Sen. John Matthews drops a pearl of wisdom about education

Truer words were never spoken than these, by Sen. John Matthews, to the Orangeburg Times and Democrat in Sunday's edition: "If we agree with the premise that every child in South Carolina is due the same quality education as any other, then we as a state should make certain that happens. It won't until we fund education on a statewide basis."

Matthews's comments were part of a larger article on the potential battles facing this year's legislative session.

"The biggest issue is how to deal with available revenue," the Bowman Democrat said. "How we use that will be this biggest fight we have.

"This depends on Republican leadership in the General Assembly and the governor's leadership. Beyond that we need to have a long-term plan to manage our budget. We need to come to a consensus on that to have stability in the system."

But it was his thoughts on public education that jump out:

If we agree with the premise that every child in South Carolina is due the same quality education as any other, then we as a state should make certain that happens. It won't until we fund education on a statewide basis.

That's the very problem: We don't all agree with the premise that every child in South Carolina is due the same quality education as any other.

Disagreement on this simple premise is why it took South Carolina 307 years to adopt a law to appropriate annual funding for public education statewide -- the Education Finance Act in 1977 -- and why the legislature has defied its own law and under-funded the EFA more than 20 of the past 34 years.

Simply stated, a majority of our lawmakers do not agree that educating ALL of our children should be the highest priority of the state, and a majority of them do not agree that educating YOUR child is just as important to the public good as educating MY child.

We -- our state -- grew out of a culture and ideology that believed and demonstrated through public policy that only the sons of wealthy planters should be educated, and that paying for their education was an individual obligation. On our own, as a state, we haven't moved very far from that concept. In truth, it's only because of federal intervention by Supreme Court decision that we educate more than just white children in integrated public schools, but it's largely because we so vigorously resist federal imposition that we bend over backwards, every year, to provide the least, the smallest, the littlest -- dare I say "minimally adequate"? -- necessary resources for public education.

And then our leaders gnaw on educators and public schools for their "failures," beat their breasts in public and demand greater accountability from the ever-smaller corps of missionaries and martyrs who serve ever-larger class sizes with few and old resources.

Other states grew up as America grew up. They matured. They evolved. They agreed with the American proposition that what benefits some of us should benefit all of us. So other states have dealt with these questions of support for public education and moved on to matters of improving, strengthening, expanding education opportunities. South Carolina never did; we have fought tooth and nail against such evolution. When it would have been easier to agree, to fund public schools and mature with the rest of the nation, we've searched high and low for strategies to delay, to avoid, to escape maturity and sobriety. It's inarguable; proof of it fills tomes of our history. It's so obvious and ugly that it's almost poor taste to discuss it in public.

Yet South Carolina won't ever emerge from its self-imposed adolescence until the subject is discussed, and until our leaders -- lawmakers, too -- choose to make different decisions. No matter how many orders our people fulfill for Amazon, or how many BMWs and Michelin tires roll off factory lines, the patina of Nikki Haley's "great day in South Carolina" will be only that: Shiny paint and wax covering a decayed and useless jalopy. Scratch it, and you'll see how shallow and brittle is the greatness.

Matthews said a mouthful, and he's one of a small number who have said it consistently for a generation. "If we agree with the premise that every child in South Carolina is due the same quality education as any other, then we as a state should make certain that happens. It won't until we fund education on a statewide basis."

Why do we have so few like him?

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.