Brannon's Amendment 12 tabled

Note: Following is an encapsulation of actions taken and remarks made by legislators during today's debate. While this note does reflect remarks made by these lawmakers, it is not a full and verbatim transcript of the remarks.

Brannon's Amendment 12 adds disabilities or academic achievement to the list of characteristics that private schools cannot discriminate against.

Rep. Steve Parker: I can't imagine anyone would oppose this amendment.

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter: Is it accurate that your amendment takes away the argument that private schools and publics are apples and oranges because publics have no right to refusal, while privates do?

Brannon: Yes.

Cobb-Hunter: So private school must accept anyone, if it is accepting public dollars?

Brannon: Yes, with one exception. Under the SGO program, the school has to qualify to receive scholarship dollars and if they're not set up to meet the needs of disabled children, they would qualify to receive these dollars.

Rep. Dwight Loftis: But all public schools do not accept all children with all disabilities.

Brannon: You have to read this amendment in conjunction with the rest of the bill. A private school doesn't have to accept anybody. If they don't qualify by the SGOs, they don't have to accept anyone. Should we set up SGO so they can pick and choose?

Loftis: We should set up schools just as we set up public schools, that don't accept all disabled children.

Herbkersman: Do you think the Governor's School of Science should accept someone whose academic achievement is lower than their standards are right now?

Brannon: That's not apples to apples. Should they be able to discriminate as they choose?

Herbkersman: They should be able to have standards.

Bedingfield moved to table; Brannon requested roll call.

Vote: 66-49, tabled.

Cobb-Hunter raises equal-standards argument in voucher bill

Although House Ways and Means Chairman Brian White told WJBF yesterday that he has enough votes to pass his $37 million voucher-and-tax-deduction bill from the House, Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter has raised concerns about using public dollars without public accountability.

At the committee meeting, State Representative Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg, said the plan also doesn't hold private schools to the same standards that public schools are required to meet. She asked supporters, "Why are we still shifting public dollars to private schools but we don't want private schools to be judged by the same criteria?"

Apparently, Cobb-Hunter's question in the committee meeting wasn't answered; no answer was reported by WJBF.

Cobb-Hunter wasn't alone in raising concerns about the bill:

Jackie Hicks, state president of the South Carolina Education Association, says, "We want reforms. Families of children want reforms. So why not focus on reforms instead of taking money and giving it to private schools? Because when you talk about giving each student a $4,000 voucher, then you are taking that money out of the public school system."

Again, WJBF offers no data to respond to Hicks's concern.

One has to imagine that Cobb-Hunter's question has an answer, and that Hicks's concern has a response. Perhaps our media are exhausted of the debate and are waiting for new news to report. Look: Squirrel!

Meantime, WJBF stopped at Covenant Classical Christian School and found two private-school parents, including one who teaches at the school, who are thrilled to get paid for their choice to send their children to private schools.

"Mine! Mine! Mine! All mine! You can't have any!" the wealthy parents said, clutching at their publicly-funded vouchers and racing past the long line of poor peoples' children holding outdated textbooks and broken pencils. "My children are more important than your children! And give me my tax deduction!"

No, I'm kidding. That last bit in italics didn't really happen. The jury will strike that testimony from the record. Here's what WJBF really reported from the two parents who love the voucher bill.

Edye Moran has two sons at Covenant Classical Christian School in Columbia and says families make a lot of sacrifices to send their children to private school. She's happy to hear about the bill. "We believe that, as citizens who pay taxes, we should have the ability to have a choice like this," she says.

Yes, and hundreds of thousands of other parents who also pay taxes wish they had the option of sending their children to traditional public schools whose programs, services, faculty needs and classroom resources are fully-funded; but we live in South Carolina, and South Carolina's lawmakers don't make that choice available to them.

Deborah Bian-Lingle, a mother of three daughters educated in a private school, says, "It's not going to hurt the taxpayer. What it's going to do is assist parents to be able to place their children in the school of their choice."

In addition to teaching French at the private academy whose parents stand to collect huge benefits from the voucher bill, Bian-Lingle is a Richland County GOP precinct officer.

Indeed, it doesn't hurt our taxpayers, except that a smaller General Fund means fewer resources for public education AND every other public service that's funded by the General Fund, which means that local counties and municipalities may have to raise local property taxes to cover the costs of local programs and services; and higher local property taxes will land on the backs of individual property owners, because large corporations don't have to pay property taxes in many case, thanks to the incentive package crafted by lawmakers to persuade those corporations to operate here.

So I guess the voucher bill will hurt taxpayers in the long run, after all. Hmm. It's strange how things look different when you consider the long-term view and others' perspectives.

The State offered a little more detail of the committee debate, but not much more.

The committee approved an amendment requiring that benefiting private schools post online results of students' standardized tests.

Republicans refused attempts to require they use the same standardized tests as public schools.

That's the only way to get a true performance comparison, said Rep. Michael Anthony, D-Union.

Why wouldn't private academies want to use the same standardized tests as traditional public schools, if we're going to be funding private education at those schools? Is there something to hide?

Lawmakers disappointed in session, point to Haley

In a session-end wrap-up published by the Times and Democrat of Orangeburg, Sen. Brad Hutto noted that the General Assembly this year wasted a lot of time on "non-issues" rather than the issues that mattered to South Carolinians.

"We wasted a long time with non-issues, like voter ID and illegal immigration," Hutto said. "We needed to focus on the jobs situation and health care.

Rep. Jerry Govan said the same.

"The leadership did nothing to create jobs," Govan said. "When you look at the governor and her priorities and her vetoes, such as money cut from public education, it left me with an empty feeling.

"It is unfortunate. Until South Carolina sees fit to bring a greater balance in representation, this is what we'll continue to have."

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter said the chambers' majorities, who control the agenda, played to "wedge" issues to appease their "base."

"We just threw red meat to the base and played all the wedge national and social issues," the Orangeburg Democrat said. "We didn't do a whole lot to make life better for the average South Carolinian.

"My biggest disappointment is failure of the bill sponsored by Rep. (Harold) Mitchell and me to create a state health benefit exchange. As a result, I strongly believe we will wind up with a federal exchange being forced on us."

Ah, Rep. Cobb-Hunter, creating a state health benefit exchange might give Her Excellency a reason to take federal health insurance funds designated for that specific purpose, and everyone from Timbuktu to Thailand knows she refuses to take federal funds available to us to help the poor, the weak, the very young, the very old, and generally those who would benefit from having better access to health care.

Gov. Nikki Haley has decided South Carolina won't pursue any more grant money from the federal health care overhaul to fund a possible state-run health insurance exchange.

"The governor has said she's going to evaluate these opportunities as they come as to what's best for South Carolina," said Tony Keck, the director of the state Department of Health and Human Services. "The one decision she's already made is that there is no reason for South Carolina to apply for additional money related to health insurance exchanges."

Keck made the comments on Thursday after the second meeting of the South Carolina Health Planning Committee, a group established by a Haley executive order that's looking at setting up a state-run health insurance exchange and other opportunities to improve access to and reduce the cost of health care.

A health insurance exchange is an online marketplace where consumers can shop for and compare health insurance policies. The federal health care overhaul dictates that states must set up their own exchanges to go live when the law goes into full effect in 2014 or have the federal government step in and set up one for them. The government has the option of taking over the process in states not meeting certain benchmarks by the end of 2012.

The government’s stated goal in mandating the exchanges is to lower the cost of insurance for consumers by increasing competition and to reduce the number of uninsured people, about 17 percent of South Carolinians.

Better luck next governor, Rep. Cobb-Hunter.

Sen. John Matthews may have assessed Haley most succinctly, and given her the best advice of the year:

"The biggest thing was the governor's leadership, candor and willingness to be straight up affects her ability to get things done. In the House, where she should have enjoyed her strongest support, they overturned her vetoes.

"I hope she learns from this. In the final analysis she needs to learn how to work with the General Assembly."

Oh, Sen. Matthews, to have the optimism of the young again.

More local fallout, comment on Haley vetoes

Not all of the state's newspapers have correspondents in Columbia to cover the State House -- unfortunately -- so many papers opt to wait for lawmakers to come home and brief the 'lectorate before tackling some of the big issues of the past week or two. Such is the case with Governor Nikki Haley's vetoes and the legislature's quick disposals of them.

Sen. John Matthews told the Times and Democrat of Orangeburg that it was "telling" that legislative majorities of Haley's own party overturned so many of her vetoes.

"Those issues were vetted on the floors and we thought they were important. The four or five vetoes that were sustained were not significant. It was telling that the Republican leadership is not on the same page with the governor. It would seem to show she is out of step with many South Carolinians."

Drafting her memoir might have distracted her from the needs and wants of the citizenry. After the book is published in January, she may be able to focus better on her work, Senator.

Sen. John Land rapped Haley's attack on funding for public schools, and her inscrutible positions on economic development.

"She vetoed $110 million in the Capital Reserve Fund bill that had 60 to 70 needed maintenance projects for higher education without adequate explanation," Land said. "This was excess revenue we didn't get until late, and she said we didn't need to spend it on education.

"There was even a section where money was allocated for the Department of Commerce to recruit jobs. It didn't make any sense at all."

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, reflecting a general concern that Haley is not as well-versed in the affairs of the state as a chief executive needs to be -- or merely as observant of conditions on the ground, offered some advice:

Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg said Haley's request that lawmakers use Capital Reserve Fund cash for future budget contingencies is disingenuous.

"To Gov. Haley I would say, ‘Wake up and smell the coffee, the storm is here,'" Cobb-Hunter said. "We are way beyond a rainy day in South Carolina.

"Until the governor is willing to exert the leadership required to deal with the tax mess, there is no real reason for her to lecture the General Assembly on a rainy day fund."

Rep. Bakari Sellers echoed his veteran colleagues.

"She vetoed measures that would improve public education and we can't stand for that in South Carolina," Sellers said. "She is out of touch with the people. We need the Arts Commission and ETV. In this I'm glad to see that common sense prevailed."

Editors of the Charleston Post & Courier issued their own verdict on Haley's misguided vetoes and found the new boss the same as the old boss. "This was pointless," they declared. They advised South Carolinians to pay attention.

To which I offer, politely: 'Tis too late for that. Haley may be a poor excuse for a governor, even a malignant one, but she's what we have for the next 42 months or so. Where were the attention-paying editors of the Post & Courier when the window of opportunity was open? Who did the Post & Courier support in the last election?

Nevertheless, the editors make the most of hindsight, and they make their points well:

We're coming off an instructional week for South Carolina's electorate. Nearly six months after Gov. Nikki Haley took office, everyone finally got to see what she's really all about.

Haley's budget vetoes -- a small percentage of the budget -- were concentrated largely on education, the arts, the environment and routine maintenance to keep the state running. Programs to keep public school teachers in the classroom and train the workforce were inexplicably discarded.

At least when Mark Sanford differed with lawmakers, whether or not you agreed, he always had a serious point. But this was pointless, and the damage could be permanent. The one area where Haley had Sanford beat -- her relationship with lawmakers -- is now out the window.

No wonder the state's business ranking has dropped.

The editors do express gratitude for the General Assembly.

Lawmakers overrode most of Haley's anti-public-education vetoes. They restored $56 million for per-pupil spending in schools and $20 million to some relatively wealthy school districts, like Charleston's, that suffer under the existing funding formula.

And they put back $13 million to help technical colleges train workers for jobs like those at Boeing. Which the governor took ample credit for bringing here.

Sure, the state needs to put a microscope on every dollar it spends. But those are core functions of government. And someone who claims to be so interested in catering to business should realize that companies look at more than tax rates when scouting new locations.

Perhaps some of those areas where the state is lacking, or has little political support, hurt South Carolina's ranking in CNBC's ranking of "America's Top States For Business 2011." This year it dropped to 37, down from 31 last year.

The Legislature gets it. The governor, apparently, doesn't.

Quite right. What this governor got was the Post & Courier's endorsement.

It takes a big editorial board to admit it was wrong. Of course, the Post & Courier hasn't actually done that, yet.

Rather, they put the onus on Haley.

The biggest damage Haley did last week was to herself.

Republican lawmakers in the House and Senate publicly derided her for not keeping her word; they said her staff had misled them. Of course, Haley couldn't be distracted to confirm or deny the charge.

Well, she'd already boarded her flight for New York. Fourth of July weekend was coming, and there were a lot of yet-to-be-disclosed activities to do there. Planes can't wait forever, even for state business.

Back in January, Haley offered few specifics for cutting the budget, but made a point of mentioning the negligible funds devoted to ETV and the Arts Commission. Republican leaders say that later the governor's staff instructed them to just stick those line-items in various other corners of the budget and they'd be fine.

So much for transparency. When Democrats pointed out the shell game, Haley was forced to make good on her threat and veto the money.

The upshot? The Legislature restored the money, publicly derided Haley and swore they wouldn't make the mistake of trusting her again.

And so, we are back to where we started.