What in the world does a former governor of Florida know about what sort of reform South Carolina needs? That, of course, is assuming that ReformSC is actually about reforming government, rather than being about a generic, easily-transferable, impulse to shrink government wherever you find it?
To help you understand where I’m coming from, Mark Sanford essentially stands for four things as governor:
- Restructuring government, particularly to place the executive branch under the elected chief executive, thereby making it accountable to voters, and rendering it possible to set priorities to make the most of finite resources.
- Cutting taxes, preferably the state income tax.
- Less spending. Not less spending on this, or less spending on that, but just less spending, without any context. He has an arbitrary number in mind.
- Demolishing public schools as an institution, starting with the thin end of the wedge — vouchers and tuition tax credits. (The wedge widens as a few people desert the schools, thereby undermining political support, thereby making for fewer resources to schools, making them worse, making them even less popular, prompting more people to desert them, etc.)
You may have noticed that there’s nothing special about items two, three and four. You will also notice — if reform means "taking something and making it work better" to you, as it does to me — that the only part of the Sanford agenda that qualifies as "reform" is the first item. (You could add as a reform his very earnest desire to set better priorities through the budget process, but this one seems so dependent on government restructuring being accomplished before the "executive budget" gets any respect, that I just lump it into the same item.)
This kind of reform — unlike cleaning up graft, or some such — is very specific to South Carolina. You won’t find, for instance, a Budget and Control Board or any other such extraordinary, hermaphroditic devices aimed at keeping the governor weak, in Florida. Or anywhere else, for that matter.
After having been responsible for state government coverage in two other states (Tennessee and Kansas) before coming to The State 20 years ago, I realized right away that things were really different in South Carolina. But it took me three years of directing a team of reporters covering every aspect of state government to understand fully how it was different, and what that did to our state, and what sorts of things we needed to do if we were every to catch up to the rest of the country.
I then spent the next year directing a special project delving into the unique structural problems of this state, and recommending remedies. Mark Sanford, as a candidate, studied a reprint of that project I gave him before making it his own, which is a major reason why we endorsed him in 2002. Before that, he had some vague ideas of what reforms might be needed, but he did not have a systematized set of recommendations.
So I find myself wondering, is Jeb Bush clairvoyant? How else would he, as an outsider, have any idea what sort of reforms South Carolina needs? And if he doesn’t, how could he in good conscience endorse a Sanford reform agenda? Anyway, I got to pondering on that after reading this passage in our news story today — a passage that apparently reflects what little our reporter could get out of the visitor on his way into the event, from which the press was barred:
“Leadership matters in public life,” Bush said, adding that government structure should support that. He said voters want leaders who “say what they’re going to do and then do what they said they’re going to do.”
About 75 people attended a morning event in Spartanburg, Reform SC director Chad Walldorf said, while more than 100 were at the Columbia lunch at the Lace House.
Bush, 54, was elected to two terms as governor of Florida, serving from 1999 until January. He and fellow Republican Sanford became friends while serving in office.
Bush said the country needs “principle-centered leaders.”
“I’m here because I’m a huge fan of Mark Sanford,” Bush said.
What leadership? What principles? Well, it stands to reason that the only Sanford principles Jeb Bush is likely to understand, and the only areas where he could credibly claim to be on the same page, would be on items 2 through 4, which reflect generic values of the more libertarian, anti-government strain of Republican philosophy nationally.
Which takes us back to the first impression I formed of ReformSC. It dovetails very well with the character of, say, an SCRG — an outsider-financed (we think, since it doesn’t even pretend to be transparent) group pushing an outside, highly ideological agenda — and not at all with any sort of movement that would naturally rise up from the grass roots of South Carolina.
Not that a true grass-roots movement is likely to rise up and demand what we need in terms of government reform, since such remedies tend to arise naturally only from the mouths of wonks. And I say that as one of the loudest wonks on that particular bandwagon. But ReformSC does style itself as "South Carolinians coming together to Reform South Carolina," and therefore invites us to judge it on that basis.
Related Posts
Maybe you should’ve just left it at: “What does Jeb Bush know?” … Would’ve been a lot quicker.
Need a chuckle? Google: jeb bush moron (or) morons jeb bush
Personal favorites:
1. Things Jeb will miss most about the Florida governorship (towel service and hot water pressure at the mansion.)
2. His imaginary friend, Chang, the “Mystic Warrior.”
3. University of Florida’s vote to deny Jeb an honorary degree.
Real stories. Sanford sure can pick ’em.
Perhaps we could get Jeb and Kathryn Harris to help us purge “felons” from the voter rolls, count (or not count as is necessary) the ballots in our primary contests, and help us elect the next president! After all, Jeb is the bastion of integrity in the Bush family. I trust him implicitly and respect his worldview regarding governance and democracy.
Brad,
I fully agree with you that fixing our government structure is one of the most crucial issues facing our state. South Carolina cannot continue compete in the global economy with an antiquated 19th century system. It is largely for that reason that earlier this year I helped to create ReformSC – a grassroots movement dedicated to this very cause.
However, I am confused why you write that former Florida Governor Jeb Bush has no knowledge or expertise on this topic. I would argue that he is actually one of our nation’s foremost authorities on restructuring state government.
During his two terms as governor, he helped lead the transformation of Florida from a legislatively dominated state similar to ours into a more modern accountable structure that both you, your editorial board and the board of ReformSC argue that our state desperately needs. As columnist Fred Barnes wrote last year in assessing Governor Bush’s legacy:”
“Florida was a weak-governor state when Bush arrived. No more. It had cabinet government with six elected state officials besides the governor. Now the cabinet has been reduced to three members plus Bush, and power is not shared equally… He removed the bar association from a role in naming judges and now controls the selection process. He also eliminated the state board of regents, took control of the board of every public university, and gained the right to name the state education commissioner.”
Governor Bush devoted a full day of his time in order to speak to hundreds of South Carolinians across our state about the need for restructuring. He also spoke about his record in Florida on the other general topics you mention but with a very different take on them. He talked about…
#2. how Florida was able to generate high paying jobs and amazing economic growth by regularly reducing taxes and keeping their status as a “no income tax” state.
#3. how his effort to prevent government spending from growing faster than its citizens’ incomes was crucial to maintaining a prosperous and sustainable society.
#4. how increasing school choice (including parochial and private schools) and injecting competition into public education led to steadily increasing test scores for millions of students in Florida’s public schools system.
However, the majority of his message was spent talking passionately about the need to restructure South Carolina state government. He recounted many of the benefits that he witnessed first-hand from Florida’s implementation of modern governmental structure.
Governor Jeb Bush also helped raise hundreds of thousands of dollars to further the restructuring effort in South Carolina. (Although not required to by law, ReformSC will also fully disclose the source of all of these funds through fully transparent quarterly ethics filings.)
Given Governor Bush’s success in modernizing Florida’s antiquated government structure, I am not sure of a better “been there, done that” advocate for restructuring – especially one who could draw large crowds and help raise significant funds for what you accurately describe as a “wonkish” topic. That being said, if you have someone better in mind, please let me know as it would be great to have his or her help with the cause as well.
There is no doubt that you have been a leading figure in pointing out the crucial need to restructure our state government for many years. On Tuesday, I was one of hundreds of people around the state that contributed money to that very cause and heard Jeb Bush talk about the benefits that restructuring brought to Florida. I understand that you have been focused on this issue much longer than most – certainly longer than me.
However, as a member of one of the state’s primary groups focused on the need for restructuring, I hope you will welcome our efforts to help make this happen for the betterment of our state.
Regarding #2 (Cutting Taxes), here’s an excerpt from a 2001 interview with Milton Friedman on the subject… as in all cases, I defer to someone who knows more about the subject than I do (especially when they have a Nobel Prize medal hanging as bling-bling around their neck):
From: http://corner.nationalreview.com/
ROBINSON: Now…[here’s another] option for handling the surplus: tax cuts. You favor that above all?
FRIEDMAN: I favor it on economic grounds because it enables the ultimate consumer—the ultimate individual, you and me—to decide how the money should be used. You know, it makes no sense for me to send my money to Washington to have somebody in Washington decide how to use it. I’d rather decide how to use it myself—whether for charity or for welfare or for other purposes. So that’s the first and most important argument. But the political argument for it is that it’s the only way to keep Congress from spending it.
ROBINSON: Only if Congress doesn’t have the money can it be prevented from spending it?
FRIEDMAN: Right. That’s why for a long time now I have been in favor of any tax cut, under any circumstances, in any way, in any form whatsoever.
ROBINSON: On any pretext.
FRIEDMAN: On any pretext because that’s the only way to keep down government spending.
ROBINSON: Here’s the argument some economists make against a tax cut. Again, quoting Robert Solow: “Tax reduction, especially income tax reduction, fattens the disposable income of households. Most of it flows into consumption; only a small fraction is saved. The choice between debt reduction and tax reduction as ways of disposing of a budget surplus is mainly a choice between adding to investment and adding to consumption, between provision for the future and enjoyment today.” So, according to this argument, you cut taxes and all you’re going to do is enable the American people to go on a brief, giddy spree.
FRIEDMAN: It will enable the American people to do what the American people want to do, not what Bob Solow thinks they ought to do.
ROBINSON: But you’re making a moral argument, not an economic argument.
FRIEDMAN: Yes, that’s a moral argument, absolutely. Are there any other arguments? Fundamentally doesn’t it all come down to moral arguments? What’s an amoral argument?
Excellent points, Chad. Perhaps we would all have been more familiar with them had these speeches been open to the public.
It is true that South Carolina is but an extreme example of a phenomenon that was once common in Southern states — the utter powerlessness of the governor, the fragmentation of executive accountability so as to leave the landed gentry in the Legislature firmly in charge of a system that is extremely resistant to change — but South Carolina stands out as the extreme example of that. When it comes to antiquated, resistant forms of government, the old axiom applies with particular force: “There’s the South, there’s the Deep South, then there’s South Carolina.”
As those who have lived in both states can attest, Florida and South Carolina are very, very different places. Perhaps that’s why Mr. Bush was able to make changes there. Or perhaps it testifies to his greater political effectiveness. I suspect it’s a combination of the two.
If Gov. Bush came here to give the governor advice on how to lead effectively, bravo. If he came here because he admires our governor’s effectiveness in office, Lord help the poor man.
In any case, your helpful and relevant observations aside, I still believe Gov. Bush is unlikely to understand the mysteries of why South Carolina is so resistant to change. This place is different — really, really different. This is very hard for even the brightest outsiders — and even many bright people who’ve been here their whole lives — to understand.
This puts me in mind of an internal political obstacle I had to overcome before embarking upon the Power Failure project in 1991. I had to persuade an executive editor and a managing editor — both bright people with much experience observing American government, but both relatively new to the state — that South Carolina really, truly was different from other parts of the country. Only when they were satisfied with that did the project get the green light, after which the resources of most of the newsroom were, at one time or another during the course of the project, at my disposal.
So I don’t dismiss Gov. Bush’s understanding of S.C. lightly. This is a point to which I’ve given a great deal of consideration over a lot of years.
Okay, Governor Warthen, give us the five things you would do to reform the South Carolina government if given the power.
Specifics… not pie-in-the-sky.
Oops — Doug, our comments seem to have crossed paths. In answer to you…
Yes, that sounds a lot like the testimony of Mr. Friedman’s fellow libertarian Alan Greenspan. I refer here to the "acolyte of Ayn Rand" Greenspan — Ayn Rand being the all-time champion at declaring the amoral to be moral, and vice versa.
That Greenspan is, of course, to be distinquished from the one he portrays in his autobiography, which Peggy Noonan recently wrote about with considerable distaste:
It’s interesting what happens when these theorists run smack into the realities of the actual world we live in. It can make for an unpleasant scenario — rather like a governor with no previous experience running anything airing his delicate theories before an all-too-worldly Legislature.
Doug, we passed each other AGAIN. We should get on the phone and coordinate or something, to make these threads more coherent.
Five things? Only five? OK, I’ll do this quickly, so don’t hold me accountable that these are necessarily the TOP five things I would do:
— Eliminate the separate election of all but one of the constitutional offices that compete with the governor’s executive authority. Keep either the treasurer or the comptroller general as elected, take your pick — and eliminate the other one ENTIRELY, not just change it to Cabinet.
— Create a board of regents to coordinate and consolidate higher education in this state, doing away with the absurdity of competing, autonomous boards of trustees for each of too many institutions.
— Put teeth in the Home Rule Act. Get legislators completely and permanently out of the business of running local governments. (This, like each of my others, requires in itself more than five big reforms — it would entail everything from eliminating the 500-plus special purpose districts in the state to placing the appointment of local boards under county councils rather than local legislative delegations)
— Consolidate school districts to no more than one per county.
— Eliminate fiscal autonomy for school districts. Local school budgets would be set by county councils.
OK, I’ll stop there, although it’s hard. And I’m sure I’m forgetting things that are more important than the five I mentioned. Good Lord, just on education alone, there’s giving principals freedom in hiring and firing, and merit pay…
Wait, you’ve got to let me have ONE more:
— Go far beyond reforming the TERI system. Eliminate it. Then eliminate 28-year retirement. Then, in case you having gotten the point, eliminate the 30-year retirement that the 28-year retirement replaced. Allow state employees to retire at age 67, like the rest of us.
OOH, OOH, Mr. Kotter, one more! Ditch the legislature’s extra sweet retirement deal, which is WAY sweeter than state employees’…
… You DID allow me to assume I had the power to do all these things, right?
Ooh, wait, wait! Can I do actual DOT reform — which the governor just had a golden opportunity to do, but threw it away by compromising before the dickering even started (for once he compromises, the one time when he could have had a strong hand)?
OK, OK; I’ll stop…
Alan Greenspan’s reputation would allow him to drive the market down by 10% with just a single sentence. Peggy Noonan’s an op-ed writer. Sorta like the guy who sits at the bar and criticizes Steve Spurrier’s play calling… Peggy Noonan’s interpretation of events is dust in the wind. She’s locked into the spin cycle of the White House.
They’re using the same technique to criticize the general who says the Iraq War has been a mistake from the start.
How come it’s always successful people who are denigrated for having a Randian view of the world? You don’t find many government bureaucrats championing the cause of personal achievement…
Rand:
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
The American economy was built on that philosophy.
So was fascism.
Brad,
Your laundry list is very acceptable. I mean that wholeheartedly. I would vote for any candidate who would support your objectives because in addition to your objectives, I believe there would be a net decrease in taxes as a result.
The question I have to ask you then is why does The State endorse candidates who do not support those objectives in any way, shape, or form?
And wouldn’t you say the Governor Sanford would probably agree with you on several of them (consolidating school districts, DOT, board of regents, TERI system).
My laundry list would include:
1) Reform the tax system including:
a flat income tax with no loopholes – one that would eliminate the need to file a return
a sales tax without any exceptions but on prescription medicines and food
eliminating the property tax on vehicles and instead going with a flat per car fee
and removing the sales tax cap on car sales
devising a more equitable home property tax system that would eliminate the need for an assessors office
increase tobacco, alcohol taxes to highest in the nation
2) Allow local governments to impose impact fees without any restriction
3) Term limits – politics should not be a career
4) Education: Consolidate school districts, scrap useless PACT, cap state college tuition increases to inflation rate only, use lottery money to increase teacher pay to top 10 in the country (let the market work to get the best teachers here)
5) Invest, invest, invest in bringing high technology industries into the state. We’ve got to get out of the chicken and textile economy
Now see, this is great! I’d be with you on four out of five — I can’t bring myself to go for term limits, even though George Will has made a tempting argument for them. (His is precisely the opposite of the usual reason you hear, which is based in fantasy — the fantasy that it would bring representatives more in touch with the people’s wishes, under the assumption that would be a GOOD thing. Will understands the way the world works, and he also understands that the Framers had very good reason for choosing a republic over pure democracy: Representatives, once elected, need SOME distance from the popular passions of the moment if they are to make sound decisions in a dispassionate manner. That is extremely difficult to do in these days of instantaneous communications and elections every two years. The problem is that the representatives are SO in touch with the people, and ALWAYS trying to please the people because they are always running for re-election, and the only way to make them stop and think of the greater, lasting good is to free them from the election cycle via term limits. I have to reject that in the end, because it’s just TOO elitist, and TOO cynical with regard to the value of election outcomes.) There’s also the problem that government service is like anything else — experience makes you more valuable to the folks who sent you. Term limits would dump them out of office just about when they started figuring out how things get done.
But everything else on your list, barring a tweak here and there (the tuition cap is based on a misunderstanding of where the problem lies, which I’ll go into if you’d like, but I’m trying to emphasize points of agreement).
And I’m really kicking myself, because “comprehensive tax reform” should have been one of my five. It’s certainly one of our favorite hobby horses. And the specifics you mention are pretty good. I would add a gas tax increase to fund the new DOT that you would let me reform, seeing as how I have all this power under this scenario.
Now, as to your question about endorsements — these principles are probably the biggest factor involved in endorsements. But they are not the only factors, and even if they were, we are often faced with choosing between THIS reform item and THAT one. Every decision is made within the context of the moment, and the single biggest factor is, Who’s the opposition?
Everything works the way you think it should in an election such as 2002 — we had a gubernatorial candidate who endorses the biggest part of our agenda running against a guy who, even though he played a big role in achieving the limited restructuring of 1993, had been a truly lousy governor.
Four years later, we have a different kind of truly lousy governor (who got exactly ZIP done with regard to the restructuring platform, and had wasted ungodly amounts of capital pushing some really BAD ideas) versus a guy who would essentially do no harm — or any good, either. I could sit here and tell you Tommy had played a key role in that same limited 1993 restructuring as a reason why he was a good choice, but forget about it. This was a classic case of a lousy choice between bad and worse. Moore was bad, Sanford was worse (because of his well-funded determination to undermine the very political underpinnings of public education; we need to be FIXING public ed, not doing away with it — that is fundamental; even Moore understood that much). Either way, the truth is that we won’t see any substantial reform in SC until the next governor is elected, and we’ve got to hope with all our might that he’s better than the last three.
Makes my job sound pretty pointless, doesn’t it? But I’m facing facts. We can show the flag and keep these issues before readers, which in itself has value as it helps prepare the ground, but it will take a governor who believes fervently in these things and has some true positive political capital with the Legislature to get anywhere on the big pieces. Even if Sanford got his act together TODAY and advocated nothing but things we agree with, he’s poisoned his relationship with fellow Republicans in the General Assembly to such a degree that he might do those causes more harm than good.
Re: Term limits
I’m not suggesting a very small number of years. A decade in one office would seem to be enough time to get up to speed, get something done, and if you do it well, move on to another office if the spirit moves.
New blood, new ideas…
Same applies on a national level – are we better off as a country because people like Strom Thurmond, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, etc. are in office for three decades or more? The tenure turns into power which turns into abuse of power which ultimately costs us all. The power of incumbency has a stranglehold on the neck of democracy.
re: college costs
I’d even settle for just capping the cost to inflation once you’ve been admitted and then letting new freshman absorb the increasing costs. There is no excuse for a student entering USC in 2006 to be forced to pay eventually 50% more per year by the time he is a senior. And I know the recent increases are a direct result of the school boards basically sucking up all the LIFE scholarship money and then just going back to the students for more. In that case, the LIFE scholarship should be indexed to the rise in the cost of tuition.
Brad, this is the first I have ever visited your blog, thanks to the Jeb Bush posting. While I am glad to see his speech being discussed, I am truly sorry you could not ante up the cash to hear him, it is somewhat pathetic to be doing a critique without knowing the speaker or the speech. To say he had nothing to offer on reform that could benefit South Carolina is ludicrous in the extreme. As someone who has lived in SC, my parents are still there, and who currently lives in Florida, but who has also lived in a dozen other states and Canada, I have had a broad perspective, moreso than many. While every state is unique, heck every little county in the nation is unique, for better or for worse, they are all populated by humans, though the population be sparse or dense. Consequently the policy issues that arise are at the core rooted in the nature of man as seen through the filter of his current environment. Care must be taken to mold the implementation and execution of policy to the local environment, but good policy is universal, not even American. Why is it that Shakespeare’s works have endured the test of the ages? He understood and played upon the strings of human nature.
Having worked for many years on a daily basis with Jeb Bush, but not being a novice at dealing with other high elected officials, I observed his grasp and hunger for policy, in every area, and that his ability to move from abstract to concrete to pitchable concept to implemented law was phenomenal, matched by very few, if any on the national stage. Yes, he has weaknesses, like every other Adam’s son, but policy implementation and governmental reform is not one, especially at a state level. I am not sure that he will be doing much more in regard to South Carolina than this recent speaking trip, but if, as you sound forth on your blog, you are truly interested in long term (generational) reform of South Carolina, that is your loss. You should drop Jeb a line at Jeb@jeb.org sometime, and really get to know him at a policy level, before you so blithely demonstrate how far SC needs to come.
Interesting exchange. Keep it up guys, then some of the rest of us will learn something. And all for free tuition. Not a bad on-line school here.
Do these guys really believe we’re buying this stuff?
Chad Walldorf is a founder of and shill for ReformSC, a potentially punitive Sanford political tool, complete with allegations of backroom “hit lists,” and they’re barely off the ground yet. Oh, yeah. Chad also is a former aide to Sanford.
The conveniently anonymous “Floridian” quacks like a paid mouthpiece for Jeb Bush — or wanna-be speech writer, judging by his earthy references to the “nature of man” and the oh-so-political “pitchable concept.”
Unfair? I think not, considering our unnamed “Floridian” just happened to drop by this blog for the first time today, after having “worked for many years on a daily basis with Jeb.” (Well, say hey to Jeb for us, too, buddy. Who else do you know, and what are their email addresses?)
As well, Chad and “Floridian” proudly state that they each contributed $500 to attend the Jeb-a-thon, which is good to know about them, considering that Walldorf AND Sanford personally blocked reporter Jason Spencer of Spartanburg from attending on our lowly behalf. Jason, who was among the first to report on ReformSC and its questionable purposes, might well have provided us a credible account of what went on during this private fest featuring allegedly public servants at the exclusive Piedmont Club — had he not been given the old heave-ho by Sanford and Co., perhaps because his previous reports were not so flattering of the doormen? (See Jason’s own account at: http://campaign2008.goupstate.com/default.asp?item=279406 )
Then, to compound arrogance with ignorance, “Floridian” chastises Brad for not contributing $500 to ReformSC personally, knowing full well (presumably after working so closely with Jeb all those years) that to do so would compromise the professional ethics of any working journalist. Duh.
Or, to quote the snide “Floridian” directly: “I am truly sorry you could not ante up the cash to hear him, it is somewhat pathetic to be doing a critique without knowing the speaker or the speech.” … Spoken (and punctuated) like a true Bush disciple. Well done.
So now, having tossed press and public from their private party — and with Jeb blessedly out of state or back in Florida where he can be properly appreciated — these guys want to tell us what we missed at the Piedmont Club yesterday, and where to stand on the issues?
No way, buds. I can do without politicians who work in the dark, and their handlers, too.
(You only raised $200,000, before expenses, for all this? Whee, doggie!)
Gordon,
I would point out that these events were far from the first private fundraisers that were only open to folks who bought tickets for the event. While I know Jason was disappointed he wasn’t allowed in without a ticket, it was nothing personal – it was just the policy that our board made for all three events on Tuesday.
That being said, Jason did get to talk with both Governor Sanford and former Governor Bush. He also corresponded back and forth with me regularly during the day and even through the evening as I tracked down the information that he requested.
There is no “hit list” and there can’t be as Reform SC’s legal status prevents it from getting directly involved in elections.
In terms of openness, Reform SC has blazed new ground by voluntarily capping contributions at $3500 per donor and fully disclosing its financial information even though its not required by law. In fact, the Ethics Commission wasn’t sure what to do with our report that we filed with them last week since an organization like ours had never voluntarily submitted information to them before.
As for your last comment, the story that you reference left plenty of latitude by estimating that “over” $200,000 was raised. Unfortunately (or fortunately, I guess, depending on your viewpoint), that number significantly understates the total amount raised on Tuesday.
Reform SC has already disclosed all contributions related to the event that were recieved through September 30th. The rest of the contributions and sources of the contributions will also be available at the Ethics Commission when Reform SC submits its voluntary fourth quarter filing.
Do we need any more evidence that Mark Sanford is really a Libertarian? This “non-profit” Sanford is promoting was formed to punish Republican legislators who dare question Sanford’s policies. Sanford is blatantly violating Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment to “never speak ill of a fellow Republican.” Frank Warren, Associate Editor of the Charleston Post and Courier, correctly observed in his column that “Sanford seems strangely driven to insult state lawmakers on a regular basis.” Anyone who knows anything about our legislative process will tell you that in order to accomplish anything, you have to first build strong trust relationships. Does Sanford not understand that the state representatives that he is attacking are the very folks he needs as allies? They are serving in the Legislature for a reason: we the people elected them to serve! Guess we’ll all have to wait until January, 2011 to see any hope for substantive change.
Chad,
Having the right to hold a private fund-raiser doesn’t mean that is the right thing to do. Particularly when it involves a sitting governor and a potential heir to the Bush dynasty, both advocating change that impacts us all, both pitching an audience capable of making change happen.
That’s a guaranteed recipe for suspicion and mistrust, a lesson you guys never seem to learn. From a purely selfish standpoint, think of the trouble you might have saved yourself and your reform movement by opening the door to a single reporter. Your insistence on locking him out was just plain foolhardy from a PR perspective, unless you do have something to hide.
On another note, I’d be interested in knowing the following, since you’re all about full public disclosure.
Who paid for Sanford’s transportation and security during this three-city, purely private fund-raising blitz with Bush? If taxpayer dollars were expended in transporting and securing Sanford or his staff, or any other public official, are you reimbursing for those expenses? Did you arrange to pay those costs up front? If so, how much did it cost?
Same goes for Bush. Who paid the price of protecting him, plus meals, lodging, transportation, etc.? Did you and he cover every penny of that, or were state/federal taxpayer funds expended?
Was any public expense incurred during this entire private process? If so, how much, and when are you paying it back?
If those costs were all paid by ReformSC up front, and there was truly no public expense involved, good for you. That’s how it should have been handled.
If not, I’d argue now that you’re obligated to publicly release any recordings or transcripts of Bush and Sanford’s remarks to your audiences.
Gordon,
Transparency and accountability are at the heart of the Sanford “campaign”…except it is only for other people. ReformSC, the Guvs security detail and travel arrangments to Europe and all over the US, the medicaid transportation contract, the cost of hauling his kids in SLED driven SUV’s to private school, his “borrowing” employees from cabinet agencys to make his Guv’s office look smaller, are all hidden from view. And no one questions him.
A week press and silly SC Democrat party allows a Republican governor to have a free pass on LOTS of things, as all those republicans share the same voter base and the dems are usually asleep.
It is a sad state of affairs that in this information age a public official can hide in “plain sight”.
> And no one questions him.
Including the guy who makes accusations and won’t give his name or email address.
Gordon,
Certainly you know enough about Governor Sanford to know that not only were public funds not spent on this day but virtually no funds were spent. Neither Sanford nor Bush spent a penny on hotels. Bush volunteered his time and gave a lot of it as he left his home at Florida at 5am and flew back out from Charleston at 9pm later that day. The flights were not on our dimes so I assume completely on his.
Bush is not an elected official and travelled with neither security nor staff. He and Governor Sanford went from Spartanburg to Columbia to Charleston in a privately owned vehicle and I drove my car. No public funds were spent on meals or anything else.
Chad
Thanks, Chad. Your response is appreciated. We’ll assume then, for the record, that no public funds spent is an absolute statement on your part in all regards, including that everyone traveled without benefit of security provided by police, SLED, etc. Please feel free to correct if I have misunderstood.
Lastly, since the price of an admission ticket is no longer relevant, and that was your stated basis for denying media access, why not release to the public unedited video of what occurred behind closed doors in all three cities?
Certainly, knowing what I know of Governor Sanford and Mr. Bush, nothing was said that would cause you concern about full disclosure after the fact. After all, you have stated that ReformSC is setting new standards in public accountability.
SC only needs to look to its neighbor to the north to see a viable form of state government. Until North Carolina’s 1971 constitutional convention, its government was typically Southern. This included a weak governorship and a powerful landed gentry in the legislature. The new constitution, along with other reforms did many of the things suggested here, such as consolidate school systems into one-per-county, as well as the university system. Counties and municipalities, while not given formal home rule, were given enough powers to allow them to mange their own affairs. Unilateral annexation was one of these powers. In my view, one hugely symbolic move was to replace the old ante-bellum state house with a typically modernist “legislative building” in downtown Raleigh. The old statehouse is now offices, and kept mainly for posterity. Socially, Governor Terry Sanford’s support of integration and civil rights during the 1960’s helped to entrench progressivism in the state to such a point that liberal democrats have held the office of governor all but twice since then. The two times Republicans did hold the office, progressive ideas were not abandoned. North Carolina notably never battled to keep a Confederate Battle flag above its capitol. It have formally apologized for slavery. The idea of cutting school funding in any form (as recently happened in Columbia) would start riots in Raleigh.
The reforms on North Carolina have had a noticeable effect of its economy. The Research Triangle is not USC, Furman, and Clemson, it is NC Stat, UNC-CH, and Duke. Charlotte, not Columbia is the New South Banking center. Cary, not Irmo, is rated as one of the best cities to live in. The comparisons could go on and on.
The sad part about this is that Jeb Bush’s suggestions will fall on hostile ears in SC, and deaf ones at the worst. With its strong stubborn streak, South Carolina will be damed to follow Florida’s lead, and GODdamned to to anything North Carolina does. As something of an idealist, I could stay here and help out the reform effort. But I think I’ll just go home to the Ol’ North State.
hmmm..I hate to ask this…but what lobbyist or special interest group paid for the plane and car?
I am sure Jeb Bush would want everyone to know…so there will be no cloud hanging over him.
Gordon,
I don’t think there was security but I’m not sure. I was told that Jeb was traveling totally solo without staff so assume that to be true. The Governor obviously usually does ride with an agent so wouldn’t be surprised if he did…that being said, I didn’t see him leaving the events and never saw an agent that day so I’m not sure. I don’t think that there was any audio or video recording done at the events…I certainly am not aware or anything officially done although I suppose any guest could certainly have recorded comments.
And finally to Greenville guy, I have no clue whether Jeb traveled commercial, first class, or on a private plane owned by him, his company, or a lobbyist. As he has been out of office for ten months and is a private citizen, I can’t imagine why any lobbyist would want to fly him somewhere or what difference it would make if they did…but I know about as much as how he travels as I know about how you or any other private citizen that’s not a member of my family travels. Sorry.
Chad