The Do-Nothing Legislature
DON’T GET SUCKED INTO THE SPIN, SOUTH CAROLINA
FITSNews - May 26, 2008 - South Carolina voters will no doubt be hearing a lot over the next few weeks about all the wonderful, conservative things their elected representatives “got done” in Columbia this year.
It’s a biannual rite of political passage in this state - you run as a conservative Republican, you govern as a liberal Democrat, then you run as a conservative Republican again … if you can.
Just check out the latest missive from the House Republican Caucus spin machine, a cookie cutter “copy and paste” job for all those incumbents who need a little help pulling the wool over voters’ eyes …
This session has seen a number of victories, and some still-pending battles, for conservatives.
We were successful in starting the process of reforming the executive branch of government, stiffened our DUI laws, eliminated the PACT exam, banished anonymous earmark spending, and even in a year with falling revenues, we approved a small tax cut.
This week, the House did something it has not done in more than a generation - approved a 50 cent increase in the tax on a pack of cigarettes. Unfortunately for conservatives, the debate is no longer whether or not to raise the cigarette tax. Many of even the most strident anti-tax conservatives have either made peace with the idea or perceived an inevitable tax hike.
Hmmmm … aside from the fact that hardly any of those accomplishments actually happened … or at least happened the way the House says they did, it’s nice to know that even “strident anti-tax conservatives” have “made peace” with the notion of raising taxes. Somebody forgot to send us that memo, but whatever …
On the Senate side, the talking points include immigration reform (which of course is neither effective nor enforceable as long as the federal government is playing dodgeball on our borders) and an alleged $800 million worth of tax cuts, a figure which doesn’t include either the sales or cigarette tax increases they’ve passed or the billions of dollars in new spending that they’ve lumped on top of these “tax swaps.”
But where the incumbents’ spin job falls the flattest is on the laundry list of long-overdue changes that (once again) didn’t happen.
First of all, there was no comprehensive tax relief proposal to unravel the anti-competitive thicket that is our state’s outdated tax code - just a cigarette tax increase with the money going into the same bloated, inefficient Medicaid delivery system we’ve always had. Our income tax remains the fifth-highest in the country, and as a result our unemployment rate remains the seventh-highest and our income levels the fourth-lowest.
Why didn’t we get a tax cut? Well, after growing government by more than 40% over the last three years, there just wasn’t any new money available for one this year (surprise, surpise), although legislators did find enough cash to keep $18.5 million flowing into their pet project slush fund.
And we won’t be getting a real tax cut anytime soon because our accuracy-challenged Board of Economic Advisors (headed by John Rainey) only estimates the dollars that tax cuts “take out” of government, not the dollars they bring in through economic growth.
But the failure doesn’t stop there …
In addition to further chilling our tax climate, legislators also failed (again) to get a grip on South Carolina’s long-term spending problem.
Specifically, they failed to pass a revenue cap that would ensure government doesn’t grow faster than your ability to pay for it. Sure, there’s a group of worthwhile State House challengers out there campaigning on a spending cap - which is nice and all - but until you actually stop that surplus cash from entering government’s coffers, the liberal lobbyists who run Columbia will continue finding ways to get intellectually incurious and morally vapid politicians to spend it.
Speaking of lobbyists, the legislature (again) failed to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying this year … which means that your tax dollars will keep paying for the political activities of groups like the S.C. Association of School Administrators, who want to continue making sure that only 44 cents of every dollar we spend on public education actually makes it into the classroom.
And while we’re on the subject of education, legislators did absolutely nothing this year to fix the worst education system in the history of the civilized world - whether that meant getting more dollars to the classroom or giving more choices to parents. As a result, roughly 200,000 South Carolina school children will remain trapped in failing or below average schools this year.
Legislators also failed to consolidate school districts, streamline our funding system or replace our utterly useless academic assessments with tests teachers can use to improve classroom achievement. Yeah, they’re going to take credit for PACT reform, but like so many things in state government, the reality is 180 degrees from the rhetoric. They got rid of the hated PACT, alright … but just the name, not the problem.
On restructuring, the legislature gets an even worse grade. That’s because for the 213th consecutive year, South Carolina will once again operate under the most ridiculous government structure ever created - a horribly-antiquated mockery of accountability that has its roots in the racist post-Reconstruction era.
Jim Crow laws may have disappeared long ago, but South Carolina’s 1895 constitution is alive and well. We still have a state where everyone - and no one - is in charge … a state where we elect a CEO and then give him less authority than the guy who scrubs the State House toilets.
So whatever bread and circus is to be found on the campaign trail this year, remember this:
Legislators could have taken bold steps to reduce our overall tax burden and restore fairness to an antiquated tax code - but they didn’t.
They could have forced government to live within its means like a family or a small business - but they didn’t.
They could have freed tens of thousands of children from intellectual slavery - but they didn’t.
And they could have brought our government out of the stone age - but they didn’t.
It’s time South Carolina cleaned its House … and its Senate, too …
Comments
By Gillon on May 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
The obvious conclusion from your extended piece is this: The Republican party has failed South Carolina. Well, DUH, there’s another party out there folks. Just because candidates have an “R” after their name on the ballot, doesn’t mean you automatically have to vote for them. And by the way, considering South Carolina’s overwhelming vote in 2000 and 2004 for the present occupant of the White House and his ensuing inept performance, that might not be bad advice on the national level either.
By Foxybloggers on May 26th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
General Ass-Embly’s Mealtime Blessing
Praise the Lord and Pass the Pork!
By Foxybloggers on May 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
This econimification is hard work
By the truth on May 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
you can’t buy votes with fiscal responsibility
By Wondering on May 26th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Can someone explain to me how our wonderful Legislatures will earn the money they plan to spend? Did they have a bake sale somewhere that I missed? Does the SC government manufacture some great and wonderful consumer item and sell it on the open market for a profit? Or have they “seized” the money from us, taken from the people who actually worked for them!?? They’re taxpayer dollars, not government dollars.
By bird on May 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Gillon — President Bush has been thwarted at every turn by Redneck Mafia/RINO operatives in Washington. That is conspiracy theory number one. Y’all let me know when you want #’s 2 through 84,793.
By smart kid Grant on May 26th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
This is again a great brand of “citizen journalism.” If you don’t know what that means, you might want to look it up because I bet sic willie knows what that means… The major thing that must be done if you are going to attack old will is to know his background in the USC school of Mass Communication and Information Study. It is not like he is some guy off of the street blogging like this, he has a degree in this stuff… Although I could probably beat him in the knowledge of his field, he is still very intelligent.
I guess this really doesn’t relate to the article, but who cares?
By Your Teacher on May 26th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Grant, go back to taking wedgies from the cool kids and stick to the Science Club. You’re fellatio of this real-world douchebag is as lame as your AP classes. By the way, don’t look up “fellatio,” just ask your mom and dad at dinner tonight.
By FedUp on May 26th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Its time we all went to the polls and voted all these bums out at the state level and the national level.
If they dont raise our taxes or go on a deficit spending drunkfest they just print more money so everything we buy costs us more with our rapdily declining dollar.
Quit complaining and whining and vote out the power drunk incumbents .
By SC Lawyer III on May 27th, 2008 at 8:36 am
It never ceases to amaze that conservative Republicans are so adamantly behind a new entitlement that will enable well off people to subsidize their child’s private education.
This is America, man. If you want your kid to attend private school, work two jobs or save your money. Don’t ask the tax payer to support private and public education, and certainly don’t propose the abandoment of public education, which will be the only resort for poor children whose parents can’t afford transportation and can’t afford to float the tuition differences waiting on tax rebates or tax write offs.
Nothing the least bit conservative about that whole idea, except the conservative notion of keeping one’s kids away from … well…you know who.
By veritas on May 27th, 2008 at 10:42 am
School choice is a very conservative idea. It simply is the universally accepted ideal that competition creates a better product. It is no different in education. It has worked in liberal countries like Belgium so why not here. An entrenched teachers union that definitely does not want to have to prove results (educate) in order to compete. A monopoly gives them the best of all worlds - all the $$$ without a choice if you don’t perform.
If a R cannot accept the conceit that a free market creates the environment to succeed, then what chance do we have that they understand the other underpinnings of conservatism?
By Fiscal Conservative on May 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Dear Veritas:
Just for the record - a school choice plan that allocates new state tax dollars is a very liberal - or should I say - big spending idea. Kind of like our President’s fiscal policy.
By Pete on May 27th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I notice that in this election year, the legislature decided to let Queen Jean Toal off the hook with her corrupt attorney discipline system…….
By SC Lawyer III on May 27th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
We already have competition in the education system. What so called conservatives seem to want is subsidized private education.
The marketplace already provides lots of alternatives to public school education. Those that wish to pursue those alternatives are welcome to spend their well earned money on doing so. Those that do not may partake of the public system.
The idea that school choice or vouchers is going to make damn bit of difference in poor districts where schools are genuinely failing is unsupportable.
The evidence suggests that when each has similar students that public school perform similarly to private schools.
The evidence also suggests that there are fair number of sorry or mediocre private schools out there that do worse or nor better than public schools.
The ability to self select students based on income and aptitude accounts for much of the advantage that private schools have.
I’m not really upset that parents want to take their kids out of public schools and I might do it myself one day, but I am pretty upset that they expect the taxpayers to subsidize that decision.
By veritas on May 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Fiscal Conservative - the choice plans that I have heard about only have the money following child. That is not new tax dollars but existing $. It is a typical conceit of liberals that they go better than everyone else what to do. Yet don’t want to constrained by the rules they endorse.
LawyerIII admits that he may avail his children of private schools, but doesn’t want children with lesser means to have the same opportunity. Why?
There are many examples of take all schools like those on John’s Island that out perform their public counterparts. I think the reason is those parents are invested in the process. However, we are to believe that success is impossible. I say let’s try and not condemn another generation to a failed system.
I think the problem is liberals are afraid to even allow choice only for failing schools because it will work and it will spread.
By baker on May 27th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Veritas:
A “free market” suggests to me that all players — or, “businesses” or “choices” or whatever — play by the same rules. The fact is that the public schools and private schools do not play by the same set of rules.
Part of the “product” that many (I would think MOST) offer is a particular atmosphere — based on the type of students in the school. They have admission requirements in most cases because they want to ensure a particular behaviorial standard or promise and certain academic standard.
The public schools do not have this option, of course, and thus are not “FREE” to create whatever atmosphere they want to sell to parents. Indeed, if a kid gets thrown out of the high-priced private school Governor Sanford sends his children to, who has to take that expelled child? A rival private school? Of course not; the public system does.
You’ve pointed ONE example of a school that is said to take on all-comers (does it, really?) and outperforms public schools. But even with that, you note parental involvement as a factor in the school’s success. The deal is that many parents simply aren’t involved — either they don’t care or don’t otherwise have the werewithal to be on top of things. Public schools have to do what they can to educate the children of those parents.
Would “choice” inspire more parents to be involved and to take their kids’ education seriously? Perhaps. And that’s one reason I don’t consider myself a hardline ideologue about this issue. But, even there, practical questions abound: Will the best private schools accept our state’s most struggling students? Are there enough spots in existing private schools? Can we actually provide transportation to all the students who’d not be able to get to a private school without it (in other words, kids whose “choice” depends on transportation)?
Will floating voucher or tax credit money into “the market” really create new schools that are any good (most private schools don’t exist on tuition dollars alone, do they?)….especially in places where schools are already having trouble attracting teachers and industry is nearly non-existent? And, again, will there really be “competition” when private schools can create their standards for admitting students and public schools cannot?
I’ve yet to hear decent answers to these questions.
By baker on May 28th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
And…..I still haven’t heard any decent answers to these practical questions from the hardliner school choice folks.
Still, I imagine they’ll turn up on the next blog post touting PPIC or whatever the new version is armed with nothing but ideological rhetoric.
Trackbacks