more productive lives.

This isn’t a partisan issue. We all want the strongest military, the best schools, quality, affordable health care, meaningful job opportunities and the ability to live, work and age with dignity. Part of government’s role is to help ensure that every citizen has access to healthcare because a healthier population is a huge, proactive step towards a stronger workforce and business community, improved quality of life and more vibrant economy.

South Carolina is only as strong as its weakest. If our state’s leaders lack the collective compassion and courage to expand healthcare coverage to “the least of these,” the biggest losers won’t just be the uninsured. South Carolinians, insured and uninsured, will pay the ultimate price. Our state will be the biggest loser. But wait…isn’t that what we’ve been since we elected her 3 years ago?

Governor Haley was elected to represent all of us. The sooner she and her party’s leaders “swallow that pill,” the healthier we’ll all be…

SC Dems and Medicaid expansion: Why is common sense a minority position in SC?

51 Replies

dems2

You may have read Adam Beam’s story in The State over the weekend about SC House Democrat’s proposal to at least take the three years of free Medicaid expansion that the Feds are offering:

COLUMBIA — Imagine someone offered to give you $4.1 billion over three years, and if you did not take it, your neighbors would get the money instead.

That is the situation South Carolina is in with the federal government, according to S.C. House Democrats who are pushing for the state to expand Medicaid – the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor and disabled.

The money is not really free, Republicans counter. After three years, South Carolina would have to start paying part of the cost of expanding Medicaid – anywhere from $613 million to $1.9 billion by 2020 – depending on a number of variables.

That’s why Monday, the day that the S.C. House begins debating the state’s $22.7 billion budget, Democratic lawmakers are going to propose an amendment that would accept federal money for the first three years of the Medicaid expansion – when the feds would pay 100 percent of the cost – and, then, automatically end the expanded program…

Well, today, the House Dems held a press conference to talk further about their proposal. The reasons were the usual: It makes no sense to turn down something that won’t cost the state anything for three years, especially when it addresses a critical need. It makes no sense for those of us who have insurance to be paying more to underwrite the most expensive kind of care for people who don’t have coverage. And of course, they hit the angle that it’s the decent, moral, compassionate thing to do.

As for the claim that expansion will cost a couple of billion by 2020, the Dems expressed polite contempt for journalists who would pass that on without investigating its veracity. Gilda Cobb-Hunter called the claim “specious at best.”

I’ll let the number-crunchers sort that out. My point in writing about this is to say that everything the Democrats said today not only made perfect sense, but should be perfectly obvious.

And I have to wonder — why has such a common-sense proposal become a minority position in South Carolina? Because don’t fool yourselves — SC Democrats have little chance of having their way.

Four years ago, the Republican leadership in the General Assembly thought Mark Sanford had lost his mind when he wanted to let stimulus money that was going to be spent anyway be spent elsewhere instead of in South Carolina. And they were right.

Now, the standard GOP position is to turn down this program, just because it has the name “Obama” attached to it.

What’s wrong with us in South Carolina?

dems1

I’ll take piecemeal reform over none at all, Vincent

4 Replies

I see that the bill to have the governor appoint the state superintendent of education — or rather, to have a referendum so voters can make that constitutional change — is coming along in the Senate, but Vincent Sheheen isn’t satisfied:

Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw, wants to abolish two constitutional officers, the Secretary of State and the Comptroller General, while allowing the governor to appoint two others: the Adjutant General and the Commissioner of Agriculture.

“It doesn’t make sense to do piecemeal reform,” Sheheen said Thursday, after the Senate gave the bill second reading by voice vote only, agreeing to take up the proposed amendments at the next reading…

Well, I’m not satisfied with just doing the superintendent reform, either. Every one of those other changes should have been made long, long ago, starting with the adjutant general. Of all the strange cases of separately electing officials in SC, that one is the most bizarre.

But… since I’ve waited so many years already, I would not demand that we hold up the superintendent bill, if we can pass that, to wait on the others. That’s because several years ago, opponents of reform used the fact that all the constitutional officers were under consideration to pull a fast one. Each defender of the status quo voted for some of the changes and not others, with the precise offices being voted against varying from senator to senator. That way all of them could say they voted for reform, but each office came up short of the two-thirds majority needed. So we got no reform.

Yes, we should approved all of this changes, and do it not just today, but 20, 30, 60 years ago. But if we can get one of them done, let’s do it. Let’s do even if we know that there is so much support for the governor appointing the superintendent mainly because Republicans believe they will usually win the governor’s office, but might lose the superintendent’s.

Let’s just take a step in the right direction. Because this fragmentation of government has never served us well.

Legislative view from a House Democrat

10 Replies

Bernstein

The other day I gave y’all the Senate GOP’s report on last week’s activities. For another view, here is what one House Democrat, Beth Bernstein, sent out to her constitutuents:

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Here is my Legislative Update for the month of February.  The House made progress on a number of important issues this month.  Here are some highlights.  As always, I am interested in hearing your thoughts and concerns on the issues.

Thank you for the honor and privilege of serving you in the South Carolina House of Representatives.

Best regards,
Beth

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 8, 2013

Investing in Cyber-Security
A bill, H.3528, was introduced that would establish a new state agency, the Department of Information Security, to provide a comprehensive framework for ensuring the effectiveness of information security controls over information resources that support state operations and assets. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Shortening Legislative Session
A bill, H.3340, that shortens the South Carolina General Assembly’s legislative session passed the House. Under this law, instead of beginning the second Tuesday in January, session would begin the second Tuesday in February. It would also require the General Assembly to adjourn Sine Die no later than the first Thursday in May. The bill was sent to the Senate.

Clarifying Role of Solicitors
A bill, H.3247, clarifies the role of the circuit solicitors in the administration of the General Sessions court docket and provides that this ability to administer the docket shall not interfere with the court’s ability to protect a litigant’s rights. The bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate.

Protecting a Child’s Due Process Rights
A bill, H.3520, was introduced that prohibits a child’s parent or guardian from waiving the child’s right to counsel when the Family Court proceeding may result in the detention or confinement of the child. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 11, 2013 –  FURLOUGH

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 22, 2013

Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill
A bill, H.3560, was introduced to require South Carolina to report people adjudicated by the courts for mental illness to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System in order to prohibit them from obtaining a firearm legally. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Privatizing the State Lottery
A bill, H.3555, was introduced to streamline state government and save taxpayer dollars by hiring a private contractor to organize and conduct the South Carolina Education Lottery. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Government Restructuring
A bill, H.3541, was introduced to amend the South Carolina Constitution in order to make the office of Adjutant General an appointed position by the Governor, instead of being popularly elected by the voters. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Hate Crimes Legislation
A bill, H.3589, was introduced that provides a penalty for anyone convicted of a crime with the intent to assault, intimidate, or threaten a person based on their race, gender, religion, age, national origin, or sexual orientation. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

HOUSE WEEK IN REVIEW
February 25, 2013

The business of the House continued during this week with a few noteworthy events, and a great deal of committee and subcommittee work.  

Closing out Black History Month with Activism:
On the State House grounds Tuesday, The South Carolina NAACP held its 2013 Legislative Day, including a press conference voicing support for Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires any changes in voting laws in certain states to be pre-cleared by the United States Justice Department. The Voting Rights Act is currently being reviewed by the United States Supreme Court.

Increasing Flexibility in the Budget:
This week, the House approved and sent the Senate H.3501, a joint resolution that suspends the statutory requirement for including 4.5% of the previous year’s state General Fund in the Local Government Fund for the next two budget years.  Under this measure, counties would be authorized to transfer among appropriated state revenues, as needed, to ensure the delivery of services.  Democrats opposed the measure due to the fact that it would shift a revenue burden onto local governments and municipalities.

Making Infrastructure Investments:
A bill, H.3412, that requires all revenue produced by car taxes in South Carolina must be credited to the state non-federal aid highway fund for road projects, passed the House.

Restructuring the Department of Insurance:
A bill, H.3642, was introduced to popularly elect the Director of the Department on Insurance in South Carolina. Currently, the Governor appoints the Director. The bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Ensuring Healthy School Lunches:
A bill, H.3726, was introduced to ban certain junk foods from public school lunch programs and vending machines. The bill was referred to the Education and Public Works Committee.

The weekly update from SC Senate Republicans

5 Replies

Wesley Donehue sends out these reports on behalf of the SC Senate Republicans every week:

It was an eventful week in the Senate. Here are some things you may have missed:
A bill that will enforce tougher DUI laws was passed this week. The bill will require drivers convicted of a first-offense DUI with a blood alcohol level of .12 or above to install ignition interlocks on their cars.
The budget subcommittees started work this week, hearing from agencies, as we begin crafting a budget.
The Finance Committee discussed a bill, S.163, that will increase the incentives for motion pictures made in South Carolina. They also discussed a bill, S.237, that will require the lowering of flags atop the State Capitol Building when a military serviceman is killed in the line of duty. The bill will ensure that the state honors our servicemen and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in a dignified manner.
###

If y’all would like me to, I could start passing them on to y’all regularly. Sure, it’s from a partisan point of view, but it does provide a way of keeping up with some of what’s going on over there. And the links to the bills are handy…

Fortunately, the DOA bill wasn’t (DOA, that is)

9 Replies

One morning last month, I ran into Nikki Setzler at the Cap City Club, and asked him what was happening over in the Senate that day.

One of the things he mentioned in answering me was that they’d be working on “DOA.” I asked what that was, since to me that meant “Dead on Arrival.” He said it was the Department of Administration bill, which would replace the Budget and Control Board with an actual executive agency answering to the governor.

As acronyms go, that one was appropriate, since the proposal has indeed been DOA in the Senate, year after year.

But now, only five years after Vincent Sheheen introduced the proposal in the Senate, and a full 21 years after we started pushing hard to get rid of the B&CB at The State, senators have sent a bill to the House. This is from a release from the Senate GOP caucus:

On Thursday, the Department of Administration bill was passed. The bill will eliminate the powerful state Budget and Control Board and create a Department of Administration answering directly to the governor. The bill will also create a State Fiscal Accountability Authority made up of the Governor, Comptroller General, Treasurer, Ways and Means Chairman, and Senate Finance Chairman. Deficit Recognition will now be handled by the General Assembly, when in session, and a new Legislative Services Agency will now be responsible for all fiscal and revenue impact statements. In addition, the bill will create a Rural Infrastructure Authority, which will assist rural counties and local governments to improve their infrastructure to help attract economic development. Senate Republican Majority Whip Shane Massey, who led GOP efforts on the Senate version of the bill, is urging the House to take it up and pass it as soon as possible…

I’m not sure I like the sound of all of that, but it sounds to me like a step in the right direction. And such steps are rare in the SC Senate.

Common Cause lauds Courson for ethics stance

7 Replies

Common-Cause-Award-2.21.131

I initially missed this release when it came in yesterday.

Back during the recent election, some in the blogosphere tried to paint John Courson as ethically challenged, citing an instance of alleged nepotism.

It seems that the watchdog group Common Cause doesn’t agree with that assessment:

Common Cause Award Presented to Senator John Courson
Columbia, SC – February 22, 2013 – President Pro Tempore John Courson was yesterday presented with an award from Common Cause for “Outstanding Career Leadership in Promoting Ethics Reform in the SC Senate.”
The prestigious award was given to Senator Courson by John Crangle, Director of the SC Chapter of Common Cause, Kenneth W. Gaines, State Chairman of Common Cause, and former Congressman Bob Edgar, President and CEO of Common Cause.
“I am tremendously honored to receive this recognition of my longtime support of ethics reform in South Carolina,” Senator Courson said.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, nonprofit advocacy organization founded in 1970 by John Gardner as a vehicle for citizens to make their voices heard in the political process and to hold their elected leaders accountable to the public interest.
To view photo, click here.

###

Under fire, Gen. Turner quits state employment agency

3 Replies

This broke at about midday today:

SEANNA ADCOX
Associated Press

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP, WLTX) – The director of South Carolina’s unemployment agency has resigned, effective March 1.GeneralTurner2

Department of Employment and Workforce Director Abraham Turner turned in a hand-written resignation letter to the governor Friday.

In the letter, Turner says he’s resigning for personal reasons. His resignation follows questions from legislators stemming from the agency’s decision to eliminate one-on-one help for people seeking benefits in 17 rural offices statewide…

It first came to my attention because of this emailed comment from state Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland:

“Governor Haley has allowed her agency, SC DEW, to become an absolute embarrassment. In the last two weeks the governor’s agency has made news because of crippling layoffs, massive pay raises, lavish taxpayer funded beach retreats, the closing of seventeen unemployment centers in rural counties, and now the resignation of the Executive Director. Governor Haley must regain control of her agency before it is too late. Millions of South Carolinians depend on this agency to be functional and effective. As it stands today, it is the opposite.”

But not only Democrats have been complaining about how the agency has been run under the retired general. As thestate.com reports:

The employment agency’s woes have become a subject of almost daily criticism in the Legislature.

State Sen. Ken Bryant, R-Anderson, took to the floor Thursday to blast what he said were outlandish raises — some of more than 50 percent — recently given some agency employees. Bryant also said the agency was claiming victory for lowering jobless benefits improperly paid to $50 million from $90 million.

Other senators joined in a bipartisan display of frustration.

At one point, Bryant and Senate Minority Leader Nikki Setzler, D-Lexington, exchanged criticisms of the agency, with Setzler, a moderate Democrat, and Bryant, a Tea Party Republican, both ripping the agency and its leadership, citing recent cuts in its staffing and the raises, the closing of rural offices and an oceanside management retreat…

SC Senate panel responds to national gun control debate in its own special way — allowing guns in bars

47 Replies

Here’s the report:

COLUMBIA — A S.C. bill that would allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry firearms into restaurants and bars advanced Wednesday.

Concealed permit holders would be allowed to carry firearms into places serving alcohol as long as the business owner allows it, if the bill becomes law. The bill would ban consuming alcohol while carrying…

    Some speakers at the hearing … said they would prefer the bill allow some alcohol consumption.

Ralph Baker, who spoke at the hearing, said he “would like to see the bill change so that a person could go in and have a glass of wine with their lasagna….The CWP people are responsible. They’ve proven themselves in that area.”…

I like that bit about how “CWP people (have) proven themselves,” responsible while drinking and packing. How did they prove that? You can’t prove someone won’t go postal in a bar. You can only prove that someone will — when they do.

But this makes me feel much better about myself. I’ve proven myself responsible, too. I have never shot up a bar after drinking. Ever. Yet.

Anyway, the panel didn’t go along with the suggestion that drinking be allowed, which I suppose is something.

Tom Davis not running: Am I the only person in SC who missed this? (Apparently so)

21 Replies

Not only did I miss it, but I only found out about it now because I saw a 12-day-old reTweet of a Gina Smith item on a mutual friend’s Twitter feed. Here’s the story, from Gina’s current paper, the Island Packet:

State Sen. Tom Davis, R-Beaufort, said today he will not run for U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s seat or any statewide office in 2014, including governor.

Instead, Davis said he can do more good in the state Senate, where he has recently gained appointment to powerful committees that include the Senate Finance Committee, a force in shaping the state’s budget.

“I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t tempting (to run for Graham’s seat,)” Davis said. “But when you get right down to it and realize you have a limited amount of time, a limited amount of energy, and you sit down and figure out where you can make the most difference, it’s a clear-cut decision. I can make far more of an impact in the (state) Senate.”…

Speculation has run high since the summer that Davis would seek the Republican nomination for Graham’s seat. During a Tampa rally for then-presidential contender Ron Paul, Davis blasted Graham and called for the defeat of the senior senator.

Actually, the speculation goes way back earlier than the summer.

So does this mean Lindsey Graham can relax now? Not really. In any case, he probably won’t.

First, key SC lawmakers were dead serious about nullification; now, they’re taking testimony from a secessionist. And yes, it’s 2013

10 Replies

We are really on a roll in South Carolina this week. On a rapid downhill roll, as on the proverbial handcart to hell.

SC Democrats put out this release today:

Well-known Secessionist invited by GOP lawmaker to give testimony in support of Nullification

The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitutional Laws held a hearing on H3101, otherwise known as the “Nullification” bill that seeks to nullify the Affordable Care Act, heard testimony from dozens of Tea Party activists on Wednesday. One of the speakers, Dr. Donald Livingston of Georgia, separated himself from the other speakers when he publicly advocated for secession during his testimony.

Dr. Livingston, a retired philosophy professor testifying in support of nullification, was invited to give the lead testimony by the bill’s chief sponsor, Representative Bill Chumley. Dr. Livingston later admitted in his testimony that he had not actually read Rep. Chumley’s bill.

Dr. Donald Livingston is the former director of the League of the South, a neo-confederate group that actively supports southern nationalism as well as secession from the United States. (Source) The Southern Poverty Law Center has classified the League of the South as a “racist hate group.” (Source) Dr. Livingston has been dubbed the “Intellectual Godfather of the secession movement” by New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. Dr. Livingston has written extensively in support of secession and southern heritage. (Source)

In 2001, he told the Intelligence Report that “the North created segregation” and that Southerners fought during the Civil War only “because they were invaded.” The next year, he established the Abbeville Institute, based in Atlanta, along the lines of the League of the South. (Source)

At a 2003 “Lincoln Reconsidered” conference he said that “evil is habit-forming” and no habit is as evil as believing that Lincoln acted out of good motives. (Source)

Representative James Smith, a member of the subcommittee, released the following statement in response:

“I was surprised and extremely disappointed Rep. Bill Chumley would invite Dr. Livingston to serve as his chief advocate in front of the Constitutional Laws Subcommittee. His extreme views on secession and his association with a known racist hate group insults the institution we serve and reveals the motives behind many who support this legislation. I fundamentally reject his vision for our country and I call on my colleagues to do the same.”

####

It’s really been weird lately. At home in the evenings, I read Team of Rivals, and just started rewatching Ken Burns’ classic “The Civil War” on Netflix. Reading and watching at night, I think that what I’m doing is studying history.

But then I get up in the morning, and day after day, this insane nonsense turns out to be current events over at our State House.

Not a good day for SC public officials (or ex-officials)

5 Replies

Today we saw a string of news developments of the sort that cause a lot of people to believe erroneously that all, or most, public officials are shady.

It was quite a run:

  1. The internal affairs chief of the state Department of Public Safety, Bobby Collins, was fired, three weeks after being stopped on suspicion of drunk driving three weeks ago. Note that his job was to be the cop who watched the cops.
  2. Elgin Town Councilman Norman Allen “Bubba” Ernst was charged with vandalizing a gun range. I don’t even know how a person would go about doing that, and the story doesn’t say.
  3. Ex-Rep. Thad Viers was charged with burglary. Which, to my memory, is a first for a state legislator, even a former one. But I stand ready to be corrected.

Sheesh.

 

Howie Rich complains about ‘hit piece’ on him in The State

37 Replies

A blog post at SC Schools Report brings my attention to a letter that Sen. Kevin Bryant received from his fan Howie Rich. Here it is:

Dear Kevin,

First of all congratulations on the “A+” ranking you received this month from the S.C. Club for Growth. I understand you’ve received the highest score in the SC Legislature eight years running – which is quite a feat. Given how many of our elected officials get away with paying lip service to freedom and free markets, it’s gratifying to see when a few of them actually walk the walk – as you have consistantly done.howard

I wanted to write because I’m sure you’ve seen the lates “hit piece” against me in the Columbia newspaper – which is (once again) ramping up its vendetta agains parental choice and those of us who support it. This liberal rag – which gives The New York Times a run for its left – leaning money – apparently believes that demonizing me (and the legal contributions I have made to candidates in South Carolina) passes for a legitimate argument against school choice.

Meanwhile the paper does everything within its power to prop up the grovernment-run school system in the Palmetto State – which as we know is falling further behind the rest of the nation (exacting larger and larger sums of money from the South Carolina taxpayers.)

Thankfully the ongoing proliferation of new (and social) media in South Carolina means we no longer have to coddle this status quo mouthpiece – and can take our case directly to the people. This is exactly what you are doing in your “Blog from the Back Bench,” and I commend you on those efforts.

Ideologically we both know how this debate will progress. Absent the infusion of market-based reforms South Carolina’s government-run monopoly will continue to fail generations of school children – while sticking taxpayers with an ever-escalating bill.

But what is the political future of this debate? On that front I want to make something perfectly clear: Every time I read one of these hit pieces, my commitment to the fundamental reforms we are advancing is redoubled. What we are witnessing in South Carolina right now are the last gasps of a dying status quo – entrenched politicians (and their legacy media supporters) whose only remaining excuse for the poor performance of their government -run system is that parental choice has become a “distraction.” Clearly their House of Cards is close to toppling.

2016 will not be a repeat of 2012 – in which incumbent-created protections denied challengers a chance to compete in an honest primary. Mark my words: Those currently running victory laps around the South Carolina State House after giving up more than a third of the vote to “petition candidates” will be held accountable for their votes in a true GOP primary three years from now. And from what I am told, there will be an even broader coalition of pro-taxpayer, pro-free market interests aligned against them.

It comes down to this: The Republican-controlled Senate will either pass school choice this year or it wont. If it does, South Carolina’s children, parents and taxpayers will be better for it. If it does not, then school choice advocates will focus every bit of energy they have on the 2016 primaries.

On this we have learned over the years is that choice – in addition to being effective everywhere it has been implemented – is a rising tide both politically and legislatively. When we started this fight we were nowhere in the S.C. General Assembly – now the S.C House has passed choice legislation and we were one rigged primary election away from getting it through the Senate.

One way or the other choice is coming. It is only a matter of resources, planning and patience – and I can ssure you we are blessed with an abundance of all three.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue. I look forward to seeing you again soon.
Take care,
howie

Howard Rich

Gosh, I had no idea Mr. Rich was even aware of The State’s existence, much less that he was so bugged by what it said about him. Oddly, the “hit piece” to which he refers is a fairly straightforward, news story that tells readers about his ongoing contributions to SC lawmakers. It’s also a pretty old story — I don’t know the date of his letter to Sen. Bryant.

By the way, I join “Howie” in complimenting Sen. Bryant on his blog. He was the first blogger in the Legislature, and still maintains it pretty religiously. It’s a good thing that we can keep tabs on what he’s doing and thinking.

Bernstein files maiden bill, having to do with ethics reform

1 Reply

Not much time for blogging today, but at least I can pass on press releases as I get them.

You just saw one from the Senate Republicans. Here’s one from the other side of the aisle, and indeed the other chamber:

Rep. Beth Bernstein Files Ethics Reform Bill
 
Columbia, SC – Newly elected State Representative Beth Bernstein (D-78) filed her first piece of legislation as a member of the House of Representatives on Wednesday. The “South Carolina Ethics & Accountability Act of 2013” was read across the desk on Wednesday and referred to the Judiciary Committee. The bill is the most comprehensive ethics reform package that has been introduced in recent history. Modeled after the ethics package Bernstein released during her campaign, the bill calls for five fundamental changes in South Carolina ethics law. It is as follows:
1) Prohibits Leadership PACs.
2) Implements a new five-year waiting period for public officials to become lobbyists. (Current law only requires a one-year waiting period)
3) Proposes a Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the House and Senate Ethics Committees, giving the State Ethics Commission full authority.
4) Requires all candidates to produce receipts for all campaign expenditures.
5) Eliminates “blackout period” by requiring candidates to disclose any contribution received in the month of October within five days of receipt.
Representative Bernstein released the following statement in response:
“During my campaign, I promised voters that, if elected, I would do my best to clean up the culture of corruption at the State House and provide real solutions to bring more accountability to the General Assembly. I’m happy to say that by filing this important piece of legislation, I’m keeping my promise to voters. The hard truth is that people no longer trust public officials. I was elected to restore the trust and confidence in our elected officials. This bill makes state government and its elected leaders more accountable and transparent, while also making it harder for public officials to use their office for private gain. Simply put, it’s time to stop talking about ethics reform and start doing it.”

Senate passes bill to fix last year’s ballot fiasco

1 Reply

This moved last night but I’m just getting to it — from Wesley and the Senate Republicans:

Senate Passes bill to fix ballot issue
After a third reading today, the Senate the “Equal Access to the Ballot Act” to fix a technicality that kicked hundreds of candidates off the ballot in 2012.
The bill, S.2, sponsored by Senators Campsen, Martin, Cromer and Hayes, will make the requirements of incumbents and challengers equal.  It also clarifies the law to state that candidates seeking Congressional, Statewide, or district office including more than one county must file a Statement of Intention of Candidacy (SIC) with the State Election Commission, and General Assembly Candidates must file a SIC with the election commission of the county in which they reside. Candidates must also file a Statement of Economic Interests (SEI) electronically with the State Ethics Commission.  Incumbents and challengers will be treated equally, with both being required to file a SEI by noon on March 30 for any year which there is a general election.
Those who fail to file an SEI by the close of the filing period will be subject to a fine and then given a grace period to file the proper paperwork, rather than being immediately removed from the ballot.  Candidates who intentionally refuse to comply with the filing requirements after repeated notices and fines will not be allowed to take office until a completed SEI is filed.
“Last year, voters were denied choices because of a small technicality,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Larry Martin. “This bill will ensure that voters will be given the choices they deserve, and eliminate the potential for an issue like the one we had in 2012.”
Senator Campsen believes that the sooner we get the ballot issue taken care of, the better:
“An issue which removed more than 250 candidates from the primary ballot is definitely one that needed to be addressed as soon as possible,” Campsen said. “Voters can now be assured that they will have the opportunity to vote for the candidate they choose.”

###

Yeah, it would be nice if they get this passed and it does fix the problem. Because that was some seriously messed-up, um, stuff last year.

Two starkly different views of Nikki Haley’s State of the State

4 Replies

Apparently tired of excoriating Lillian McBride and all who sail in her, Mia McLeod has now turned her verbal artillery upon Nikki Haley:

For all of you who had the misfortune of watching the Governor’s State of the State address last night, I’m gonna do what she should’ve done…apologize.

If the state of our state is as hollow as the empty rhetoric she offered, then we really do need to have “the conversation.” At least our Governor was right about one thing…the people of South Carolina deserve better.

And while she spent two pages starting “the conversation” about public education funding, here’s a newsflash: that conversation started years ago. So instead of wasting two pages talking about it, Governor Haley could’ve spent two years being about it.
But since we’re having “the conversation,” maybe we should talk about the recent hacking of the Department of Revenue’s database because it exposed the personal financial information of almost four million South Carolinians and is considered the worst state government data breach in U.S. history. Even the identities of our children, vulnerable adults and businesses have been compromised.

Saying it won’t happen again isn’t an apology. A year of free credit monitoring isn’t enough. And although “what happened at DoR was a jolt to all of us,” S.C. residents are the victims. She’s the Governor. Maybe she should stop “talking” and start “doing.”

Perhaps you should ask what she wants you to do after that year is up. Surely she knows that anyone who is sophisticated enough to hack into our SSNs and bank account information, is certainly patient enough to wait at least a year before using it.

So now that she’s “talking,” ask her why she’s okay with almost one million South Carolinians not having healthcare. Oops…she already answered that one for you:

“As long as I am Governor, South Carolina will not implement the public policy disaster that is Obamacare’s Medicaid Expansion.” (translation: it’s not about you)

Obviously, she would rather send your federal tax dollars to citizens of other states, who will gladly accept them. But don’t forget that you’ll pay regardless, with higher premiums to pick up the slack for S.C. folks who aren’t covered, and for those lucky recipients in other states who’ll get to use our money at our expense.

And while we’re talking, let’s also ask the Governor why she takes credit, even for jobs that she had no part in creating. Sadly, South Carolina’s unemployment rate is still well above the national average and as she focuses on large corporations, small businesses, our state’s biggest job creators, are still struggling.

She must not care to talk about election reform, workforce development or public safety either. After all, these necessary reforms might actually benefit you.

I mean, why should she care about your confidence in the elections process or how early voting might help ease the process for millions? Why should she care that in S.C., we’ve got jobs without (skilled/trained) people and people without jobs. Training and preparing S.C. citizens for S.C. jobs might actually allow us to recruit our best and brightest back to the state, and keep those of us here who haven’t left yet.

The term “conversation” suggests a dialogue or an exchange of information. So Governor, please let us know when you’re ready to have a real conversation…one that includes all of us, instead of the familiar monologue we heard again on Wednesday.

While you’re wasting our time and yours railing against Obamacare, the reality is…you and I have quality healthcare, while millions of South Carolinians don’t.

And although you finally recognize that investing in our infrastructure is an economic development issue, so is investing in our children and the public schools that educate them. So is investing in quality healthcare so that all of us are healthy enough to work and feed our families. So is protecting our financial information for the long haul, since it was your failure to lead that allowed it to be compromised.

Before S.C. can ever become the “It” state you so arrogantly described (when it comes to jobs and economic development), we must first get off the “IT” (that’s Information Technology) disaster list, stop blaming Washington for our self-inflicted wounds and show the people of South Carolina real accountability, real transparency, real reform and hopefully, real leadership.

But alas, her rambling rhetoric (“As long as I am Governor…”) does offer us one small glimmer of hope…for a day when she will no longer be Governor.

Here’s an idea: let’s start “the conversation” about how we can make that day come sooner than later.

To my surprise, she hasn’t posted that on her blog yet. I got it as an email.

Just so you know that not everyone saw it the way the Richland County Democrat did, here’s a gushing appraisal from the Senate GOP caucus:

 

Haley knocks third State of the State address out of the park

 

 

Columbia, SC – January 16, 2013 – This evening, Governor Nikki Haley gave her third State of the State address focusing on job creation, infrastructure, cyber security, education, school safety and healthcare.
Governor Haley said that in the last two years, 31,574 jobs have been created in South Carolina and $6 billion has been spent on new investments. The SC government has cut taxes on small businesses, passed tort reforms, and fought unions. Unemployment is also at its lowest in four years, due to Governor Haley’s dedication to job creation.
Governor Haley has also been committed to fixing the state’s security issues, since the recent cyber attack on the Department of Revenue. She has made it a priority to guarantee security to South Carolinians.
Another major concern has long been the poor condition of South Carolina’s roadways and bridges. Governor Haley is determined to allocate the money necessary to improve the state’s crumbling streets this year.
“The state has been working hard to come up with a plan to improve its roadways,” said Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler. “It’s our hope that putting these improvements into motion will also create more jobs and be a sound investment in our state’s infrastructure.”
Senators were happy to see Governor Haley reaffirm her commitment to government restructuring.
“We won’t have true government efficiency until we pass the Department of Administration bill,” said Senate Majority Whip Shane Massey. “Governor Haley’s dedication to fiscal responsibility assures me that less government expansion and more spending cuts will happen.”
Finally, Governer Haley addressed the issue of federal health care.  She made it clear that she does not think it is in the best interest of South Carolina and that the state will not implement Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.
“I’m happy to see that Governor Haley won’t let the Obama administration continue its intrusion on our state’s rights,” Said Senator Larry Martin.
Governor Haley ensured South Carolinians that 2013 will be a prosperous year in South Carolina and that she intends to tackle the state’s biggest issues.

###

When Wesley Donehue sent that, I looked at the headline and could only think, “She did? So who was pitching?” Whoever it was, it may be time for the other team to make a call to the bullpen…

Mia keeps up a steady fire on election fiasco

7 Replies

We discussed this briefly on a previous post, but I thought I’d call attention to it more directly. Read this blog post from Mia McLeod:

Dumb and Dumber…

That’s obviously what they think you are.  Otherwise, the Old Guard (a.k.a. “OG”) wouldn’t be brazen enough to “demote” and “promote” incompetence in the same breath. And all on your dime, too.Mia leopard jacket

Let’s see…a newly created $75,000 taxpayer-funded position with a new title, less responsibility, same oversight (aren’t absentee ballots part of what got us here in the first place?) and absolutely no regard for your rights — particularly when it comes to restoring your confidence in our electoral process.

Even Attorney Hamm’s Investigative Report is of no consequence because it only confirms what we already knew. The election day disaster was directly caused by the Director’s actions, inactions and failure to lead. Those are the facts. But let’s not allow a few facts to get in the way, right?

Here’s the deal…the OG and our Governor have something in common.  They’ll stop at nothing and spare no expense to get what they want. One of my previous e-blasts was entitled, “BAMN” or “by any means necessary.”  It applied to our Governor’s actions then, and it certainly applies to the OG’s actions now.

And just in case you, like many others, mistakenly assumed that either of the former Director’s resignations might actually offer some semblance of accountability, albeit late…think again.

This sweet backroom deal has been in the works for weeks, but the OG needed a little more time to execute it. That’s why Rep. Rutherford messed up the original plan when he “outed” the first resignation before the OG was ready.  After all, it takes time to appoint an interim OG director for the primary purpose of rehiring the former OG director. I know…it’s a hard job, but somebody has to do it. And neither the delegation nor the Elections Board has the legal authority.

Now that an interim director has been named and handsomely paid to rehire the former Director, the deal is almost complete. But to ensure that those of us who disagree are unable to dismantle their “master plan,” a few more things still need to happen:

  1. The OG has to replace the vacated and/or expiring Elections Board seats with more OG members.
  2. The OG has to also make sure one of their own remains in the position of Elections Director (on an interim or permanent basis).
  3. The OG has to hold on to the position of Delegation Chair, so that the elections board appointments, as well as the director and (newly created) deputy director positions remain in tact.

So here’s where you come in.  Since you’ve already been thrown into “the game,” it might be helpful for you to at least become familiar with the rules:

  • Rule #1 – The OG can make and change the rules at any time, for any reason.
  • Rule #2 – Actually, there’s no need for Rule #2 because you’ll rarely make it past Rule #1.

Obviously, you’ve elected us to represent your interests and your tax dollars are footing the bill for these expensive and unnecessary games we keep playing, but let’s not get too bogged down in those pesky little details, right?

The reality is…the OG cares much more about winning “the game” than they do about your rights, your representation or whether your confidence in the integrity of the process is restored. And why shouldn’t they? Earning your trust and respect really isn’t necessary, since you give it so freely anyway.

After all, “the game” protects their power. They’re the players who make the rules. Andyou…well, you’re the enablers who preserve their positions. Thanks to your unwavering support, they’ve been able to preserve and protect their own interests for all these years.  Now that’s teamwork at its best. You pay.They play.

Oops…almost forgot.  There’s one more rule, and it’s a doozie:

  • Rule # 3 – Voters…I mean enablers, get to change the players and the game every 2-4 years.

So in 2014, you can either cast a game-changing vote or leave Richland County’s future in the hands of the OG.

It’ll soon be game-day again.  Next time, make it count…

Tavis said Mia was starting to lose him on this. Even though, had I been advising her, I might have recommended that she dial the tone down a bit, I’m not where Tavis is. I’m still prepared to give her credit for having the guts to take a stronger stand, by far, than anyone else in the Richland delegation. Maybe it’s because Mia and I are from Bennettsville. My uncle was visiting from there yesterday, and when Mia’s name came up, all he had to say was “You go, girl.” Nothing like B’ville pride.

Sure, the folks she categorizes as the OG probably think she’s just a grandstander trying to get political mileage out of all the folks out there saying “You go, girl.” But when she’s right and they’re wrong, I’m inclined to say she deserves whatever political boost she can get. There’s a point when you go, wait a minute — and my first stirrings of doubt about Nikki Haley came when she was doing her Joan of Arc routine in the House over roll-call voting. But Mia’s not there yet. Not with me, anyway.

Of course, her Twitter handle is “MiaforSC.” As opposed to “miafordistrict79” or something. Which would seem to speak of greater ambition.

Speaking of which, she has become perhaps the one Democrat in the Legislature most worth following, joining such GOP stalwarts as Harvey Peeler and Nathan Ballentine, and inheriting the mantle abandoned by Boyd Brown.