Finn: Romney will push vouchers, despite flaws

Former deputy Secretary of Education Chester Finn predicts that we'll soon see an education plan from presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who heretofore hasn't bothered to let Americans know what he might do regarding public education if he were to assume the presidency.

Further, Finn predicts that a Romney plan will lean heavily on vouchers, mainly because every other conservative strategy has been co-opted by the Obama administration.

But the issue of vouchers ought not be taken as a silver bullet for conservatives, Finn cautions.

He writes,

As vouchers have become real, however, the political picture has grown more complex. Eight newish factors are worth noting:

First, while the U.S. constitution is no longer a deal-breaker, some thirty-eight states have sundry provisions in their own constitutions that make it difficult or impossible to aid private schools and/or religious institutions and/or any sort of education program that isn’t “free and uniform.” (This is what killed the Florida “opportunity scholarship program” in that state's Supreme Court in 2006.) Hence there’s a practical limit to how far vouchers can really spread.

That was precisely the problem for former Governor Mark Sanford and his successor, Nikki Haley, and their pro-voucher acolytes. Since our state Constitution actively bars the use of state funds for private or parochial education, voucher proponents have had to find cute ways around the prohibition, like giving tax credits and tax deductions for tuition to private and parochial schools.

But, as they say, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's a voucher.

Second, as religion has loomed larger as a political issue, evangelicals (most often Republicans) are keener and keener for it to play a role in public policy, including religious education and church-affiliated schools, while secularists (more apt to be Democrats) are even more resistant to public support for such schools.

As a colony, South Carolina characterized itself as a haven for all religions, a Mecca of religious tolerance. But the Age of Enlightenment was followed by the Great Revival of the early nineteenth century, and we live under its influence yet. There are reasons why the Quakers largely abandoned South Carolina in the mid-1800s, and why Nikki Haley had to assure primary voters of her commitment to Methodist Christianity.

Third, other features of private schools -— that have nothing to do with unions -— also cause palpitations among liberals (most often Democrats), such as selectivity in the admissions office (and the risk of “exclusion” of poor or disabled or minority or other “diverse” kids). Such anxieties may not cause them to keep their own daughters and sons out of such schools but a double standard often comes into play where “public policy” is concerned.

Ah, exclusivity raises its head again. Country clubs, golf clubs, hunting clubs and private schools remain the last bastions of exclusivity in America, and we mustn't use public policy to alter such things.

Fourth, even as the pro-voucher team has picked up a handful (but only that) of influential Democrats, a lot of state and local Republicans have grown somewhat equivocal about school choice—charters, vouchers, inter-district transfers, and more. Their own suburban constituents, whether enrolled in public or private schools, are averse to welcoming many of those kids into their classrooms, and their proud suburban school systems don’t much want to lose their own pupils, either.

Those kids. Did you catch that? Those kids.

What sort of kids is Finn talking about, that comfortable suburban parents wouldn't want many of in their classrooms? Hmm?

Fifth, what was for decades the strongest lobby in favor of vouchers (and tuition tax credits and more), namely the Roman Catholic Church, is today neither nearly as strong as it once was nor nearly as committed to revitalizing its own schools. It seems to have lost most of the wind from its sails.

Sixth, private schools in general are queasy about government entanglements and rules, worried about “accountability” requirements, alarmed at the prospect of forfeiting their distinctiveness, fretful about losing control of their standards and admission processes, leery of disclosing comparable data on their own educational effectiveness, and, sometimes, legitimately unsure that they really can do a good job with those kids. Nor has American private education shown much entrepreneurial inclination to grow to accommodate greater demand.

News flash: Traditional public schools aren't in love with what Finn calls "government entanglements and rules" either, but it's part of the social contract that public schools accept and serve every child that enrolls, that standards apply and must be maintained, and that accountability -- apples to apples comparison and contrast -- is part of the agreement. It's a pity that parochial schools value the lack of standards more than children's education.

Seventh, with state and local budgets tight, the claim that vouchers save taxpayer money over the long run is met with incredulity by school systems that can only see revenue disappearing along with headcount. And the argument that vouchers will be a needless and, for the taxpayer, costly windfall for middle-class families whose children already attend private schools is not easy to refute. (Of course, a carefully designed program may aid only “new” students.)

Truth is truth, isn't it?

And how helpful is Finn, suggesting a way around the ugliness of unfortunate voucher financing.

Eighth, and finally, the word “private” has grown even more suspect in American education circles today than it was yesterday. “Privatization” has sometimes gone badly.

Do tell.

Some private operators of charter schools are greedy, self-absorbed, and uninterested in educational quality. (Likewise for private SES providers and such.) Early evaluations have yielded mixed results for privately operated “cyber schools." Private school (and college) tuitions keep rising without evidence of improved results. And in era of transparency and accountability, the reluctance of private educational institutions to disclose key information about themselves, their students, their academic gains, and their finances—even to private organizations such as GreatSchools.net—has made them at least slightly suspect. (Why are they so secretive?)

What's shocking about Finn's litany is not its substance; we read the papers, we think and use deductive reasoning, we come our own conclusions about the motives of public school antagonists. What's shocking is hearing the opponents of public education admit the fatal flaws in their alternatives.

Still, fatally flawed as the alternatives are, public school opponents cling to their ideologies.

I’m still heartily in favor of more vouchers, provided that the program is structured with an eye toward serving the neediest kids first and making participating schools reasonably accountable for their results. I do expect the momentum in this direction to continue. But I don’t expect it to accelerate. And that’s not just because of hostility from Messrs. Obama and Duncan.

"Examiner" pushes Haley as vice presidential material

I've never heard of the Examiner but it bills itself as a "dynamic entertainment, news and lifestyle network that serves more than 20 million monthly readers across the U.S. and around the world." It calls its writers "examiners," "thousands of writers who are self-motivated independent contributors."

One of these is Anthony Martin, who labels himself a "conservative examiner" and is described by the Examiner this way: "As an original foot-soldier in 'the Reagan Revolution' that led to the election of Ronald Reagan, Anthony G. Martin is no stranger to politics, particularly in the state of his birth, South Carolina."

I explain these things because today, the Examiner published an item by Martin which suggests our governor has made it to Mitt Romney's short list for vice presidential contenders and is, drum roll please, being "vetted."

Surely hearts are palpitating throughout the State House. At least, on the first floor. Come to think of it, maybe they're palpitating only on the west wing of the first floor.

Martin's report:

A link posted by the Drudge Report today indicates that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has reportedly placed South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley on his short list of potential running mates, should he win the GOP nomination to face Barack Obama in November.

Haley's presence on the short list is significant. Politicos refer to the "short list" as the top two or three persons who are the most preferred out of a much longer list of potential running mates.

But who is Nikki Haley?

Incisive question.

As a South Carolina native, this reporter has amassed information first hand on the rise of Nikki Haley to national prominence.

No better vetter!

In 2010 Haley surprised everyone, including the pundits, by beating out three veteran politicians for the Republican nomination for the Governor of South Carolina, including a sitting U.S. Congressman, the sitting Lieutenant Governor, and the popular sitting Attorney General of the State, Henry McMaster. She went on to beat a well known Democrat in the general gubernatorial election.

Her victory was seen as a breakthrough into the so called "good old boys" network. For the first time Republicans in South Carolina had chosen not only a female but a female with an ethnic and religious heritage that placed her well outside the norm for a conservative southern state.

Haley's parents are natives of India and are members of the Sikh religion. But as a native born American, reared in Bamberg, South Carolina, Haley later decided to become part of the Christian faith. She and her husband and two children are members of a Methodist Church.

The Governor is known for her strong conservative stance on fiscal, immigration, and election issues. She supports balanced budgets and fiscal restraint, although she, like her predecessor, finds it difficult in getting some of her initiatives passed through a state legislature that often exhibits the wild overspending for which Democrats are known, in spite of the fact that there are strong Republican majorities in both chambers of the state assembly.

Wild overspending? Really? If what our legislature accomplishes can be characterized as "wild overspending," I'd hate to see a state budget adopted by liberals.

In 2011 Haley pushed for and got an anti illegal immigration law, which she signed in June of last year. She also supports the concept of Voter I.D. laws.

I thought it was ALEC that pushed for and got the anti-immigration and voter restrictions. Maybe the author is giving Haley the credit for shepherding ALEC's agenda, which would qualify her as a good manager.

Throughout her tenure as a state legislator she became known for her pro life position on abortion, her desire to lower the tax burden on residents, and her creative proposals to reduce the costs and wastes associated with education while at the same time implementing quality controls. She has continued with this philosophy as Governor although, again, she has run into roadblocks set by the state legislature.

"Costs and wastes associated with education." This phrase is worthy of indepth graduate studies. I'm not familiar with another state that would align itself with the notion that education brings "costs and wastes."

As an attractive woman with an engaging, friendly personality, Haley has been the subject of allegations leveled against her regarding her personal life. During the campaign of 2010, she faced charges of several affairs. When questioned by the local media concerning the allegations, Haley refused to answer. It was later discovered that the two men who made the allegations had connections with the campaign of one of her opponents for the Republican nomination for Governor. The controversy did not appear to have a negative impact on her campaign.

After being elected as Governor she also faced allegations of wrongdoing, which reportedly prompted an IRS investigation. That investigation revealed no violations of the law, although it was widely reported in the mainstream media that Haley was on the brink of being indicted. That report was shown to be false.

By now, we've crossed into the sort of twilight state that comes with large doses of Versed. "Widely reported in the mainstream media that Haley was on the brink of being indicted?" I cannot recall a mainstream news outlet that published such a prediction; and none that mentioned a potential indictment without sourcing the rumor to a blog.

This vetting process begins to sound like the one performed by John McCain's team in 2008...

Haley drew national attention in 2010 when she openly and personally challenged Barack Obama face to face on the new healthcare law, demanding that the President show a willingness to grant waivers to the states that did not wish to participate. She stated that the plan would eventually place the state in dire financial straits once the bill fully takes effect in a few years.

"Personally challenged"? "Face to face"? Is this a reference to the briefing given by the President at the White House, at which all the nation's governors were given an opportunity to ask questions and make suggestions?

Does that qualify as "personally challenging" the President "face to face"?

I saw the photograph of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer with her index finger raised at the President during a meeting on the tarmac in Phoenix, and I'd accept that as being "personally challenging," and certainly "face to face."

But these heroic characterizations, applied favorably to Haley, suggest that the vetter may have gotten some inspiration for this column from someone very near the State House, first floor, west wing.

Democrats blasted the Governor over her stance, claiming that she wished to harm the poor. Haley countered that within a few years the state would be forced cut benefits to those who cannot afford health insurance, which will do more harm to them in the long run--a consequence the states face as a result of the ObamaCare law.

Haley further took the lead in opposing Obama's lawsuit against Boeing for opening a new facility in South Carolina--a 'right to work' state. Haley and the state fought the National Labor Relations Board on the issue, and won.

Although Haley has denied interest in becoming Romney's running mate, she curiously traveled to New York to appear on Fox News and other networks at the same time the Romney campaign announced she was on the infamous short list. She was also one of the very first southern governors to endorse Romney.

Um, she was the governor of the first Southern state to hold a presidential primary, and subsequently the first of many Southern states to deny Romney a victory.

I thought the vetting process was supposed to be comprehensive.

But then, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made it to a vice presidential nomination, too.

How is Nikki Haley like a potato? Ask Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney, our governor's favorite candidate for president, visited Jay Leno last week -- apparently to shore up his numbers among cranky conservative insomniacs -- and played a little word-association game using a random list of contemporary American politicos.

So reports The State in a recent edition:

Here is what Romney said when Leno asked him to say what came to mind.

N.J. Gov. Chris Christie: “Indomitable ... man of girth.” U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida: “The American dream.” U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin: “Creative.” New York developer Donald Trump: “Huge.” Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania: “Press secretary.”

And, drum roll, please: South Carolina’s own Gov. Nikki Haley: “Energetic.”

Aah, gosh, and, even with her endorsement, the Mittster lost South Carolina.

In a landslide.

Energetic.

Romney's answer reminded me of two things.

One is how Queen Elizabeth II strained to find something pleasant to say about her former daughter-in-law after Diana's death in 1997; she finally said that Diana had been a "remarkable" woman. Which was accurate enough, as people certainly talked a lot about Diana. It said nothing, however, about the Queen's real feelings for her grandsons' mother.

The other thought came from childhood, when my science teacher demonstrated the potential to derive energy from various organic material, including potatoes and lemons. Poke the sensors of an Ohm meter into an Idaho gold and you'll see what I mean: It's energetic, too.

According to Wiki.answers.com, Romney's compliment wasn't much of one. Ask it "What has energy?" and it will tell you, "Every thing in the universe has energy."

Mmm. Florida Senator Marco Rubio is "the American dream," but Governor Nikki Haley is like cosmic dust, potatoes, citrus fruit and decaying organic matter -- she's "energetic."

Reckon that means she's no longer on Romney's short list for vee-pee?

Haley begs for national attention in Pennsylvania

Two months ago, Governor Nikki Haley spent two weeks with presidential candidate Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, a state that does not appear among South Carolina's voting precincts.

Then she squired him around her own state, which may have been the kiss of death, as opponent Newt Gingrich cleaned Romney's clock in the South Carolina primary -- a primary, I might add, paid for entirely by South Carolina's taxpayers. What are the chances that precedent will be repeated?

Media noticed that Haley didn't roll out of Columbia when Romney did, that Haley got left behind to refurbish a tattered image with our state's wingnuts. Various reporters speculated that Haley had been ditched because of her rapidly rising unpopularity ratings. After all, Romney has made a quarter-billion-dollar personal fortune from cutting dead weight in the corporate world.

Now, however, comes word that Haley is stumping for her man Romney once again, now in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley tried Friday to lend conservative credibility to Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney in front of a skeptical crowd in Pennsylvania, a moderate state that nevertheless could be a challenge for Romney to win.

Haley told hundreds gathered at the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, the state's largest annual gathering of conservatives, that Romney has her support because he is a Washington, D.C., outsider, tested in the private sector and committed to keeping a strong military.

But she also fielded pointed questions from the crowd that voiced suspicion over Romney's commitment to conservative positions or his independence. Haley insisted, among other things, that Romney is "absolutely pro-life, he's absolutely going to repeal" President Barack Obama's signature health care law.

"Those are the things I want to know," Haley said. "Are they going to say he's a flip-flopper? They can do that, but politics is all about hurting your opponent. You're not going to hear me say anything negative about the other candidates because I don't have to say anything negative about them to make Mitt Romney look good."

Haley endorsed Romney in December and also campaigned with him in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney lost the primary vote in South Carolina to Newt Gingrich and faces a tough April 24 primary vote in Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum's home state.

Haley also said that she wouldn't accept an invitation to be Romney's vice presidential candidate and that she's anxious for Republicans to wrap up the primary.

Poor Nikki Haley, so desperate for the sort of adulation that South Carolinians cannot give her, aware as we are of her numberless shortcomings. Only in far off places does she still seem new, does her ideological intransigence resemble steadfastness.

What does it say of her psyche, that she so craves to see and hear her name in print and her image broadcast nationwide, that she abandons so blithely her responsibilities to the people whose chief executive office she occupies?

Back here at home, where legislative neglect ensures that most children won't ever be able to achieve their greatest potential, and where the machines of governance that serve the purposes of our corporate elite guarantee that most working South Carolinians are doomed to shoulder the greatest economic burden for the least economic reward, Haley likely chafes.

Her novelty had an unfortunately short shelf-life, as did the high-minded principles on which she campaigned. Having no new tricks to pull from her bag, Haley likely feels like the emperor without clothes, in constant fear of being discovered a fraud. What will happen when her memoir is released in two weeks, draws cursory light and heat from her Tea Party constituency, and fades from public attention before the next full moon?

The new HBO film "Game Change," based on the book of the same name, posits that during the 2008 presidential election, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin fell so deeply in love with the idea that her overweening ambition could yield national fame and fortune, she told John McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt that she didn't want to go back to Alaska. Indeed, history shows that Palin resigned her office eight months after the McCain-Palin ticket lost the election. She served as governor for a grand total of two and one-half years.

Inexplicably, Haley's name is still floating around the conservative-to-libertarian end of the political spectrum as a potential running mate to Mitt Romney. Conventional wisdom and common sense suggests it's a pipe dream, but stranger things have happened; Palin herself is the greatest example of this.

If Haley doesn't want to be governor of South Carolina, that's fine, but she should level with her state, tell us so, and resign. Lieutenant Governor Glenn McConnell, a man of tremendous sagacity, will make a fine -- probably much finer -- governor for the remainder of the term, and Senator John Courson will make as fine a Lieutenant Governor as we need. Perhaps a restoration of experience and wisdom is what South Carolina needs.

As for what Haley needs -- escape from scrutiny and expectation, the adoration of millions for whom entertainment and novelty is paramount -- only a career at Fox News Channel can provide.

Palin was governor of Alaska for 30 months, yet before her selection as McCain's running mate, she hadn't been out of her state to support him or any other candidate's campaign.

In contrast, Haley's been governor of South Carolina for less than half that time -- 14 months so far -- and has made been as his side in New Hampshire, here in South Carolina, and now in Pennsylvania.

These facts lead to only two safe conclusions: (1) Despite her insistence that she's not begging to be Romney's vee-pee, she's begging for that AND a national spotlight.

And (2) Rick Santorum's chances of winning the Pennsylvania primary are suddenly improved.

Media: Romney kicks "toxic" Haley to the curb

Do you reckon this means Governor Nikki Haley's chances of joining the Romney ticket as a vice presidential nominee are down the drain? This is depressing; I was looking forward to the discussion of Lieutenant Governor Ken Ard's succession.

For the two weeks leading up to January's S.C. Republican primary, presumptive nominee Mitt Romney and S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley were seemingly inseparable.

They appeared together at events in Romney's adopted home state of New Hampshire, as well as multiple events across the Palmetto State: she was campaigning with her husband after her endorsment in mid-December, she was on the stage in Charleston when former VP candidate John McCain mistakenly called Romney by the name Obama and she repeated the mistake herself on her birthday, the day before the primary at a Greenville event.

But when Romney, leading in the state's polls throughout January until four days before the Jan. 21 vote, took the stage that night to congratulate former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his victory — his only to this point — Haley was nowhere to be seen, instead staying home to celebrate her 40th birthday with her family.

I noticed that too! But I assumed that it was Haley's decision, that she didn't want to be seen with the loser and have those indelible images posted for all eternity on the internet, like the shots of her with ol' Sarah Palin.

So it was really Romney's choice?

And she's been absent ever since.

Instead of stumping for Romney through other important Southern states, where her name recognition would be high, Haley has stayed at home while heavy campaigning has taken place in Florida, Georgia and Virginia. Other prominent national Republicans — including Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie — have taken her place.

Haley, through her spokesman Rob Godfrey, said that she remains in contact with the Romney campaign and plans to continue campaigning for Romney.

Remains in contact. Have you spent any time in our criminal courts recently? The dockets are full of cases of men or women trying to "remain in contact" with their former boyfriends or girlfriends after some acrimony. Judges call that harrassment or stalking, and sometimes they issue restraining orders against it. Is Her Man Godfrey trying to say that Haley is having difficulty giving up on that relationship? Our governor?

The governor's office also points to local responsibilities as the main reason she has been absent from any Romney campaign stops for the past six weeks.

News flash: There were plenty of local responsibilities to hold the governor's attention during those two long weeks in arctic New Hampshire, and during those ten long days that Haley spent escorting Mr. Inevitable from Greenville to Charleston. Those local responsibilities weren't enough to tear her away from her political meal ticket then, so why now, if it isn't that Mr. Inevitable has declared her Ms. Unnecessary?

"South Carolina is on the cusp of passing the largest government restructuring bill in two decades — that, our budget, and economic development is where the Governor's focus has been since the South Carolina presidential primary," Godfrey said in a statement.

Is that it? We need her more than Romney does? Forgive the chuckling in the background, but I somewhat doubt that. If the past decade has demonstrated one thing to the kiddies in South Carolina, it's that we're perfectly capable of running things without an effective governor, or his or her presence in Columbia. Uh, does the Appalachian Trail ring a bell?

We're on "the cusp," he says. The cusp. Such words. How about "the precipice"?

Comparable conflicts, like a pair of controversial abortion bills in Virginia and a gay marriage debate in New Jersey, haven't kept McDonnell and Christie off the trail, but Haley's office insists she will still play a role in the campaign.

"We're in constant contact with the Romney campaign," Godfrey said, "the governor intends to continue to campaign for him both before and after he's the Republican nominee, and her belief that he is the right person to occupy the White House is unwavering."

Uh-oh. We're veering into "Fatal Attraction" territory here: "I won't be ignored, Dan -- er, Mitt!"

Your Honor, what I'm doing is not harrassment or stalking. It's just that I know deep down in my heart that we're right for each other, and I'm willing to be patient until he realizes it too, but I have to keep letting him know that I'm here, so he doesn't forget what we once had -- and what we're destined to have again, forever.

Romney's campaign office did not return multiple phone calls and emails asking for plans to use Haley moving forward. And former S.C. House Speaker David Wilkins, another prominent Romney supporter, declined to comment on Haley's apparent lack of campaign involvement.

Ooh, that has to sting. Former House Speaker David Wilkins won't comment on Haley's status in the Romney campaign? Former Ambassador to Canada Wilkins, who has former President George W. Bush on speed dial? He's still in, but she's out?

College of Charleston Political Science Professor Kendra Stewart said the reason Haley has disappeared from the campaign trail may have to do with her novelty wearing off.

"There was initially a lot of interest in her," Stewart said. "She was new, a woman who was able to capture the top elected office in South Carolina, but a lot of that has died down as the national party tries to prop up their candidates."

This sounds an awful lot like an assessment of the gubernatorial campaign of 2010. Haley was a novelty, there was initially a lot of interest, she got a lot of attention, then she won office and, whoops, South Carolinians got a big case of buyer's remorse. Conservative temple priests like John Rainey start asking uncomfortable questions. Former employers start telling inconvenient truths. Angry, double-crossed lawmakers reveal backroom deal-cutting. Facebook friends post barbed comments and get unfriended. It's a mess.

What's shocking, really, is that Romney wanted to swim in that tainted pool at all.

Stewart said that Haley doesn't have as much in the way of leadership experience as some of the other big names lining up behind candidates on the campaign trail, and that is a potential reason she has fallen out of the spotlight now that the race has moved on from South Carolina.

"The other names popping up tend to have lots more leadership experience because that's one area where (Pres. Barack) Obama is polling the weakest, so they are looking for people with a lot more leadership experience," Stewart said. "They're looking for someone who can beat Obama in that area."

Oh, the unkindest cut of all! A comparison of inexperience between former U.S. Senator Barack Obama and Haley! Yikes. Medic!

The only thing worse than that would be to craft a reference to our governor using some Britney Spears lyrics!

At least one S.C. Democrat says the reason Haley is no longer at Romney's side is obvious.

“She’s absolutely toxic,” Democratic strategist Tyler Jones. “[The primary] exposed her. She’s the second most unpopular governor in the South and the national media didn’t realize that until they got into South Carolina.”

She's toxic!

Can anything be worse?

Jones said Haley’s fluctuating national reputation mimicked that of another female governor.

“The more people get to know Nikki Haley, the less they like her,” Jones said. “That’s sort of the same with Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin.”

Nooo, not Palin!

“You will not see Nikki Haley on the same stage as Mitt Romney again this primary season,” Jones added. “She might be able to raise money behind closed doors but the Romney campaign will not allow her to take a role in the campaign if he has any desire to win.”

How the mighty have fallen.

Stewart at the College of Charleston, meanwhile, sees some truth to Jones' assessment of Haley.

"Her endorsement of Romney didn't carry much weight with South Carolina voters," Stewart said. "That is indicative of her standing with South Carolina voters."

"She's not that popular at home now."

Stewart said Haley is making some of the mistakes that her predecessor Gov. Mark Sanford made in alienating legislators in the General Assembly. While Haley can point to the government restructuring bill, if it passes, as a win, she has burned many bridges already in the S.C. House and Senate.

"It's hard to rise any higher nationally if you can't get support at home," Stewart said. "And she's not making a lot of friends in the legislature."

Stewart said Haley has some popular ideas, but she has yet to be able to convert them into policies. She said people in the state are also getting tired Haley consistently turning down federal money available to the state, and her apparent refusal to listen to anyone who does not agree with her, and points to a recent Post and Courier article about Haley deleting Facebook comments that were critical of her.

"If she's not listening to anyone, that could hurt her re-election chances," Stewart said.

Governor, now might be the time to buck up, admit some neglect and misplaced priorities, and get on board behind South Carolina's 700,000 public schoolchildren. They could use a governor in their corner right now, because they haven't had one there in a long time.

Haley: I don't want to pay for your kid's education

If it weren't for simple mathematics, Governor Nikki Haley might've succeeded at portraying herself as a compassionate conservative. Unfortunately for her, thanks to hundreds of thousands of fine math teachers across the land, Americans -- even we South Carolinians -- can comprehend simple arithmetic.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said her proposed budget for 2012-13 increases money for public schools, but a closer look shows her recommendations would actually decrease state funding by nearly $80 million.

"You'll see education gets an increase," she said in releasing her first executive budget last month.

The Republican governor is partially correct, but only by disregarding some pots of money. Her proposal represents an increase in recurring money for K-12 schools, when factoring in all state revenue sources - chiefly, the penny of the state sales tax that goes directly to education programs.

However, Haley's budget proposal does not include anything funded this school year with one-time money.

That includes $56 million legislators added to the budget to boost the so-called "base student cost" to $1,880 per student - money they added over her veto. Superintendent Mick Zais has asked legislators to at least maintain that key funding source, which primarily pays for teacher salaries, by funding the $56 million through recurring sources, plus adding $15 million to account for student population growth.

By doing neither, Haley's budget would reduce that per-student amount to $1,766 - in a year the state formula calls for it to be $2,790.

Educators call it disappointing.

This is not new. Educators have been disappointed for a decade now.

If a condition lasts a whole decade, can't we call it chronic? Are we suffering chronic disappointment in our state's leadership? Are our state's leaders guilty of chronic neglect of public education?

And what a stirring demonstration of commitment to the rule of law in South Carolina! The Education Finance Act and its formula for a base student cost, adopted in 1977, dictates that this year's appropriation should total $2,790, is absolutely ignored.

An untrained monkey can observe that Haley's budget shows public education is not a priority for her. It reinforces the position that many educators put forward in 2010, in actively supporting Sen. Vincent Sheheen for the post Haley occupies, that when data demonstrates a woman hasn't supported public education in the past, we might reasonably predict that she won't suffer a blissful epiphany once ensconced in the chief executive suite. Better candidates deserve our active support.

Yet educators remained divided then -- oh, I don't like politics; it's so dirty. And, we can't get involved in partisan bickering and make people angry at us; there's no telling what they'll do in retaliation when they get into office. And, let's face it, we're a conservative state; best to ask for what you want, be thankful for what you get, and work with everybody.

Result: Governor Nikki Haley.
Base student cost: $1,766.
State of the education professions: Demoralized.
Quality of public education: Suffering.
Value to long-term right-wing agenda: Priceless.

Here's a prediction: When educators organize, educators win.

Legislators say there's no chance they'll restore the base student cost to $2,790, which would cost $553 million, but they could provide some increase.

"Some increase." This is laughable. A base student cost of $1,800 would represent an increase, and it would still leave us at education funding levels somewhere near 1996, the year that Bill Clinton was re-elected to the presidency.

The extra $913 million projected for 2012-13 follows several years of budget cuts due to the Great Recession.

It's due to a surplus from the fiscal year that closed June 30, along with more money coming in this fiscal year than legislators budgeted, plus continued growth. However, required increases - including property tax relief, health care and reserve funds - gobble up most of it. And those surpluses from the current and last fiscal year are what's considered one-time money. Former Gov. Mark Sanford long railed about using that to pay for long-term expenses.

Yes, we need property tax relief, because high taxes on beachfront property discourages wealthy retirees from relocating here to shelter their nest eggs; it's the primary reason we've seen in-migration drop off so precipitously in the past two or three generations.

Haley has long complained that more money needs to go toward the classroom, rather than administration.

As Zais points out, that's precisely where the "base student cost" - considered a bellwether for state support - goes, in the form of salaries: "We ought to try and at least maintain funding for classroom operations."

"While the governor and I disagree on the dollar amount directed to the base student cost, we're in complete agreement that recurring dollars should be used to pay for recurring expenses," Zais said.

Sophistry: the tool of confidence men, fortune-tellers, magicians and pickpockets.

Try this: While the superintendent and I disagree on the need for public education funding, the Constitution and I are in complete agreement that the legislature is specifically empowered to raise the revenues necessary to fully fund the state's essential obligations and institutions.

Haley's budget also does not annualize the $20 million in one-time "hold harmless" money sent to districts to cover shortfalls due to an adjustment to a state funding formula. And it reduces lottery money to K-12 schools by $11.3 million, in order to fully fund lottery-funded college scholarships.

Items Haley highlighted when releasing her $5.7 billion budget plan include further tax cuts - reducing revenue from state and corporate income taxes by $140 million - and the addition of about 100 law enforcement officers. She would put $75 million of one-time money toward encouraging counties to take over the maintenance of some state roads.

The conservative South Carolina Policy Council says Haley is right to insist that education by funded only with recurring money.

"If increasing base student funding is a priority, it should be treated as a priority, not a benevolent afterthought," said spokesman Barton Swaim, who formerly worked for Sanford. "All this confusion highlights the fact that our funding structure doesn't make sense. Our K-12 education system isn't underfunded - it's funded inefficiently."

Translation: It isn't that we're not feeding our children enough, it's that we're feeding them a little bit from four major food groups, three times a day, when one Flintstones chewable a day would be more efficient.

On the plus side of the equation, Haley would give the statewide public charter school district an additional $10 million.

"The problem that I think we've had in the past with government is we tend to just look at the dollars that go into education."

Yes, I can see where that's a problem. When citizens can look at a budget document and see how many or, har har, how few dollars go specifically to public education, it tends to impede the governor's ability to undermine, dismantle and privatize public education and other services. Apparently, parents want their schools to be funded at ever-increasing levels, similar to the annual increases in cost-of-living, inflation and the forces of the free market. It's as if they take to heart that old saw from the King James: "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

I don't want us to do that anymore. It's not what we get; it's how we spend it," she said, adding that's why she put more money toward charters.

Hm. Sage advice. It's not what we don't have, it's how we manage the void.

I can see Haley telling a poor family at Thanksgiving: It's not important that you have no turkey and dressing with all the trimmings, it's important that you have a whole afternoon free, since you won't be napping from turkey overload.

Or, telling poor children at Christmas: It's not important that Santa Claus brought you no toys, it's important that you swallow your disappointment at those in whom you previously placed your trust.

Or, telling slaves on our old antebellum plantations: It's not important that you're deprived of freedom, and of learning to read and write, it's only important that you have plenty of time and opportunity to get your work done.

Hilariously, even Haley's own charter-school lieutenant undercut her specious argument:

Superintendent Wayne Brazell said that money would only cover student growth in his statewide district, which consists of charter schools that chose not to organize through their local district.

Remember, several years ago, when local school boards were refusing to approve charters for fly-by-night bands and snake-oil salesmen to open charter schools in their districts -- and siphon precious public dollars from their district budgets -- former Governor Mark Sanford pushed lawmakers to set up a statewide charter school district with its own board of trustees.

So Haley's generosity toward charters in this budget proposal only benefits the charters who couldn't get approved by their local boards and had to resort to the Sanford dodge to open their doors. That's nice. It sends a good message to the children: Play by rules and lose; create loopholes and win! Yay!

The $10 million would be on top of the $25 million legislators added in the current school year, to help make up for the fact its schools get no local taxes. Ironically, since the district otherwise relies on base student cost, Haley's budget actually reduces per-student spending on its schools.

Haley redirected some money that comes in through the penny sales tax added under the 1984 Education Improvement Act. That penny funds specific things such as gifted and talented programs, summer school, student testing, 4-year-old kindergarten, and bonuses for teachers with a national certification. Both Zais and Haley recommend closing that incentive program to new entries.

The penny is expected to generate an additional $42 million over the recurring amount legislators budgeted for this year, to nearly $607 million. However, after factoring in a one-time allocation from a previous surplus, the extra is less than $9 million.

New programs she funds include $2 million toward Teach for America, which puts top college graduates who didn't major in education into low-income schools, and $1.75 million to launch a STEM curriculum, which stands for Science Technology Engineering Math, aimed at preparing students for careers in technology.

Education Oversight Committee director Melanie Barton praised the additions of those EOC initiatives.

"Having successful leaders in the classrooms of our most challenged schools is critical to change the expectations and culture of many of our schools," she said.

This hurts my brain.

The leader of the Education Oversight Committee affirms that "having successful leaders in the classrooms of our most challenged schools is critical." Yet she praises the Haley plan, which (1) reduces per-student spending, (2) eliminates incentives for National Board certification, a program to improve the quality of classroom professionals, and (3) diverts funding from four-year-old kindergarten to pay for Teach for America (aka Teach for A While), a program that "puts top college graduates who didn't major in education" into the most critical classrooms for only two years.

This is praiseworthy? I understand that the EOC isn't really a body of educators -- even some of its "educator appointees" are business people rather than education professionals -- but praising an anti-education budget for its scraps and crumbs is weak.

Haley also added $10 million for technology and $2 million to help failing schools while eliminating money for some university-sponsored programs. She puts $5 million toward leasing school buses, as she pursues legislation transferring bus responsibilities to districts.

"I don't want to buy any more school buses," Haley said.

Well, that's what it's all about: What Haley wants.

I don't want to look at how many dollars we spend, she says. I don't want to buy any more school buses. I don't want to pay for any more textbooks or dictionaries. I don't want to hire any more teachers. I don't want to keep SCETV on the air. I don't want to pay retirement benefits to our public employees. I don't want to provide health insurance to anyone. I don't want to build any more schools. I don't want to read criticism from newspaper editors. I don't want to talk to reporters who print what I say and make me look foolish. I don't want my support for Mitt Romney to count against me. I don't want to learn about Caesar's wife from John Rainey. I don't want Darla Moore to overshadow me. I don't want to hear any more about transparency. I don't want anyone to question me. All I want is to be obeyed.

Her spokesman Rob Godfrey used that as an example for how her budget increases money for K-12: "It doesn't burn tens of millions of dollars on buying buses, which are expensive, which rapidly depreciate, and which we don't need to own anymore," he said.

The state hasn't spent "tens of millions" on buses in years.

Oops.

Yeah, that's right. Scrapped school buses from Alabama and Kentucky and Tennessee don't cost tens of millions of dollars; those states may even pay us to come and take the buses off their hands.

The current budget designates up to $12.3 million for new buses from unclaimed lottery prizes - the first designation for buses since 2007. The education agency has received about one-third of that, said Zais, who added he's fine with decentralizing buses.

Zais did request $36 million to buy enough new school buses to comply with the state's 15-year replacement cycle law, to get buses from the mid-80s off the road. Legislators have ignored that law since passing it.

Of course they have. This is South Carolina, where the law is a mighty rubbery thing.

Study: Affluence predicts educational opportunity, success

Here's new evidence that the far-right political agenda -- benefiting our wealthiest citizens and corporate interests at the expense of our poorest citizens, working families and their children -- is working perfectly.

The headline in today's New York Times tells the tale: "Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor, Studies Say."

And a graphic accompanying the text illustrates the point: "The achievement gap between rich and poor is double the gap between black and white children."

Education was historically considered a great equalizer in American society, capable of lifting less advantaged children and improving their chances for success as adults. But a body of recently published scholarship suggests that the achievement gap between rich and poor children is widening, a development that threatens to dilute education’s leveling effects.

It is a well-known fact that children from affluent families tend to do better in school. Yet the income divide has received far less attention from policy makers and government officials than gaps in student accomplishment by race.

Now, in analyses of long-term data published in recent months, researchers are finding that while the achievement gap between white and black students has narrowed significantly over the past few decades, the gap between rich and poor students has grown substantially during the same period.

“We have moved from a society in the 1950s and 1960s, in which race was more consequential than family income, to one today in which family income appears more determinative of educational success than race,” said Sean F. Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist. Professor Reardon is the author of a study that found that the gap in standardized test scores between affluent and low-income students had grown by about 40 percent since the 1960s, and is now double the testing gap between blacks and whites.

To educators -- those who spend their lives teaching children -- this is not news. It's easy to see the vast difference between children of affluence and children of poverty, in the same classroom.

Affluence equals educational opportunity outside the classroom. Poverty makes a child dependent wholly on the opportunities provided in public schools, and when those opportunities are starved for resources, the outcomes are obvious.

In another study, by researchers from the University of Michigan, the imbalance between rich and poor children in college completion — the single most important predictor of success in the work force — has grown by about 50 percent since the late 1980s.

The changes are tectonic, a result of social and economic processes unfolding over many decades. The data from most of these studies end in 2007 and 2008, before the recession’s full impact was felt. Researchers said that based on experiences during past recessions, the recent downturn was likely to have aggravated the trend.

“With income declines more severe in the lower brackets, there’s a good chance the recession may have widened the gap,” Professor Reardon said. In the study he led, researchers analyzed 12 sets of standardized test scores starting in 1960 and ending in 2007. He compared children from families in the 90th percentile of income — the equivalent of around $160,000 in 2008, when the study was conducted — and children from the 10th percentile, $17,500 in 2008. By the end of that period, the achievement gap by income had grown by 40 percent, he said, while the gap between white and black students, regardless of income, had shrunk substantially.

Both studies were first published last fall in a book of research, “Whither Opportunity?” compiled by the Russell Sage Foundation, a research center for social sciences, and the Spencer Foundation, which focuses on education. Their conclusions, while familiar to a small core of social sciences scholars, are now catching the attention of a broader audience, in part because income inequality has been a central theme this election season.

The connection between income inequality among parents and the social mobility of their children has been a focus of President Obama as well as some of the Republican presidential candidates.

Indeed. The Times article appears on the same day that presidential candidate Mitt Romney is trying desperately to persuade conservatives at a right-wing conference in Washington that he'll gut federal aid to programs like education, to prove he's one of them. Their shared goal, one may speculate, is to ensure that the children of the wealthy continue to thrive, while the children of the poor will be taught to be obedient workers.

One reason for the growing gap in achievement, researchers say, could be that wealthy parents invest more time and money than ever before in their children (in weekend sports, ballet, music lessons, math tutors, and in overall involvement in their children’s schools), while lower-income families, which are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent, are increasingly stretched for time and resources. This has been particularly true as more parents try to position their children for college, which has become ever more essential for success in today’s economy.

A study by Sabino Kornrich, a researcher at the Center for Advanced Studies at the Juan March Institute in Madrid, and Frank F. Furstenberg, scheduled to appear in the journal Demography this year, found that in 1972, Americans at the upper end of the income spectrum were spending five times as much per child as low-income families. By 2007 that gap had grown to nine to one; spending by upper-income families more than doubled, while spending by low-income families grew by 20 percent.

“The pattern of privileged families today is intensive cultivation,” said Dr. Furstenberg, a professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.

Intensive cultivation.

Like hothouse flowers, the children of the wealthy are tended carefully, watched and stroked by their gardeners. Children in poverty must wait for national charities to send backpacks with "school supplies, non-perishable food, personal hygiene items like toothpaste and combs, and children's books."

Intensive cultivation.

Meredith Phillips, an associate professor of public policy and sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles, used survey data to show that affluent children spend 1,300 more hours than low-income children before age 6 in places other than their homes, their day care centers, or schools (anywhere from museums to shopping malls). By the time high-income children start school, they have spent about 400 hours more than poor children in literacy activities, she found.

Dr. Seuss wrote a little book called "Oh, The Places You'll Go"; our corporate minders re-titled it "Oh, The Place You'll Go If You're the Children of Wealth."

So let's do what we're told, kids. Back to work. Our owners have a quota to meet.

Romney not concerned with "very poor," but educators are.

Today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution is reporting that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, fresh from a decisive win in the Florida presidential primary, has announced that he's "not concerned about the very poor."

...Romney emphasized, "You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus."

Thank goodness that public school educators and school district employees are focused on the very poor; many of the children enrolled in South Carolina's public schools fall well within that category.

In context, Romney attempted to assert that America provides an "ample safety net" for people who are very poor, so his focus is on America's middle class. Except that there are two flaws in his assertion. One is that what he considers an ample safety net is pretty pathetic -- if you're homeless due to home foreclosures, and don't know where your meals and health care are coming from, the poorly-funded services available through state and federal agencies, and the paltry aid offered by churches and civic groups, don't really add up to first-class American citizenship.

The second is that the policies that Romney has articulated don't really help the incredible shrinking middle class, either.

He brought up the subject of the poor in a CNN interview marking his big win in Florida's GOP primary Tuesday night, a major step toward becoming the party's challenger to President Barack Obama in the fall. A multi-millionaire former venture capitalist, Romney has been criticized by Democrats and his Republican rivals alike for earlier remarks seen as insensitive, such as saying "I like being able to fire people" and declaring that he knew what it was like to worry about being "pink-slipped" out of a job.

"I'm not concerned about the very poor." he said Wednesday. "We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it.

Mitt Romney, fixer. He'll fix the safety net for the very poor, he says. "Fix" has two definitions: One means to repair something that needs repair, the other means to freeze a thing in place, as in "price-fixing." Which do you think he means?

Asked whether his comment about the poor might come across as odd to some, Romney reiterated.

"We will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor and there's no question, it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor," Romney said, adding that he's more worried about the unemployed, people living on Social Security and those struggling to send their kids to college.

"We have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. But we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor," Romney said.

Indeed, far from the days of workhouses for the poor, and debtors' prisons, and Skid Row.

We, in the land of plenty, have food stamps and Medicaid for the very poor, which approximates a kingly living, to be sure. And the children of the very poor, you can safely assume, are enrolled in public schools, where public school educators and school district employees see them, care for them and TEACH them every day.

Poor Mitt Romney. He deserves our sympathy, truly. Aside from the daily trials and tribulations of a presidential campaign, he has another steep hill to climb: Understanding and identifying with those who weren't born into privilege, who have had to raise children and balance a household budget on hourly wages, who have had to make thousands of compromises of principle and pride over their careers to keep their jobs and their livelihoods. We have to remember, reaching out to the mass of Americans, and asking for their votes, is a gargantuan task.

He is, after all, used to being able to buy what he wants.

Just how rich is Mitt Romney? Add up the wealth of the last eight presidents, from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama. Then double that number. Now you're in Romney territory. He would be among the richest presidents in American history if elected – probably in the top four.

He couldn't top George Washington who, with nearly 60,000 acres and more than 300 slaves, is considered the big daddy of presidential wealth.
...
But it's safe to say the Roosevelts had nothing on Romney, and the Bushes are nowhere close.

The former Massachusetts governor has disclosed only the broad outlines of his wealth, putting it somewhere from $190 million to $250 million. That easily could make him 50 times richer than Obama, who falls in the still-impressive-to-most-of-us range of $2.2 million to $7.5 million.

"I think it's almost hard to conceptualize what $250 million means," said Shamus Khan, a Columbia University sociologist who studies the wealthy. "People say Romney made $50,000 a day while not working last year. What do you do with all that money? I can't even imagine spending it. Well, maybe ..."

Of course, an unbelievable boatload of bucks is just one way to think of Romney's net worth, and the 44 U.S. presidents make up a pretty small pond for him to swim in.
...
So here's a look where Romney's riches rank – among the most flush Americans, the White House contenders, and the rest of us:

-Within the 1 percent:
...
A household needs to bring in roughly $400,000 per year to make the cut. Romney and his wife, Ann, have been making 50 times that – more than $20 million a year. In 2009, only 8,274 federal tax filers had income above $10 million. Romney is solidly within that elite 0.006 percent of all U.S. taxpayers.
...
-As a potential president:

Romney clearly stands out here. America's super rich generally don't jockey to live in the White House. A few have toyed with the idea, most notably New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whom Forbes ranks as the 12th richest American, worth $19.5 billion. A lesser billionaire, Ross Perot, bankrolled his own third-party campaigns in 1992 and 1996.

Many presidents weren't particularly well-off, especially 19th century leaders such as Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan and Ulysses S. Grant. Nor was the 33rd president, Harry Truman.

"These things ebb and flow," said sociologist Khan. "It's not the case that all presidents were always rich."

-How does Romney stand next to a regular Joe? He's roughly 1,800 times richer.

The typical U.S. household was worth $120,300 in 2007, according to the Census Bureau's most recent data, although that number is sure to have dropped since the recession. A typical family's income is $50,000.

Calculations from 24/7 Wall St. of the peak lifetime wealth (or peak so far) of Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama add up to a total $128 million – while Romney reports assets of up to $250 million.

If you consider only those presidents' assets while in office, without millions earned later from speeches and books, their combined total would be substantially lower, and Romney's riches would leave the pack even further behind.

Poor Mitt Romney.

No wonder he isn't focused on the very poor. He can't imagine that they exist.

Wanted: DHEC head, skilled in health, environment issues

Failing that, a demonstrated bias against South Carolina's working class will do.

File this one in the folder labeled "Questionable appointments by Governor Nikki Haley," right behind her replacement of the University of South Carolina's largest single benefactor, Darla Moore, with a campaign contributor on the university's board of trustees. Stamp it "Service to Haley and ideology trumps service to state and people."

The state's health and environmental permitting agency is poised to get a pro-business Lowcountry lawyer as its new leader.

Catherine Templeton was selected Wednesday as the head of S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control by the agency's board.

Templeton, 41, of Mount Pleasant, is an attorney who has specialized in "union avoidance" in private practice and represented businesses in employee lawsuits. She is the S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation director, appointed last year by Gov. Nikki Haley, who has pushed for easing regulations on businesses.
...
She takes over as commissioner of an agency that may be the state's most unwieldy -- deciding permits for everything from hospital beds to industrial air emissions and waste disposal. Its lengthy, complex permitting system is criticized even by environmental and health advocates who push for tighter regulations.

DHEC sounds like a huge and important state system, with a lot of important responsibilities in serving our people. Sounds like it requires someone with a long history in agency management, probably a deep knowledge of health and environmental issues.

Let's check what Templeton brings:

Current position: S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation director, 1 year.

Background: A private practice attorney, who has specialized in union avoidance.

Education: Wofford College, University of South Carolina School of Law graduate.

Hm. Okay, well, she has one year of experience managing a state agency -- a small one -- and she has a law degree. But she must bring some sort of background in health and environment issues that isn't obvious. Otherwise, why would a governor appoint her to such an important position, overseeing such a large and important agency?

Templeton listed no background in health or environmental science on her application.

Hm. There went that theory.

Did we not have anyone else in the state who brought experience in agency management, or awareness of health and environmental issues? Did no one else apply?

She was voted as director over Pam Dukes, a DHEC deputy commissioner, and Ingo Angermeier, a Spartanburg hospital system chief executive.

This makes no sense. A DHEC deputy commissioner and a hospital chief executive applied, and their qualifications were inferior to the thin case that Templeton makes for the position?

Does this not sound bizarre to anyone else?

John Crangle of Common Cause of South Carolina, a public interest watchdog, called her hiring bizarre, given her background and worrisome for DHEC's regulatory authority.

So now it can be said, I have common cause with Common Cause.

He pointed out that the DHEC board earlier this month reversed a staff decision and approved the controversial Savannah River dredging project, after Haley asked her appointees to meet with Georgia officials.

"With a person like Catherine Templeton as director, there will be more of the same. She'll probably do what she's told to do and not what's good for the people of South Carolina," Crangle said.

Is that it? A yes-man or, in this case, a yes-woman in a position of vital importance?

After she interviewed Templeton for the LLR position last year, Haley said it felt like she was interviewing herself.

O, crikey. The ultimate narcissist found her mirror-image in another young woman with no applicable experience and no concern for the needs of working people. How can we tell them apart?

But, come on, DHEC is a large and complex agency. The director has real responsibilities. What does Haley expect Templeton to do there?

Templeton doesn't pull her punches. She has drawn controversy over LLR decisions from laying off workers to not moving to Columbia when she took the job. She said this week about her management, "When you go in and clean house, and you have to terminate 50 or 100 people, people don't like that. But we got better and got cheaper at the same time."

Ah -- it's about firing people. The appointment of Templeton means that Haley is a lot like the presidential candidate she endorsed and escorted across the state for two weeks: Like Mitt Romney, Haley likes to fire people, and Templeton is a skilled sacker.

Which means the poor at-will employees at DHEC should steel themselves: Heads are about to roll.

She calls the DHEC job a process geek's dream. Because the agency is so large, she said, she can look at bringing in economies of scale, eliminating redundancies, deciding whether some programs should be split off to the S.C. Department of Natural Resources, and taking a new look at the bigger picture of just what DHEC should or shouldn't be doing.

Well, we know how consistent Haley is in her hatred of redundancies.

Maybe, now that she has much greater responsibilities to South Carolina's people, as head of a much larger agency, she's take her public service seriously enough to move to Columbia, where she can be readily accessible to the people she manages and the people she serves.

A mother of three, Templeton makes no bones about not having moved to Columbia. She won't do it for this job either.

"We're at 2012. People can do their job from anywhere. I have never been accused of a poor work ethic. I couldn't do any more sitting in an office in Columbia. When I'm needed, I'm there," she said.

This is what we have, instead of a serious government: A governor, and her mirror-image agency head, who do nothing useful and call it everything we've ever needed.

It's ours; we elected it.

Duplicitous Gov. Haley, who hates duplication, duplicates.

A parable.

South Carolina has two things in abundance: A history of treating poorly those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow, and governors who look for more ways to treat poorly those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow.

We might as well post signs at the borders: "Abandon hope and your rights, all ye who enter to work here."

First, the record.

Governor Nikki Haley has made it part of her standard fare to rail against duplication of services. If a program provides a service over here, no other program is necessary to provide a service over there. Any secondary or tertiary programs which exist to provide the same or similar services must be annihilated. So let it be written, so let it be done.

The wealthy in Haley's world, it appears, deserve choices (school choice, anyone?), but the poor or the working class deserve only one option, NO duplication of services.

Why is duplication of services to be abhorred? It is wasteful. It is redundant. And it is wasteful, especially of taxpayer dollars. And, it is redundant, which is unnecessary and repetitive. Duplication is unnecessary. Therefore, Haley is opposed to it. For its wastefulness.

On April 1, 2009, when she was just dreaming of a Haley-like state (or hailing a dream-like state?), then-Representative Haley decreed on her website,

In the process, we will consider the economic, fiscal and outside impacts of each agency or program, including management process and structure as well as the extent to which these programs duplicate services, functions and programs administered by another federal or state agency. And in the end, we will eliminate areas of duplication, update missions and goals that need updating, and yes, we will phase out dated and inefficient programs that don’t address the 21st century priorities and needs of the people of our state.

Yes, under a Haley regime, no program or service will exist if another program or service exists. Two programs or services are redundant, which means one of them is wasteful and unnecessary, and the time and resources devoted to it are wasted. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Last June, testing out her veto pen, she trotted out the "duplication of services" trope in her instruction to Speaker Bobby Harrell to undo what he'd allowed to be done, for it was unnecessary and she didn't approve of its necessity, making it unnecessary.

In a polite letter to Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, Governor Haley exercised her line item veto 35 times. Duplication of services, actions not in keeping with the core function of government and a preference for private funding were the top three reasons the governor listed for vetoing a host of different budget items.

So let it be written, so let it be done.Except that the legislature was apparently more appreciative of duplication of services, and wastefulness, and redundancy generally, for it found fit to override, in some cases, what Pharoah -- that is, Governor Haley -- had decreed and instructed.

Department of Education’s “High Schools That Work” Program ($1.4 million): Intended to help improve students’ transition from high school to college. Haley argued it duplicated programs already used in high schools and colleges. Legislature disagreed. Action: OVERRIDDEN

But Haley is nothing if not repetitive, and redundant, and sometimes exceptionally consistent. This month, she posted on her Facebook page the following bit of imperial gratitude:

Thanks to the members of the House of Reps who voted 76-47 to uphold my veto that stopped the creation of a 19 member council for the 1-95 corridor that would have unneccarily increased state govt, spent money we don't have, and duplicated what commerce already does. No new programs!

You will not speak of the governor's lack of spell-check; no error was made, no lack of awareness revealed. It is, that it is.

Now, what once was spelled "unnecessarily" will be respelled "unneccarily" and the new spelling will take the place of the old spelling in all government documents, though none of these will be duplicated. Or have copies made of them. Old copies will suffice: No new copies! So let it be written, so let it be done.

Haley won an acolyte in Rep. Bill Taylor, who accepted the governor's language and wrote on his own blog on January 20,

On the first day of the new session, the SC House killed legislation that would have expanded government. The House upheld Gov. Nikki Haley's veto of a bill creating a regional council that was intended to improve economic and education opportunities along rural I-95. I was one of a handful of Representatives who originally voted against the bill last spring because it created another needless bureaucracy. However, it passed the House and Senate and Haley vetoed the bill arguing it unnecessarily increases state government and duplicates what the state commerce and education departments already do. The Senate voted to override her veto. This week the House sustained the veto and the legislation failed.

What duplicates is duplicative, and duplication is a vexation. It will not be tolerated.

This is the record of our governor's hatred of duplication and redundancy. So let it be written, so let it be done.

In light of the record, we must assume that the governor is exceptionally weary. Squiring a former presidential hopeful around her state and helping him to peddle his threadbare wares unneccarily to the people has tired her.

And, upon sending her guest bowed and bent into Florida, we must assume that she had no time to rest; finding her right flank uncovered unneccarily, she searched the nooks and crannies of the Governor's Mansion for a doily with which to cover her right flank.

And, in her weariness, this is the doily she found:

Gov. Nikki Haley and House Republicans are joining forces to close loopholes that, they say, unions could use to set up shop and expand in South Carolina.

“Unions are not needed, wanted or welcome in South Carolina,” Haley said during a Tuesday press conference where she and state Rep. Bill Sandifer, R-Oconee, announced a new bill filed in the House that would:

• Require S.C. employers to display a poster in the workplace, alerting workers that they do not have to be union members in order to work.

This is a splendid doily, indeed, with which to cover her right flank in her weariness, except that it is a duplication of services.

State law already gives workers the right to turn down union membership.

No matter. The doily accomplishes very much of a little more:

• Increase civil penalties for those who violate the state’s right-to-work laws

• Allow workers to resign their union membership and stop paying dues at any time. Currently, union members have to wait a year.

• Require unions to file financial information with the state. Unions already must file some of that information with the federal government.

It is a powerful doily, in truth, and entirely suitable for covering an exposed right flank. Except that it is unneccarily a duplication of services already:

Democrats say the bill changes very little. They note less than 5 percent of the state’s workers are unionized, the country’s seventh-lowest rate of unionization.

“We already have some of the toughest anti-union laws in the nation,” said state Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg. “Can you say overkill? Our time would be better spent trying to improve the conditions for working people instead of attacking working people.”

But that is not written.

So that is not done.

Haley said the changes are needed because Boeing was threatened with a National Labor Relations Board lawsuit after building a new plant in North Charleston where few workers are union members. Ultimately, the lawsuit was dropped.

“I saw (the lawsuit) as a warning shot,” Haley said.

The National Labor Relations Board saw (Haley) as (unneccarily) opposing (federal) law.

“The more I bring companies in (to South Carolina), the more concerns there are about unions.”

South (Carolina) rejoined the (union) on (July 11,) 1868, which has concerns about (it) still. But Congress held that states had no (right to secede), so (rejoining) the union was (a duplication of services), meaning it was unneccarily.

That was written. That was done.

Furthermore, as the exposure of her right flank was substantial, Haley s t r e t c h e d out the doily and furthermore decreed some more:

Haley signed an executive order Tuesday that prohibits striking workers from receiving unemployment benefits.

Which was a powerful decree and well covered her right flank again.

Except that it was duplication of services and unneccarily.

That already is state law, said Catherine Templeton, director of the S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

This is another way of saying that Haley's hand-picked, anti-union director of the state labor department, trained by anti-union textile magnate Roger Milliken, found the governor's decrees duplicative, and therefore violative of her record opposing duplication of services.

But the stretching of the doily to recover her exposed right flank unneccarily was discovered by those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow, who gained a new perspective on the duplicitous governor:

“I don’t know what state Nikki thinks she’s in or what she’s running for,” said S.C. AFL-CIO president Donna Dewitt, “but striking workers in South Carolina can’t get unemployment and unions already fully disclose their financial information.”

Dewitt said Haley’s proposal was an attempt to pander to GOP hardliners “in a desperate attempt to distract attention from her support of Mitt Romney and play to her eroding Tea Party base.”

I think I heard DeWitt also say that the word "unneccarily" should be spelled "unnecessarily," which made perfect sense among readers of English, regardless of what duplicitous governors with stretched doilies covering exposed right flanks may say.

I am confident that I heard those who earn their living by the sweat of their brow say something even more profound in a press release:

South Carolina's union membership is amongst the lowest in the nation and there are no unionized public workers who can bargain for wages.
...
"With our state's low wages, low taxes and lax environmental regulations, I fear that the only thing Haley can do to make South Carolina more "business friendly" would be to issue an executive order to bring back slavery," Dewitt observed.

And the people stood and said, "Let that be duplicated, copied, printed, mailed, emailed, linked, friended, cutted-and-pasted, tweeted, posted, re-posted and shared again and again and again."

Some South Carolina facts for discussion in quiet rooms

Some fascinating facts about South Carolina's people, wealth, businesses and home ownership were updated by the U.S. Census Bureau late last month, and they offer a snapshot worth considering.

Here are only a few notes:

How many are we? Our 2010 population totaled 4.625 million, an increase of 15.3 percent over the 2000 census. It would appear that despite all the rhetoric advising Americans not to complete and return their census forms, South Carolinians did.

How old are we? Of that total population in 2010, nearly a quarter -- 23.4 percent -- were under the age of 18. Senior citizens -- those age 65 and over -- accounted for 13.7 percent of our total.

What is our dominant gender? At 51.4 percent of the total, women outnumber men.

What color are we? Representing 66.2 percent of the population, whites outnumber everyone else. The next largest minority is African-Americans, with 27.9 percent of the total. Hispanic or Latino respondents accounted for 5.1 percent.

How safe is our border? For all the Sturm und Drang over immigration -- which has always been a bee in South Carolinians' collective bonnet -- foreign-born persons represent only 4.4 percent of our residents, well below the national figure is 12.4 percent. So why the xenophobia?

How many of us have served the nation? According to data collected between 2005 and 2009, South Carolina is home to a shade less than 400,000 veterans, roughly 1.73 percent of the nation's total of 22,894,578.

How educated are we? The good news is that 82.2 percent of South Carolinians, age 25 and older, have graduated from high school; the bad news is that the other 17.8 percent of us haven't. Only 23.5 percent of us hold bachelor's degrees or more advanced degrees.

How many houses do we have? Our total "housing units" are 2.137 million, but 17 percent of those are in multi-unit structures -- presumably beach condos, apartments and dormitories.

How many own our homes? There are 1.693 million "households" in our state, with an average 2.52 persons per household, and 70.3 percent of us own homes.

How wealthy are we? We're rolling in filthy lucre, by medieval standards. South Carolinians earned $23,196 per capita, in 2009 dollars, in the 12 months before being surveyed. Our median household income in 2009 was $42,580 -- roughly 12 percent of Mitt Romney's income from public speaking fees last year.

How many of us live in poverty? South Carolinians living below the poverty level in 2009 totaled 17.1 percent of us. That's three percent higher than the national average.

However, those South Carolinians in business are really in business.

How many "firms" are based in South Carolina? 360,397 in 2007. Of that number, only 12 percent were owned by African-Americans, 1.8 percent were owned by citizens of Asian heritage, and 1.7 percent were owned by Hispanic/Latino citizens. Women owned fewer than a third: only 27.6 percent.

But some of us have made out like bandits: We shipped nearly $94 billion in manufactured goods in 2007, we booked more $40 billion in merchant wholesale sales in 2007, and our retailers did more than $54 billion in business the same year. In fact, our retail sales per capita in 2007 totaled $12,273 -- which is striking, given that it represents half of our per capita income.

What does this tell us? Maybe that the average South Carolinian is a white female, between 18 and 65, with a high school diploma but no college degree, who earns less than $25,000 annually and who doesn't live alone, and who has a much greater chance of knowing someone who lives in poverty than of knowing a veteran.

Is this an appropriate topic to discuss in the public square, as a matter of public policy, or should we -- as Mitt Romney advises -- only talk about these things in "quiet rooms"?

I like how editorialist Eric Zorn put it, in an op-ed published last week in the Chicago Tribune:

Inside voices everyone, please!

We're going to talk about the widening income gap between rich and poor, tax policy and the seemliness of predatory investing, and GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney wants us to do so only "in quiet rooms."

He made this suggestion in an interview Wednesday with NBC "Today" host Matt Lauer, the relevant portion of which began when Lauer challenged Romney's assertion in his victory speech Tuesday after the New Hampshire primary that questions about his lucrative career in high finance are rooted in "the bitter politics of envy."

"I think it's about envy," Romney replied. "I think it's about class warfare. I think when you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on 99 percent vs. 1 percent, and those people who've been most successful will be in the 1 percent, you've opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."

Had I been in Lauer's chair, I would have reminded Romney that "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, when top-bracket earners paid a 91 percent federal income tax rate. They now pay 35 percent, and yet Republicans howl that those who want to move it back up to 39 percent, where it was through most of the 1990s, are "socialists."

Instead, Lauer asked, "Are there no fair questions about the distribution of wealth without it being seen as envy, though?"

"You know I think it's fine to talk about those things in quiet rooms," Romney said. "But the president has made this part of his campaign rally. Everywhere he goes we hear him talking about millionaires and billionaires and executives and Wall Street. It's a very envy-oriented, attack-oriented approach."

Attack? Yes. Politics isn't beanbag as Romney himself reminded us recently. And harsh criticism of opponents' records and philosophies is common, as the broadsides against President Barack Obama in Romney's stinging, hyperbolic victory speech illustrated.

But envy? No. Envy requires bitter resentment, and most of us don't resent or begrudge the material success of the industrious, the talented or even the lucky — Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, say, or Oprah Winfrey, Derrick Rose, Steven Spielberg and Scott Anetsberger, the Lombard man who, we just learned, hit the $1 million jackpot in the Illinois Lottery's Merry Millionaire scratch-off game twice in nine years.

I'd even go so far as to say the vast majority of Americans admire successful venture capitalists — those who get rich investing in the ideas of ambitious entrepreneurs (whom we also admire), thus creating new products and businesses that fuel economic growth.

That's free enterprise. And despite Romney's complaint that those in both parties who are critical of his tenure at Bain Capital investment firm "want to put free enterprise on trial," no one in the political mainstream is challenging its basics.

What they are challenging are the rules of high finance that allow private equity firms like Bain to sweep in, buy up mature companies, gut and restructure them with heavy infusions of other people's money, then bail out with handsome profits even when the company may be headed for bankruptcy.

"There's a big difference between financial manipulation and capitalism," said Newt Gingrich, the GOP candidate whose technically unaffiliated political action committee will spend a reported $5 million in South Carolina this week to promote and air "When Mitt Romney Came To Town," a 28-minute video that portrays Romney the businessman as rapacious, heartless and obtuse.

Others critics are challenging a tax system that has allowed wealth to concentrate more and more at the top, impeded income mobility and hit particularly hard at middle-income families, losers in a class war they did not start.

They want to put on trial a structure that bails out bankers in trouble but shrugs off the woes of the unemployed and the foreclosed as part of the "creative destruction" necessary for growth.

They're angry, not envious.

As a relatively calm person, I support Romney's implicit call for polite, reasoned discourse here. But it won't happen until he sets an example, stops flinging self-pitying accusations and acknowledges that his foes and critics have reasonable concerns about fairness and growing income inequality. He could start by allowing that it isn't anti-God and anti-capitalism insisting that we do better by those destroyed in the cycle of creative destruction.

In other words, expect a lot of noise in the coming months.