Category Archives: Spending

Thoughts on the Boeing expansion?

This release from the state Senate GOP…

Boeing has been an incredibly [sic] partner for us as a state. Despite labor unions’ early attempt to interfere with their presence here, Boeing is already creating jobs for over a thousand South Carolinians, with a multiplier effect that touches every part of our state.

We overwhelming passed a bill this week that gives Boeing the tools they need to create another 2,000 jobs here. You read that right…ANOTHER 2,000 jobs, and nearly a $1 billion more in capital investment.

It’s a great day for South Carolina not only because of the impact these jobs will have in people’s lives, but also because it solidifies our state’s reputation as a go-to destination for world-class manufacturing…

… got me to thinking I should start a thread on this major new industrial investment by our state. This thing’s moving through the Legislature pretty quickly, so don’t type too slowly if you have something to say. A quick summary of the situation from The State:

The S.C. Senate gave final approval Thursday to $120 million in state bonds, two days after the aircraft maker said it would add 2,000 jobs and $1 billion in investment at its North Charleston Dreamliner 787 jet plant. Boeing must meet those employment and investment goals by 2020 as part of the incentive agreement.

Meanwhile, the state House agreed Thursday to fast-track the incentives bill and begin floor debate Tuesday, Speaker Bobby Harrell’s office said…

“We have made a commitment to Boeing and our state keeps its word, particularly when it comes to economic development,” said Harrell, R-Charleston. “This is a good investment for our entire state that will create exciting new opportunities for our citizens and provide our state with huge returns.”…

The 15-year, state-backed bonds would pay for a 320-acre site next to Boeing’s plant at Charleston International Airport and to prepare the property for expansion. The money would not pay for new buildings, state officials said.

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…

The truth about SC: Taxes are low and getting lower, and government is not ‘growing’

85 Replies

Cindi Scoppe struck another blow today in the lonely fight to base public policy in South Carolina on facts. It’s not only a lonely, but a losing battle, since the people who are driving things in the State House have contempt for facts, preferring to “govern” on the basis of extremist ideology, which holds that facts are bunk.

Basically, she was answering this kind of nonsense:

Consider this analysis from an Upstate anti-government activist, speaking recently to The Greenville News: “Every year our state budget continues to go up, up, up, far exceeding our growth. So we’re getting more government, we’re getting higher taxes.

“They tell us, ‘We cut taxes.’ That’s nonsense. How can you increase spending and cut taxes and yet you claim that we also are not running a deficit? The numbers don’t add up.”

That certainly sounds like a sensible analysis. And there are circumstances under which it could be accurate. If, say, our population were remaining stagnant, or declining. Or if people’s income or purchases remained flat, or declined. But of course none of that is happening.

What’s happening isn’t that complicated. It just isn’t necessarily intuitive…

And what is happening is that tax rates have been lowered over and over for the past two decades. What is also happening is that, while the total amount of state funds spent on government is greater because of our skyrocketing population growth, the amount spent per capita is less and less:

South Carolina’s tax collections are the lowest in the nation, at $1,476.50 per capita; they dropped 18 percent from 2001 to 2011 — more than they did in 48 states. Our combined state and local tax burden per capita was less than all but one state, at $2,742. Our 2012 Tax Freedom Day — the date when we’ve earned enough money to pay all of our federal, state and local taxes for the year — was earlier than all but three states, at April 3.

This is simply not a state in which we’re “getting higher taxes.”

Ah, but our government is growing, right? Well, if by “growing government,” you mean that the total amount spent on state government each year is generally more than it was the previous year, then yes, it’s growing. With the exception of two years during the recession, state general fund expenditures (the money over which the Legislature has the most control) are growing — although this year’s $6.1 billion general fund budget is still down from the $6.7 billion in 2008-09, just before the recession hit.

But remember: While the general fund grew by 12 percent over the past decade, our state’s population grew by 15 percent. That means the Legislature appropriated less general fund money per resident, even without considering inflation, in 2012 than in 2002…

Ah, but what about all those “other funds,” from the feds and fees? Hasn’t that increased the size of government? Consider:

What’s a little surprising is that even with all that federal and other money, the total number of state employees is actually down, from 63,000 in 2002 to 56,000 in 2012. In fact, the total number of state employees has decreased over just about any period you look at during the past two decades, except last year, when it rose slightly from 2011, but remained well below the 2010 level.

So if by “growing government” you mean government is increasing the number of people on the payroll, it’s not.

If you mean government is providing more services, it’s also not. Our state is providing services to more people — Medicaid and food stamps, both funded primarily by the federal government, are prime examples — but it’s not increasing the services to each person…

Actually, you should just go read the whole thing.

Don’t count Joe Wilson among those wanting the sequester

13 Replies

Joe Wilson put out this release today:

At midnight tonight, the Department of Defense and other government agencies will fall victim to the President’s sequester. Every American family will be affected by the shifting of funds. In the South Carolina’s Second Congressional District, which I am grateful to represent, the Army’s base at Fort Jackson in Columbia is expected to lose approximately $75 million dollars. Additionally, the Savannah River Site in Aiken and Barnwell will be forced to furlough thousands of hardworking employees and stall critical national missions due to a possible $200 million budget cut. Both of these shifts will endanger our national security. The President and the Senate have refused to negotiate with House Republicans on a possible solution until today. House Republicans have voted twice to avoid sequestration. Our nation has a spending problem and we must address these issues before it is too late and our debt spirals out of control. The President should change course and begin working with both Houses of Congress to tackle the nation debt, which threatens American families. In conclusion, God Bless our troops and we will never forget September 11^th in the Global War on Terrorism.

I’m glad that on this, Joe is going the traditional Republican strong-on-defense route, rather than the Tea Party way, as voiced by Mick Mulvaney:
When pressed about the defense cuts, Mulvaney said, “an 11 percent across the board reduction is probably not the best way to run a military. And

I do worry about a hollowed out military – a military that looks the same, but it not capable of performing the missions that we want it to perform. That’s what frightens me.”

But the second term Republican added, “I was the one who offered the amendment to freeze defense spending. I offered a 1 percent across theboard cut to help pay for (Hurricane) Sandy. I’m not one of those Republicans who thinks that defense spending is off the table.

“And that’s why I’ve supported previous efforts to replace those reductions with other reductions. But again, that being said, the only thing worse than those military cuts would be no cuts at all.”

When asked about cuts to other programs, including Homeland Security, education, and owelfare programs, Mulvaney was even more blunt.

“If we have to accept reducing spending in a less than perfect way, then I’ll except reducing spending in a less than perfect way. And keep in mind – this would be the only real spending cuts we’ve actually seen since I got to congress.”

White House prediction of sequester’s impact on SC

56 Replies

Yesterday, the White House put out a state-by-state breakdown of what it said would be the likely impacts if sequestration happens.

Some excerpts of what the report said about South Carolina:

In South Carolina, approximately 11,000 civilian Department of Defense employees would be furloughed, reducing gross pay by around $59.5 million in total. Army: Base operation funding would be cut by about $62 million in South Carolina. Air Force: Funding for Air Force operations in South Carolina would be cut by about $19 million.
Head Start and Early Head Start services would be eliminated for approximately 900 children in South Carolina, reducing access to critical early education.
South Carolina will lose approximately $12.5 million in funding for primary and secondary education, putting around 170 teacher and aide jobs at risk. In addition about 15,000 fewer students would be served and approximately 30 fewer schools would receive funding. In addition, South Carolina will lose approximately $8.6 million in funds for about 100 teachers, aides, and staff who help children with disabilities.

Reagan told Irmo kid to get his act together

Yep, that’s Mark Sanford running all right…

23 Replies

Back on the day we’ll not soon forget.

Mark Sanford has now told the National Review — apparently his ability to charm SC media has worn thin — that he is running for his old seat in the 1st Congressional District, and he’s doing it in order to save the country from budget deficits.

There’s a bunch of other stuff in the interview should you like to peruse it. Me, I just wanted to check it for his verbal DNA, and make sure it really was Mark Sanford they spoke to.

At first, I worried, because he didn’t say “at the end of the day” or “soil conditions” a single time. But there is one “I would say” (which he used to say so often that I wanted to shout, “Well then why don’t you just say it?”).

And he says “look under the hood” no fewer than four times, which was reassuring. I am not making this up:

You have to, in essence, look under the hood. There’s a larger philosophical question. In life we’re all going to make mistakes, we’re all going to come up short. The key is, how do you get back up and how do you learn from those mistakes? . . . But I think that the bigger issue is, don’t judge any one person by their best day, don’t judge them by their worst day. Look at the totality, the whole of their life, and make judgments accordingly…

You’ve got to look under the hood. There’s that sensational headline, to look and say, “Wow, big ethics charge.” Beyond the headline, what does that mean? You say, “Hm. There were 37 counts the ethics committee brought, and did you know half of those are for taking a business-class ticket?” You look under the hood and you say, “Wow.”…

It’s important in this instance to look under the hood and say, “Wait a minute, they keep talking about default, and that’s just not true.” You can prioritize spending. When I was in Congress, I remember a GAO report that said that Treasury has the capacity. There’s no statutory requirement for them to default. They could prioritize their spending, and they’re doing things in the short run, to shuffle things around, all based on prioritization…

Yep, that’s Mark Sanford.

Oh, by the way, someone else is getting set to announce he’s running, too:

MEDIA ADVISORY
FOR RELEASE ON JANUARY 15, 2013

SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR LARRY GROOMS WILL ANNOUNCE RUN FOR SOUTH CAROLINA’S FIRST CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

WHO
South Carolina State Senator Larry Grooms

WHAT
Grooms will announce his bid for South Carolina’s First Congressional District.

WHEN
Thursday, January 17, 2013
3:00p.m.

WHERE
Scout Boats
2531 Hwy 78 West
Summerville, SC 29483
Next to Summerville Auto Auction

Maybe one of y’all would like to cover that for us. I’m not going to be down that way.

Joe Wilson accused of disaster hypocrisy

18 Replies

… or at the very least, inconsistency.

I’m not going to quote the whole thing because of the language that he used, but here’s part of what someone named Jonathan Valania had to say about Joe Wilson’s vote against Sandy relief last week:

… this despite the fact that South Carolina has had 13 major disaster declarations and two emergency declarations in the last 30 years, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The worst storm to ever hit the Palmetto State, Hurricane Hugo back in 1989, caused over $13 billion in damage and left nearly 60,000 people homeless.

Guess who picked up the tab?

And back in 2003 when the South Carolina suffered through a severe drought, all 46 counties in the Palmetto State were declared federal disaster zones at Wilson’s urging. In 2005, he voted for a $10.5 billion Katrina relief package.

“The compassion, generosity, and solidarity of the American people during difficult times are one of our most cherished blessings as citizens of our great nation,” Wilson said after the Katrina relief bill passed the House. “As we now face the severity of this historic natural disaster, Americans must do what we do best: help each other.”...

That was then and this is now.

Indeed. That was before the Tea Party, and before Joe decided he must do its will. And this is now, after Joe has followed the Four Freshman (OK, so now it’s Three Sophomores) through the looking glass.

SC delegation as useless as ever on ‘cliff’ vote

35 Replies

To the extent that anyone is inclined to congratulate the Congress for voting at the 13th hour to avert the “fiscal cliff,” they should carefully avoid directing any positive vibes at the SC delegation.

They were predictably petulant, recalcitrant and useless. Far be it from them to be part of anything that might be construed by anyone as getting anything done.

As you can see on this nifty interactive map provided by The New York Times, Joe Wilson and the Four Freshmen all voted “nay.” One would be tempted to pat Jim Clyburn on the back for being the grownup in the room, but the fact is that he is as wedded to his own rigid partisan attitudes as they are to theirs, so his vote was just as predictable.

But at least he voted to do something.

Here, by the way, is what Clyburn had to say about the vote last night:

Mr. Speaker, it is tempting to say it’s about time the House put aside extreme partisanship and work together on compromise to address the nation’s most pressing issues. But in reality, it is far past time that we put aside its extreme partisanship. Throughout the entirety of the 112^th Congress, the Republican Leadership repeatedly put its own narrow political interests ahead of the public interest.

So here we are on New Year’s night, with the clock running out on the very existence of this Congress, finally considering bipartisan legislation to provide middle class tax cuts, require the wealthiest to once again pay their fair share so we can grow the economy, create jobs and protect the most vulnerable in our society. It is indeed well past time we got about the people’s business.

Mr. Speaker, in 2011, I served on the Biden group of both Republican and Democratic Representatives and Senators who worked with the Vice President on our nation’s fiscal issues. We made good progress in those talks until our Republican friends walked away, fearing the wrath of the Tea Party Caucus here in the House.

I also served on the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the so-called supercommittee that spent countless hours discussing these issues in detail. It was very clear that the elements of a fair and balanced fiscal plan were achievable. But at the end of the process, the Republican leaders refused to compromise and the supercommittee failed.

So here we are. While this bill is not perfect, and I have serious concerns about some of the cuts it contains, it does contain the element of fairness. This bill protects the middle class and working people with a more progressive tax code than we’ve had in a very long time. And this bill prevents the meat axe approach of budget cuts that could do severe damage to our national defense and important domestic priorities.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the partisanship of the 112^th Congress will end this week with the end of the 112^th Congress. And I am hopeful that the 113^th Congress can work together toward honorable compromises that get the people’s business done. I urge a Yes vote.

-30-

I have not yet received any releases on the subject from the GOP members.

Here we go over the cliff, y’all!

6 Replies

This just came over the wire a few minutes ago:

WASHINGTON (AP) – The House will miss the midnight Monday deadline lawmakers set for voting to avoid the “fiscal cliff.”

House Republicans notified lawmakers that the chamber will vote Monday evening on other bills. They say that will be their only votes of the day.

President Barack Obama and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Monday they are near a deal to avoid wide-ranging tax increases and spending cuts – the fiscal cliff – that take effect with the new year.

Both men said they were still bargaining over whether – and how – to avoid $109 billion in cuts to defense and domestic programs that take effect on Wednesday…

OK, so there could still be a deal by Wednesday. And truth be told, the “cliff” is more like a steep incline, with various painful measures being enacted as we move into the new year. There is time, even after tonight, to undo much that the cliff entails.

But still. They’ve known this was coming a year and several months. Pretty much everyone wanted to avoid it. But Washington is so pathetic, they couldn’t get it done.

These are the times we live in.

These voices of reassurance don’t soothe me

8 Replies

This morning, there was an op-ed piece by Rand Paul (not Paul Ryan; the other one with very similar name and identical ideas) suggesting that we need not necessarily “wring our hands in despair at the possible fiscal cliff.”

Then later today, I get this from Gary Johnson, the guy who ran for president this year as a Libertarian:

Since the election, I’ve been able to spend some time at home in New Mexico, recharge my batteries a bit, and most important, watch what’s going on in Washington, DC – which is really nothing good.

Gary Johnson

The news is filled with stories about the “looming fiscal cliff”. Of course, in Washington, their definition of a “cliff” is that government spending will be cut next year by slightly more than $100 billion – IF Congress and the President don’t come to an agreement to cut spending by LESS than that. With a $16 trillion debt and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, only in Washington would cutting $100 billion be viewed as an impending disaster.

The real disaster – the real “fiscal cliff” – is the one we face if spending ISN’T cut by far more than $100 billion… There are talking heads on TV saying, with a straight face, that cutting spending by a few small percentage points will devastate the economy. Where were those talking heads when the Democrats and Republicans were conspiring to run up an unsustainable $16 TRILLION national debt. Who is pointing out the obvious: That ridiculous levels of spending have already devastated the economy – and that the so-called fiscal cliff is a pothole compared to the real cliff that our Thelma and Louise government is driving us over.

And so forth. Somehow, I am not consoled by these assertions. Nor am I pacified when some of our friends on the left (and more libertarian elements of the right) say it’s just fine if military spending is eviscerated.

Call me wacky, but count me among those hoping that the Dems and Repubs will work out a way to avert this booby-trap they set during their last major failure to be reasonable on fiscal matters — you know, the one that let to the downgrade of the nation’s credit rating.

Graham, others break with Norquist

37 Replies

With most Americans pessimistic about the chances for a compromise that could avert the “fiscal cliff” — and inclined to blame Republicans for the failure — it’s worth noting that our own Lindsey Graham is among those trying to lead the GOP away from Grover Norquist and toward a somewhat more rational course:

A pair of congressional Republicans reiterated their willingness Sunday to violate an anti-tax pledge in order to strike a deal on the “fiscal cliff,” echoing Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican who suggested last week that the oath may be outdated.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said he was prepared to set aside Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge if Democrats will make an effort to reform entitlements, and Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) suggested the pledge may be out of step in the present economy.

“I agree with Grover — we shouldn’t raise rates — but I think Grover is wrong when it comes to we can’t cap deductions and buy down debt,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.” “What do you do with the money? I want to buy down debt and cut rates to create jobs, but I will violate the pledge, long story short, for the good of the country, only if Democrats will do entitlement reform.”…

Hey, Lindsey, I’ve got your entitlement reform right here: Eliminate the income cap on contributions to Social Security, and raise retirement age slightly. That would save that benefit, and would be a good place to start. Then, bada-bing, go raise some revenue for the general fund…

Stepping back from the fiscal cliff?

70 Replies

Well, here’s an encouraging post-election development:

Quickly pivoting the political conversation from President Obama’s reelection to Washington’s looming budget battles, House Speaker John A. Boehner on Wednesday offered a potential path to compromise, saying Republicans are “willing to accept new revenue” to tame the soaring national debt and avert an ugly battle over the approaching “fiscal cliff.”

With Obama’s decisive electoral victory and Republicans’ hold on the House, with a slightly smaller majority, Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday’s election amounted to a plea from voters for the parties to lay down their weapons of the past two years and “do what’s best for our country.”

“That is the will of the people. And we answer to them,” Boehner said at an afternoon news conference at the Capitol. “For purposes of forging a bipartisan agreement that begins to solve the problem, we’re willing to accept new revenue, under the right conditions.”…

Last night, I was hearing that it appeared unlikely that House Republicans, having held onto their power, would be any more willing to talk compromise than they have since 2010.

So this is good news. We may be able to arrive at a reasonable solution — although I’m sure the end product won’t be pleasant or fun for anyone involved, including us, the people.

But here’s the tough question: Can Boehner back this up, or will Eric Cantor be explaining to him right about now that he’s not allowed to do this?

Lott, others endorse ‘yes’ vote on the penny

75 Replies

Nicole Curtis from the Columbia Chamber just saved me a heap o’ typing by sending out this from the presser I attended at the Clarion Townhouse this morning:

Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott officially endorsed the Transportation Penny Plan on Tuesday at a Unity Rally to demonstrate the strong and broad base of support for the countywide plan to improve roadways in the Midlands and save the area’s vital bus system.

“Passage of the penny will help protect public safety in Richland County,” Lott said in his endorsement of The Penny. “The penny will provide infrastructure that can be life-saving. It will pave hundreds of dirt roads across the country. This is about far more than convenience. When sheriff’s deputies and ambulances can’t get down a dirt road because it’s turned to mud, people can die.”

Other local leaders, including Columbia Mayor Steve Benjamin joined Lott at the Rally, which was held at the Clarion Townhouse in downtown Columbia exactly one week before the crucial Nov. 6 vote on The Penny.

“Those who oppose this initiative say it costs too much. But it’s a no vote that costs too much,” said Benjamin. “It would mean the loss of over 16,500 new jobs and billions in new investments. It would mean continuing to pay the terrible cost of having the second most dangerous roads in the state. It would cost our community millions in federal matching funds for transforming our bus system. It would lead to fees that would cost our families twice as much as The Penny. It would put the entire burden of transportation costs on Richland County residents, rather than letting folks from outside share the load.”

The event represented a diverse cross-section of individuals, including business, community and faith leaders, elected officials and various activist organizations.

Others on hand at the rally included members of the Richland County Legislative Delegation, Columbia City Council and Richland County Council, representatives from the United Way of the Midlands, Sustainable Midlands, Greater Irmo Chamber of Commerce, Greater Columbia Chamber of Commerce, Eau Claire Community Council, River Alliance, League of Women Voters, Conservation Voters of South Carolina and the Midlands Business Leadership Group, and additional neighborhood, faith and community leaders.

“Today our answer is a resounding YES – YES we want more jobs, YES we want local control, YES we want a first class public transit system and YES we want safer roads,” said Bunnie Ward of the United Way of the Midlands. ”By investing today and saying YES, we will ensure a successful future for our community for generations to come.”

The Penny is on the Nov. 6 General Election ballot as two separate “Sales and Use Tax” questions. If approved by voters, it would add one cent to the Richland County sales tax for a period of 22 years to raise funds for vital roadway improvements and to provide long-term support for the local bus system.

Citizens for a Greater Midlands, the group pushing passage of this referendum, has done quite a job of assembling a broad coalition, as evidenced in the third paragraph from the end.

Of course, as I’ve noted before, the other side has a lot of passion going for it. Or at least, I thought it did. I was a bit surprised that, unlike at the last one of these events I attended in the same location, there wasn’t a single “no” counterdemonstrator outside. And this event was publicized in advance. I don’t know what happened to them today…

Last night’s CRC forum on the penny

73 Replies

Before I head out to go moderate this forum at the library about the presidential election, I’ll share a few words about the Community Relations Council’s forum last night on the transportation sales tax referendum.

On the whole, it was a success I think, in terms of providing a civil place for folks on opposite sides of a local issue to share their views. Although sometimes the civility did seem to wear a bit thin. Redfern II has a somewhat loud, bombastic delivery style that can make it sound like things are getting out of hand, even when they are not. Michael Letts seemed to have quite a chip on his shoulder on the issue, but controlled himself. While on the “yes” side, I thought County Councilman Paul Livingston was going to lose his temper at the “no” folks once or twice.

Fortunately, things stayed in the realm of merely “lively,” which is a good thing. Moderator David Stanton did a good job.

One thing that made me glad, since I was on the committee, and since I tell anyone who wants to know that I’m for the referendum — I don’t think anyone can legitimately complain that the “no” side got short shrift in this forum. While the reasoning was better on the “yes” side — in my opinion, of course — there was more passion on the side of the “nos.” And I don’t say that to denigrate their arguments — they presented plenty of points that I’m sure were effective among a lot of the audience.

A quick summary of the positions presented by the panelists:

Lee Bussell, Yes: This referendum presents an opportunity for this community to come together and address its real challenges together, such as the fact that Richland County has the 2nd-deadliest roads in the state.
Daniel Rickenmann, No: It’s not a penny; it’s a billion dollars.
Paul Livingston, Yes: This is a community plan, not a county council plan.
Don Weaver, No: Stressed the impact on the poor of an additional penny on every dollar spent.
Jennifer Harding, Yes: Expressed concern about congestion and traffic safety in her party of the county (the Northeast).
Redfern, No: The white leadership of the community has given black citizens the short shrift up to now; why should it be trusted this time? (He had a lot of zingers and crowd-pleasers, such as “If you want to get nowhere fast, take the bus.” But his overall theme was distrust.)
Brian DeQuincey Newman, Yes: The penny is the answer to the challenge Redfern poses — it will bring in the funds CMRTA needs to provide decent service.
Michael Letts, No: “Local control” sounds great, but he doesn’t want to pay this local tax for roads on top of the ones he already pays at state and federal level. Also, wants the bus part separated from the capital, roads part.

I take those mostly from the participants’ opening remarks, but they also give you an idea what went on the rest of the time.

As I said, a lot of energy on the “no” side. Three times, “yes” panelists were asked to speak up or get closer to their microphones. No one had to ask the “no” folks to do that.

And to the extent that minds were changed, it was in the “no” direction. The audience was asked to turn in ballots “voting” on the matter both before and after the event. Not everyone did, but here are the results from the ones who took part, according to CRC Executive Director Henri Etta Baskins:

BEFORE: 32 Yes; 31 No; 11 Undecided
AFTER: 32 Yes; 34 No; 8 Undecided

NOTE — those numbers were just updated (the number of undecided AFTER was wrong previously)…

Scott thinks F-35 pretty cool after ‘flying’ it

25 Replies

Remember that previous post about the dog-and-pony show up in North Carolina, the one that was to allow reporters to check out an F-35 simulator?

Well, Lockheed had another one on USS Yorktown in Charleston, and they managed to wow Rep. Tim Scott:

U.S. REP. TIM SCOTT FLIES F-35 COCKPIT DEMONSTRATOR DURING USS YORKTOWN VISIT

F-35 will serve as a cornerstone of global security and create South Carolina jobs

CHARLESTON, S.C., October 18 – U.S. Rep. Tim Scott, (R-S.C.), today joined local elected officials and community leaders on the USS Yorktown at Patriots Point Naval and Maritime Museum to receive an update on the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II program and hear about its contribution to South Carolina, national security, and the U.S. economy.

During his visit, Scott “flew” the F-35 cockpit demonstrator to experience firsthand how advanced stealth, fighter agility and integrated information systems make the F-35 the most capable multi-role fighter in the world. The cockpit is visually and audibly interactive and provides a realistic look at the F- 35’s performance, air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities, sophisticated sensor fusion and advanced computational capabilities.

“Coming from a military family, I understand and appreciate that American men and women serving in uniform deserve the best technology that this nation can provide. Those that threaten our country are evolving everyday, and it is essential we stay ahead of them.” Scott said. “There is no doubt the fifth generation, multi-role F-35 Lightning II’s ability to defeat sophisticated surface-to-air missiles and enemy fighters in the air and on the ground will allow us to do just that.

“Our military leadership associated with Beaufort Air Station, McEntire Joint National Guard Base, and Shaw Air Force Base has told me clearly and convincingly that these capabilities are critical to defending our freedoms,” Scott added.

Lockheed officials noted that even at its current low rate of production, the F-35 program supports a broad industrial base of more than 1,300 suppliers in 45 states, contributing to more than 133,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs and over $17.7 billion in direct and indirect annual economic impact. Those numbers are expected to grow as the program ramps up to full rate production over the next few years.

In South Carolina, the F-35 program generates nearly 123 jobs and more than $5 million annually in direct and indirect economic impact. Currently, there are four South Carolina companies supporting the program.

The F-35 is a supersonic multi-role fighter designed to replace a wide range of aging fighter and strike aircraft. Three variants derived from a common design will ensure the F-35 achieves its security mission while staying within strict affordability targets.

Lockheed Martin is developing the F-35 in conjunction with its principal partners, Northrop Grumman [NYSE: NOC] and BAE Systems, and Pratt & Whitney. Among the aircraft F-35 will replace are the A- 10, AV-8B Harrier, F-16, F/A-18, and the United Kingdom’s Harrier GR-7 and Sea Harrier.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs about 123,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation’s net sales for 2011 were $46.5 billion.

The USS Yorktown was commissioned on April 15, 1943, and was one of the preeminent aircraft carriers to serve in the Pacific theater of operations during World War II. In the 1950′s, Yorktown was modified with the addition of an angled deck to better operate jet aircraft. In 1958, the ship was designated an anti-submarine aircraft carrier, and served admirably during the Vietnam conflict. Yorktown was decommissioned in 1970 and placed in reserve. In 1975, the ship was towed from Bayonne, N.J. to Charleston to become the centerpiece of Patriots Point Naval and Maritime Museum.

###

Hey, if I’d had a chance to go try it out, I’d probably think it was pretty cool, too. At a projected $323 billion, this is “the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program.” In a budget like that, they ought to be able to come up with something better than my old Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator.

A creative way to punch a $168 million hole in the ground

5 Replies

Well, my heart beat a bit faster when I saw this headline on an email:

MEDIA ADVISORY – LOCKHEED MARTIN TO DEMONSTRATE F-35 LIGHTNING II CAPABILITIES AT THE CAROLINAS AVIATION MUSEUM; REPORTERS INVITED TO ‘FLY’ THE F-35

… even though I saw the quote marks around “FLY.”

Sure enough, the release says:

Still. I bet that’s a pretty awesome simulator. Way better than my old copy of Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator that I can’t even get to run on Windows 7.

I have to smile, though, at the come-on, given that there will never come a time, in the history of this planet, when anyone would be insane enough to let a reporter — even one who had once been a jet pilot — actually fly an F-35.

If they did, that would be one quick, albeit creative, way of making a $168 million smoking hole in the ground.

I base that on Wikipedia’s estimate of the per-unit cost of the airplane over the life of the program — which it calls “the most expensive defense program ever.” Which is really saying something.

I don’t know about you, but as my Wichita colleague Dennis Boone used to say of such sums, that’s more than I make in a year.

Harvey Peeler on road funding priorities

5 Replies

I received this oped by Harvey Peeler, the best Tweeter in the SC Senate, from the Senate Republicans. It contains some thoughts worth considering:

Force-feeding asphalt to Charleston while the rest of S.C. starves
by Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler

When a conservative think tank and the environmentalists team up to criticize the same state agency, you can bet they’re probably on to something.

Our entire system of funding road and transportation needs in our state is just about as broken as it gets, with a recent decision by State Transportation Infrastructure Bank (SIB) being the prime example.

Last month, the SIB took a vote to build an eight mile extension of the Mark Clark Expressway in Charleston, despite the fact that their bonding capacity is used up and the project is wildly unpopular locally.

Or to put in language folks outside the Statehouse might use, they spent money we don’t have on a project we don’t need and the people don’t want.

But the bigger problem is that the SIB is force feeding asphalt to Charleston, while the rest of our state is on a starvation diet.

Seeing this, the conservative South Carolina Policy Council and the environmentalist Coastal Conservation League – two groups who are rarely singing off of the same sheet of music – teamed up to point out just how corrupt our system for funding infrastructure has become.

I think they’re on to something.

Anybody who drives has seen the sorry shape of our roads first hand. In my neck of the woods, we have “see-through” bridges just miles from our homes with more holes than Swiss cheese. In Cowpens on Exit 83, the exit is in such bad disrepair that you have to drive through the parking lot of Mountain View Baptist Church to get back onto the Interstate. Or how I-26 becomes a parking lot on many weekends between Charleston and Columbia.

Meanwhile, since the SIB was created in 1997, they’ve doled out about $4 billion for road projects, with about half of it, a little over $2 billion, going to just two counties – Charleston and Horry. In fact, only 11 of our 46 counties have ever even gotten a penny of SIB funding.

The state Department of Transportation estimates that to bring all the roads and bridges in this state just up what is considered “adequate” level, it would take $20 billion.

Let’s think about that for a second – we need $20 billion to make our existing roads safe, and the SIB is busy spending another $4 billion on NEW roads in the backyards of politically connected legislators and the tourism lobby.

That latest Charleston boondoggle – which, it’s worth remembering, was built with promised money above and beyond what we’re already authorized to borrow – has never even been ranked by the state DOT as a funding priority. It even ranked 15th on a list in Charleston for priorities.

The question I have is, why do we even have a board separate and apart from the DOT, buying bells and whistles for our road system? It’s like a farmer borrowing money to buy a new Corvette when the wheels of his tractor are falling off.

Of course, it’s not like the DOT is any better. What is the DOT’s top priority right now? An interstate that hasn’t even been built yet, and may never wind up being built. I-73, which is supposed to go from Detroit to Myrtle Beach, will cost our state more than $1 billion just to reach the North Carolina line.

Now I’m no expert, but the times I’ve been to Myrtle Beach and looked around at the license plates, it didn’t seem to me like folks from Michigan and Ohio are having any trouble getting here.

The seven-member DOT and the seven-member SIB are driving our state into a ditch. Fourteen people making road-funding decisions. As the old saying goes, “When everybody is in charge, no one is in charge.”

It’s true in business, it’s true in government. We have a rogue Infrastructure Bank committing money that doesn’t exist to a project we don’t need, on top of a state Department of Transportation, where an unaccountable commission controls everything from traffic lights to curb cuts.

If we’re going to move our state forward, we’ve got to stop funding infrastructure based on favor swapping and horse trading. We’ve got to put first things first, fix the roads we have, and stop building new ones based on which legislator has the most pull or which special interest screams the loudest.

I pledge to work with the Policy Council, the Coastal Conservation League and any other group that wants to make this the reality for South Carolina.

Nyah, nyah! Your Catholics are as bad as ours!

14 Replies

A columnist in The Wall Street Journal (“Social Justice and Ryan the Heretic“) this morning took on liberal Catholics’ criticisms of Paul Ryan. For a moment, my heart leapt at the prospect of a discussion of the meaning of “subsidiarity” (hey, some people get excited that football season is coming; go figure) but it was not to be. This piece existed on a more modest intellectual plane. It was more in the line of, “Oh, yeah! Well, so’s yer mother!”

That is to say, the writer was accusing the left of adopting such a position.

Here’s how the piece concluded:

Unfortunately, suggesting that Mr. Ryan is a bad Catholic is the entire case. Stuck with the fact of Mr. Biden, who has long since made his peace with the party’s absolutism on abortion, progressive Catholics know that it would be laughable to try to present Mr. Biden as faithful to church teaching. They know too that clarity about church teaching does not work to their advantage. The only way to take on Mr. Ryan is to tear him down.

In the past, the liberal Catholic vision sought to inspire. Today, in the pages of the venerable lay Catholic magazine Commonweal, a blogger tries to diminish Paul Ryan by saying, “like the rest of us, he is a Cafeteria Catholic.” Surely it says something about a movement when its most powerful argument against an opponent is this: You are just as lousy as we are.

Think about that. In another age, Catholic progressives would have laughed at the suggestion that people were corrupted by reading certain works; now they believe Paul Ryan’s soul is in peril for his having read Ayn Rand. Before, they would not have feared science; now they insist that a program such as food stamps ought to continue ad infinitum without consideration of its effects. And while they believe that the pope and bishops have nothing of value to offer about the sanctity of marriage or the duty of protecting unborn life, when it comes to federal spending, suddenly a miter means infallibility.

But while columnist McGurn accurately pegs the liberals, he comes up with little substantive defense of Mr. Ryan’s rather odd interpretation of Catholic social teaching, beyond quoting a column by Ryan’s own bishop saying that unlike on abortion, Catholics might legitimately disagree “on issues such as how best to create jobs or help the poor.” I think the bishop has a point. But I’d still like to see a serious discussion of how well Mr. Ryan applies Catholic principles.

Lacking such a ringing endorsement, we are left to conclude, if this is all the evidence we go by, that there is no “good Catholic” to be found on either ticket.

But let’s be optimistic. Let’s say that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Biden reflect different sides of the faith. Put them together, and pare away their objectionable positions, and you have one pretty good Catholic.

Brad Warthen

All The News That Gives You Fits