Leventis speaks truth to entrenched power

Sen. Phil Leventis has many fans and many detractors, and that's likely because he's been in office many years.

As he wraps up his last term, it's pleasant to see him still swinging for the fences, as he does in this opinion-editorial, published last week in The State.

Tell it, Senator.

With my legislative tenure coming to an end, I want to share something with my fellow South Carolinians. Our state is not broke, but we are teetering on the verge of moral bankruptcy in our failure to meet the needs of our citizens. That’s why I have introduced the TRAC Recommendation Act (S.1454) that eliminates or reduces many sales-tax exemptions. The nearly $1 billion this act will raise annually would be used to pay for education and local governments, which continue to be shorted due to lack of revenue.

During my 32 years as a legislator, I have been guided by the principle that government should invest in meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens. This principle has been undermined by an ideology claiming that government is the cause of our problems and, accordingly, must be starved.

The real source of our problems is a government unwilling to invest tax dollars in itself and its citizens. When businesses strive to be competitive, they invest in their future. That is what we have to do today in South Carolina to ensure a more prosperous future.

We’re not broke. The problem is that narrow political ideology has trumped statesmanship. The lack of political will to fairly reform our tax code to meet our basic civic contracts for education and infrastructure leads our citizens to believe that “minimally adequate” is the best we can hope for.

In 2010, the Tax Realignment Commission (TRAC) was created to review the state’s tax code and recommend changes “designed to ensure that the state’s tax structure is balanced so that the system is adequate, equitable, and efficient.” The TRAC commissioners and staff did a thorough job of reviewing tax loopholes and inequities, and recommended reforms of sales-tax exemptions that could raise close to $1 billion the first year.

Sadly, ideology trumped common sense, and the Republican-created and -appointed commission’s goal was to use any new revenue to further reduce taxes and increase corporate subsidies, not pay our bills.

Our state’s fixation on being business-friendly is reflected in the Forbes ranking that puts South Carolina fifth in its “business friendly regulatory environment” but 44th in quality of life. Forbes ranks the quality of our labor supply at 22nd, far behind North Carolina (third) and Georgia (fourth). The message this sends is that South Carolina, with its lax regulations and unskilled labor force, is a cheap place to do business — but you might not want to live here.

To put the anti-tax ideology in perspective, consider that of all the industrialized nations, only Turkey and Mexico have a lower individual tax burden than the United States, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The anti-tax National Tax Foundation ranks South Carolina 43rd among the 50 states in taxes as a percentage of income, and dead last in per capita state and local taxes. You begin to wonder why we need to further reduce taxes when we can’t pay our bills.

The House’s budget cuts mandatory funding for education by $665 million and local government funds by $71 million and robs $118 million from the general fund to cover the sales-tax shortfall of Act 388’s property-tax swap. These spending levels are set by law, but education and local government funding obligations are ignored annually by budget provisos because of a presumed lack of revenue and a clear shortage of political courage. These cuts mean larger classes, fewer teachers, police and firefighters and deteriorating infrastructure, all of which combine to make our state less competitive.

The TRAC recommendations on sales taxes would raise nearly $1 billion next year and more in coming years. This is what we need to meet these mandatory spending requirements, and more comprehensive tax reforms would meet and exceed them for years to come.

I’m sponsoring this bill because there is no real legislative debate — and little public understanding — about how we could raise the revenue to pay our bills with fair and broad tax reforms while also improving our quality of life and strengthening our economy.

The critical debate I hope to spark is whether the role of our government is shaped by the special-interest groups who make the majority of campaign contributions, or by the citizens who pay the taxes. I believe that citizens are willing to pay fair and equitable taxes when they get their money’s worth. It’s called democracy, and it’s past time for South Carolinians to reclaim it.

Workers being driven out of public service

Those committed to reducing the effectiveness of state agencies, shrinking the rolls of public employees and ultimately privatizing public services are winning their agenda, one retirement at a time.

Today's edition of The State reports that public employees are leaving their posts in droves, buying time and taking early retirement before devastating changes to the retirement system go into effect on July 1.

In fact, our lawmakers haven't even decided on all the ways they will change the system to make it less attractive to potential employees, but they're well on their way to destroying the commitments that decades of previous legislatures have made to public workers.

Reporter Adam Beam found an example that represents how the proposed changes victimize veteran workers, and explained how many of them are reacting.

An increasing number of state workers are electing to retire before changes are made to the state’s pension system.

Take Win Hughey, 56, for instance. In 1984, Hughey left behind the life of a women’s shoe salesman to manage a warehouse for the state’s prison system.

He says he did it because, as a state worker, he could keep his unused sick and vacation days to add an extra 7 percent to his retirement benefits. But beginning July 1, the rules for the state retirement system are expected to change. Already, the S.C. House has passed a bill to stop Hughey from using his unused days to increase his pension. The Senate will begin discussing that proposal next week.

But Hughey is not going to wait around to find out what happens. Instead, he will retire June 30.

“I’m 56. I planned to work until I was 62,” he said. “(But) there is no incentive for me to work.”

No incentive to work.

Governor Nikki Haley has just completed a media spree to sell her books, and she missed no opportunity to tell television interviewers that South Carolina is a fantastic place to start a business.

What she neglected to say is that South Carolina has little regard for the citizens who work for a living. If it did, veteran public employees like Hughey would find greater incentive to work than to retire.

Beam writes, "Hughey is one of the unintended consequences of retirement reform," but I respectfully disagree. What is happening to and among our public employees is entirely intentional; one has only to review the speeches of anti-public-employee lawmakers, and their proposed legislation, of the past decade to see the intentions spelled out clearly.

The only difference between then and now is that the consequences of bad economic decisions by lawmakers offer a convenient rationale that changes to the retirement system must now be made, or else. In fact, they don't -- but no matter, sufficient numbers of lawmakers now exist to adopt job-killing impacts to the state's public employment and retirement system.

Lawmakers are changing the state’s pension system in an attempt to reduce its $13 billion deficit. But anything that prompts workers to retire earlier than they normally would have retired – like cutting their benefits – costs the state more money. That’s because there are fewer people paying into the retirement system and more being paid by the system.

So far, 5,603 workers covered by the pension system have filed applications to retire this year – or 819 more than at this time last year.

And more and more of those filing to retire are buying “service time” – or credit for additional years of work – so they can retire early. Since November, 3,912 people have filed applications to buy added years of service covered by the retirement system. That’s 1,035 more than during the same period a year earlier.

For more tenured state workers, buying service time will become far more expensive after July 1 if the proposed pension changes become law.

The state’s two largest retirement systems have more than 216,000 active members. Not all are eligible for retirement.

As of July 10, 2010, the latest numbers available, the two systems had 19,774 people who were eligible or nearly eligible for retirement. An extra 819 people retiring this year represents 4 percent of that total deciding to retire.

(State law says you have to have at least 28 years on the job – or be at least 65 years old with at least five years of service – to be eligible for full retirement benefits. Police officers and firefighters can retire with full benefits after 25 years of service or if they are at least 55 years old with at least five years of service.)

Thus far, the higher number of state workers opting to retire has not “put undue stress on the system,” said David Avant, managing legal counsel for the state retirement system.

But added retirements could have a big impact on some local governments, whose workers – along with many public-school teachers – are covered by the state retirement system.

Now we get down to brass tacks. Here's where privatizers find their bread finally buttered after investing in legislative campaigns.

Apply enough pressure to local governments, and they'll eliminate public services, opening the door to contracting with private companies to provide the same services for a profit. That includes every category of services from emergency response personnel to municipal road repair, to law enforcement, to public education.

Draining the public pool leaves all boats run aground.

The prospect concerned Columbia city manager Steve Gantt so much that he had his staff calculate how many of the city’s roughly 2,000 employees were eligible to retire on June 30. The answer: 230, including the city’s chief financial officer and some senior managers in the police and fire departments.

If all of those city workers choose to retire, it would cost the city $1.5 million to pay off unused sick and vacation days, Gantt said.

“I can’t imagine if all those folks decided to bail so they fell under the old criteria instead of the new criteria,” Gantt said. “It is what it is, and we’d have to do what we have to do. But I do have some concern about the financial implications.”

What would your own community do if suddenly 12 percent of its firefighters -- including the most experienced ones -- were forced to retire? Or 12 percent of your public hospital workers, social service workers, teachers, police officers or sheriff's deputies?

Under the House plan, state workers would get to keep the benefits they already have accrued under the current system. However, they would accumulate lower benefits going forward for their service beginning July 1.

But Hughey said it is not worth it for him to stay. Instead, he plans to get another job in the private sector and use his retirement benefits as supplemental income.

“I won’t have as much time off with my family, won’t have the seniority,” he said. “I’ll have to work more. It’s OK, working doesn’t bother me. I just wish I had the (retirement) plan they said I could have.”

Did you catch that?

Hughey wishes that lawmakers would keep their promises to public workers.

Don't we all.

This year's voucher bill was no compromise

Call this an oversight: The State newspaper published its annual editorial opposing a voucher bill, but I didn't cross-post it here at the time. So, to keep the record current, here's the text, delivered by editors well before the House committed itself to a costly and foolish endeavor to dismantle public schools.

ADVOCATES call their trimmed-down plan to pay parents to send their kids to private schools a compromise. It’s not.

Oh, it costs less than last year’s plan to throw hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money at private schools that follow their own rules. But the big-money out-of-state special interests pushing this year’s legislation make no bones about considering this an “incremental” first step, a base from which to increase funding in years to come. More importantly, it retains all the other problems that plagued the plans that our lawmakers have wisely rejected in the past — and ought to reject again this year.

Unlike previous proposals, the bill awaiting House debate gives tax deductions rather than tax credits to middle- and upper-income families who abandon the public schools. That keeps the price down, because a $4,000 deduction reduces income taxes by, at most, $280, whereas a $4,000 credit reduces taxes by $4,000. Those small numbers — most parents would save significantly less than $280 — underscore the idea that supporters consider this bill a foot in the door; why else go through such a divisive political fight, and use up $12 million of the $37 million the legislation would cost in the first year, in order to give such piddling little incentives?

Like previous proposals, the legislation promises to help poor kids attend private schools by way of a convoluted tax scheme that lets people divert up to $15,000 of their income taxes each year to private “scholarship-granting organizations” that would dole out the money to needy children. That’s a problem in itself if you believe that we all ought to pay our fair share toward the public services that benefit us all, rather than picking and choosing which programs to pay for.

Beyond that, this faux free-market plan would help only those particular poor children whom private schools choose to admit and whom private scholarship-granting organizations choose to help and whose parents have a way to get them to and from the private schools and pay at least a quarter of the tuition themselves.

And as with the previous proposals, the worst part about the so-called compromise is the effect it would have on our collective psyche.

We provide tax incentives in order to encourage people to do things we want them to do but which the government is not doing. That is, incentives are an alternative to government doing something itself. The logical next step after giving incentives to parents to leave the public schools is to stop providing public schools. Of course, we can’t do that, but the more people believe that incentives make private schools a real option for any parents who care about their children, the less they will support doing the hard and politically difficult work of improving our public schools — which is so clearly the goal of those who are bankrolling this plan.

We understand that a lot of legislators are terrified that the out-of-state special interests will field and bankroll challengers in this year’s elections if they don’t support this bill. We sympathize, but we also expect them to support the best interests of our state, even if that carries political risks. Lawmakers need to reject this bill, and make it clear that they won’t be intimidated into supporting bad legislation that will harm our state.

The State tracks the money trail to House voucher vote

Following the money led Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein to the Nixon Watergate scandal, and the Washington Post to a Pulitzer Prize.

This Easter weekend, The State newspaper hopped down the money trail to last month's vote on the House voucher bill and found dozens of voucher bunnies collecting their own Cadbury eggs from donor Howard Rich of New York.

More than half of the S.C. state representatives who voted in favor of a school choice bill that passed the House have received campaign donations from New York businessman and school-choice advocate Howard Rich and his affiliated companies.

Rich has made campaign contributions to 38 of the 65 House members – 58 percent – who voted for the bill, which passed 65-49.

Collectively, those representatives, all Republicans, received $188,000 in campaign cash from Rich and his limited liability corporations, or LLCs, from 2008 to 2011. That dollar figure does not include dozens of contributions totaling thousands of additional dollars made by Howard Rich associates who also favor school choice.

And more donations from Rich could be on the way.

All House members and state senators are up for re-election this year and are raising campaign cash now. Lawmakers must report new donations next week to the State Ethics Commission.

The House-passed proposal now heads to the state Senate, where it faces an uphill battle. Any one senator effectively can block consideration of a proposal, but school-choice opponents likely will not have to resort to filibustering to kill the idea. While the Senate is controlled by Republicans, the body’s ruling majority actually is a loose confederation of Democrats, most of whom who oppose the House-passed school choice bill, and moderate Republicans, many representing areas with good public school districts that they are determined to protect.

Also, Rich has directed little of his financial clout toward the Senate thus far.

Rich has given to only 11 of the Senate’s 46 members, and one of those recipients said late last week that he will oppose the House proposal.

In the House, two members, state Reps. Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston, and Curtis Brantley, D-Jasper, accepted donations from Rich but voted against the school choice bill, which aims to give tax deductions to parents who send their students to private schools or who home-school their students.

Which reminds me of Arthur Ravenel's old dictum: If you can't take their money and vote against their interests, you have no business in politics. Cracks me up every time, imagining how Ravenel delivered the line.

The remaining 47 House members who opposed the bill – all but five of them Democrats – did not receive donations from Rich.

Critics of the school-choice legislation point to Rich’s donations and the late March House vote as proof that outside influence continues to shape education policy in the Palmetto State.

“It’s very sad that a large amount of money has come in from out of state to pressure legislators into doing something that most South Carolinians are against,” said Molly Spearman, director of the S.C. Association of School Administrators, which opposes the bill. “(This bill) erodes the support for public education in South Carolina.”

But lawmakers who voted for the legislation say it only makes sense that they would get donations from contributors, including Rich, who agree with their school-choice stance.

“What can he possibly gain from this? Other than he understands that education is important and requires out-of-the-box thinking? He gets no financial benefit from this,” said state Rep. Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort, who received $6,000 in Rich donations in 2010 and 2011.

Herbkersman, who says he has talked to Rich on the phone a few times but never met the New Yorker, added: “You can send as much (state) money as you want to any school. But if you don’t have a full parking lot on parent-teacher night, it’s going to be a failing school.”

He added, “This bill gives parents and students, who are really interested in an education ... a choice. The status quo is not working. It’s time to try something else.”

I'm in full agreement on this point: The status quo is not working.

What is the status quo?

Simply put, the status quo has been that South Carolina consistently under-funds public education and consistently diverts support and resources from public schools to any number of alternatives, effectively offering incentives to parents who will leave public schools and propping up private education, where profits can be made by corporate interests and campaign donors. Results of this status quo have been damaging to the state's public education system, and to the state's standing in the nation.

Obviously, the status quo isn't working.

And just as obviously, the solution is to foreclose the diversion of public funds to private alternatives, fully fund the base student cost for at least the length of one student-cohort's term in public school -- 13 years -- and then weigh the outcomes.

But that's not the solution that privatizers and voucherites prefer.

Libertarian-leaning and low-profile, Rich has been hesitant to speak with the S.C. media about his school-choice advocacy.

His multiyear S.C. effort for school choice has sparked controversy, inspiring a now-defunct blog that tracked his S.C. campaign donations and a 2008 statewide tour by one prominent Democrat, Phil Noble, who called on candidates to return his donations.

Accused of taking tainted money, some candidates returned Rich-affiliated money, including state Rep. Deborah Long, R-Lancaster, who sent back $12,000 received from Rich’s associates.

Bill opponents also charge Rich and other school-choice proponents with nasty campaign attacks on GOP lawmakers who did not support past school-choice bills. During last month’s House debate, state Rep. Boyd Brown, D-Fairfield, said voting in favor of the bill was approving of those tactics.

“What you’re saying with this bill is that this is the way to get things done,” Brown said on the House floor. “When it comes to school choice, that’s what it took to get this passed. All it took was legally being on the take from Howard Rich. Instead of voting on the interests of Howard Rich, you need to vote in the interests of your constituents.”

In his email to The State newspaper, Rich defended his right to fund candidates and said he does not “own any property in South Carolina or have anything to gain personally from passage of school choice legislation.”

He said he supports “efforts like this because I believe in freedom of choice and a parent’s right to have a say in the education of their children. Nothing more.”

Rich also has backed other conservative causes in other states, including term limits and limited-government initiatives. “I make donations to candidates in many states,” Rich wrote. “Given the continuing low performance of S.C. public schools, I would think the benefits to more parental involvement would be self-evident.”

In a 2008 video interview by then-state GOP chairman Katon Dawson, Rich said, “If I want to do something that I strongly believe in, like empowering parents – whether it’s in South Carolina or Georgia or California or any place – I should be allowed to do that.”

I wanted to watch this video again, and would have linked it here for everyone's benefit, but the video has been deleted from YouTube and all links to it across the internet are dead.

The fight over whether to offer tax breaks to parents who home-school their children or send them to a private school has been a fiery debate in the S.C. Legislature since 2004, featuring regular bouts between the two entrenched sides.

On one side are public school groups and organizations that have argued the state’s public schools are not adequately funded. They say it is unfair to give tax breaks to private school and home-school parents that reduce the state’s income, which could go to finance better public schools. They also say private schools and home-schooling families are unaccountable, not as subject to state scrutiny as public schools are, and possibly offering subpar educations.

Well, truth is truth.

On the other side, school-choice advocates say a one-size-fits-all approach to educating students is a misguided idea ensuring that some students will fail. They say tax deductions would make it possible for more parents to consider education alternatives that work better for some students.

Ah, we must provide all options at all costs for the one percent, even at the expense of the ninety-nine percent.

Isn't it always the case?

Nationally, more than 20 states have enacted some form of school-choice legislation, ranging from vouchers to tax deductions. Last week, for example, Louisiana’s General Assembly expanded its voucher program.

I heard about this. Rumor has it that Governor Bobby Jindal promised to use his line-item veto to strike out road projects for any legislators who voted against his education package. And since Louisiana's legislators all have four-year terms, in both houses, alongside the governor, a lot of lawmakers foresaw dire times ahead for their constituents who couldn't get road repairs. Shades of ol' Huey Long.

Despite the many school-choice proposals presented over the years, all ultimately failed to pass either the state House or Senate – until last month.

The House’s 65-49 vote on March 28 marked a major triumph for the school-choice movement and could be a sign of changing legislative sentiments.

This year’s proposal is different from previous ones. It grants tax deductions rather than the previously proposed tax credits.

The proposal would:

• Give up to a $4,000-a-year tax deduction for each child enrolled in private schools.

• Give up to a $2,000-a-year deduction for expenses for families who home-school their children.

• Make poor and disabled students eligible for private-school scholarships; those who donate to nonprofits that would provide those scholarships could claim tax credits.

“Is this the legislation I would have written? No,” Rich wrote The State newspaper. “Is this an acceptable framework that has been developed to meet South Carolina conditions, created by South Carolinians with the support of a wide array of groups and individuals? Yes, I think it is.”

Should the bill become law, it would cost the state about $37 million in lost revenue in its first year, 2012-13. That cost would continue – and could increase if more families opt for private or home schools – in future years.

Indeed, a number of lawmakers who spoke against the voucher bill last month said it represented only the beginning. As soon as the barnyard gate is thrown open, watch for the wolves to be back at the henhouse door next year, asking for more meat.

School-choice advocates say there has been inappropriate influence in the school-choice debate, but not by Rich and his allies. Instead, they point to emails, acquired through the state’s open records law, that show principals and other school officials have encouraged public school teachers to phone lawmakers to express their opposition to school-choice legislation.

“No matter one’s stance on school choice, this practice is fundamentally threatening to democratic institutions,” said Neil Mellen, spokesman for South Carolinians for Responsible Government, a school-choice advocacy group. “It replaces rule of law with political patronage. It makes voters and taxpayers subservient to the government.”

Spearman, of the Association of School Administrators, and other public school advocates say the law is followed in those communications and educators have the right to be informed.

“School personnel are extremely careful in following the letter of the law on that,” Spearman said. “SCRG has harassed school districts on this topic, hoping to keep them from staying informed. We won’t let that happen.”

Firing back, school-choice opponents long have called on the Responsible Government group to reveal who pays for its operations.

Mellen said his group has a range of individual and institutional donors but provided no specifics. He added his group does not receive any money from public sources, as opposed to some of the education groups fighting school-choice legislation whose members are dues-paying school districts.

This is comical: The gang who demands transparency and accountability offers no transparency and accountability, all the while impeding professionals from knowing what's happening to their professions.

In family counseling, the person demonstrating this behavior is called an "undisciplined disciplinarian." On the playground, he's called a "bully." In either case, his credo is simple: Do as I say do, not as I do.

The bill next heads to the Senate, where it faces a more difficult path as Democrats and moderate Republicans easily could join forces to block the bill.

Asked if he thought the choice bill could pass the Senate, Rich wrote: “I don’t know. Of course, I hope the bill passes out of the Senate, but I am not a lobbyist and certainly don’t have a crystal ball. If it does, it will be a huge opportunity for a lot of middle and low-income families. That would be great.”

Based on his contributions, Rich’s Senate influence is not strong.

Of 46 state senators, only 11 have received money from Rich, including two Democrats, Sens. Robert Ford, D-Charleston, and Darrell Jackson, D-Richland. Collectively, those 11 senators have received $102,000.

Jackson, a former Richland 1 school board member, said he does not support the legislation that passed the House and doubts it can pass the Senate.

“It’s late in the session. You would need nearly a consensus to get it passed before time runs out,” Jackson said of the legislative session that ends in June. “And this will likely be controversial.”

Jackson said he only has met Rich briefly once, a couple of years ago when the New York millionaire made a rare stop by the State House to meet lawmakers. Jackson added he is not sure why Rich donated $9,000 to his campaign in 2010, but suspects it is because of his advocacy for charter schools, consolidating school districts and other non-traditional approaches to help failing schools.

But, Jackson added, “I’m a longtime supporter of public education. This bill won’t help our kids.”

Recipients of Rich voucher funds identified

The State newspaper performed a public service this weekend by publishing a list of legislators who received funding from Howard Rich, the New Yorker voucher ideologue who has invested millions in buying pro-voucher public policy across the nation.

The list includes members of both parties and in both houses, although a voucher bill has never gotten to the Senate for consideration before this year.

But the list is incomplete, The State notes, because it doesn't include the funding received from Rich's "associates".

Lawmakers who received campaign cash from New York school-choice advocate Howard Rich from 2008 to 2011:

In the House

Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville: $1,000

Liston Barfield, R-Horry: $3,000

House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington: $5,000

Don Bowen, R-Anderson: $14,000

Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg: $1,000

Tom Corbin, R-Greenville: $9,000

Kris Crawford, R-Florence: $10,500

Bill Crosby, R-Charleston: $5,000

Greg Delleney, R-Chester: $5,000

Tracy Edge, R-Horry: $9,000

Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort: $2,500

Dan Hamilton, R-Greenville: $2,000

Nelson Hardwick, R-Horry: $5,000

Jim Harrison, R-Richland: $4,000

Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville: $10,000

Bill Herbkersman, R-Beaufort: $6,000

Bill Hixon, R-Aiken: $2,000

Chip Huggins, R-Lexington: $2,000

Phillip Lowe, R-Florence: $7,000

Peter McCoy, R-Charleston: $7,000

Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley: $5,000

Dennis Moss, R-Cherokee: $5,000

Chris Murphy, R-Dorchester: $1,000

Wendy Nanney, R-Greenville: $14,000

Andy Patrick, R-Beaufort: $1,000

Mike Pitts, R-Laurens: $5,000

Tommy Pope, R-York: $7,000

Josh Putnam, R-Anderson: $1,000

Rick Quinn, R-Lexington: $9,000

Gary Simrill, R-York: $5,000

Roland Smith, R-Aiken: $5,000

Mike Sottile, R-Charleston: $9,000

Kit Spires, R-Lexington: $2,000

Tommy Stringer, R-Greenville: $5,000

Bill Taylor, R-Aiken: $5,000

Anne Thayer, R-Anderson: $3,000

David Tribble, R-Laurens: $1,000

Brian White, R-Anderson: $500

In the Senate

Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson: $5,000

William O’Dell, R-Abbeville: $5,000

Mike Fair, R-Greenville: $3,000

Lee Bright, R-Spartanburg: $41,000

Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken: $2,000

Mike Rose, R-Dorchester: $7,000

Robert Ford, D-Charleston: $18,000, including $14,000 for Ford’s 2010 gubernatorial bid

Tom Davis, R-Beaufort: $11,000

Darrell Jackson, D-Richland: $9,000

Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee: $3,000

Chip Campsen, R-Charleston: $1,000

NOTE: Listed donations do not include thousands of additional dollars donated by Rich’s associates.

The State's coverage also included a rare question-and-answer with Rich himself, in which he noted that because he doesn't own property or have any other financial stake in the state, his intervention is entirely ideological in nature:

Howard Rich, a millionaire New York real estate investor, has been funding school-choice efforts in South Carolina for years. Libertarian-leaning and low-profile, Rich has been hesitant to speak with the S.C. media. But he did answer some questions last week from The State newspaper about his involvement in the school-choice debate.

Q. How will this legislation benefit S.C. families?

The legislation passed by the S.C. House of Representatives is a framework for giving parents more control over the education of their children. Given the continuing low performance of S.C. public schools, I would think the benefits to more parental involvement would be self-evident. What strikes me as most important about the House legislation is the consensus that Ways and Means Chairman Brian White was able to forge. Is this the legislation I would have written? No. Is this an acceptable framework that has been developed to meet South Carolina conditions, created by South Carolinians with the support of a wide array of groups and individuals? Yes, I think it is. That in itself is a benefit. It is a coming together of all interested parties to begin to address a serious and ongoing problem.

Q. Much has been made about donations from your LLCs and associates to S.C. lawmakers who favor school-choice legislation. Can you talk about why you chose South Carolina as a place to support such candidates?

I make donations to candidates in many states. As in my response to your first question, South Carolina trails almost all states in a bunch of categories so there’s a great need for choice and significant potential upside.

Q. I take it you still own no property here in South Carolina and, thus, do not directly benefit from the passage of any school-choice legislation. Is that still accurate?

It is still the case that I do not own any property in South Carolina or have anything to gain personally from passage of school choice legislation. I support efforts like this because I believe in freedom of choice and a parent’s right to have a say in the education of their children. Nothing more.

Q. Do you think the bill can pass the S.C. Senate?

You ask if the school choice bill passed by the House of Representatives can pass the S.C. Senate — I don’t know. Of course, I hope the bill passes out of the Senate, but I am not a lobbyist and certainly don’t have a crystal ball. If it does it will be a huge opportunity for a lot of middle and low-income families. That would be great.

Brack, Free Times react to House voucher bill

Two sources I consult regular for clear-eyed reporting and commentary on the goings-on in Columbia are Statehouse Report, published by Andy Brack of Charleston, and the Free Times of Columbia.

Neither has disappointed in covering last week's passage of a voucher bill by the House.

From Statehouse Report comes this headline: "Back-door voucher bill defies logic."

If you ever thought the folks at the Statehouse take voters as “April fools,” just delve into a newly-passed House bill that seeks tax credits for parents who have kids in private school.

The House of Representatives has passed a so-called “school choice” bill that supporters claim gives parents more choice in education. Over the last few years, proponents have received more than $2 million to push the legislation from New York millionaire Howard Rich.

Meanwhile, opponents say the measure is a voucher in disguise -- a harmful way to siphon public money from public schools to weaken them more than they already are.

When proponents talk about “school choice,” they ignore the fact that public schools today offer more choices than ever before. Not only are there a plethora of charter schools all over the state, but there are magnet schools and programs, vocational tracks, Montessori-style instruction, online schools, arts-based schools and more.

Take note of that last fact, readers; you'll see it here again.

To suggest that public schools don’t offer choices to parents is outright wrong. But more importantly, the logic behind this move for more “school choice,” is fundamentally flawed.

Consider how the newly-passed House bill would allow tax deductions for parents’ income in three categories:
Up to $4,000 for parents who send their child to private school;
Up to $2,000 for parents who home-school their child; and
Up to $1,000 for parents who send their kids to a school in a district which is not their own school district of residence.

Now think about that. The measure is elitist on its face. Why? Because you need at least $4,000 in taxable income to take advantage of the tax deduction. But guess what? About half of South Carolinians make so little income -- or have enough tax breaks already -- that they pay absolutely no South Carolina income tax.

I think Rep. James Smith made the same point during the House debate, and he added that because of this fact, the bill under discussion amounted to no more than "gravy" for those wealthy enough to take advantage of it.

Let me run that by you again. Of the 2 million income tax returns filed in 2009, some 889,889 returns (43.7 percent) had absolutely zero tax liability. If you add another 131,592 returns where filers’ tax liabilities were $100 or less, then just over half -- 50.15 percent -- of filers paid $100 or less in S.C. income tax, according to the most recent numbers from the state Department of Revenue.

So do you really think people who don’t earn enough money to pay income taxes in South Carolina are going to benefit from a $4,000 tax deduction or have enough money to send their kids to private school? Heck no. But the legislature wants you to believe it is “looking out” for low-income people and trying to give them real choices.

Hogwash. This Republican-backed measure isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. It’s nothing more than a way to help rich backers who want public money to help pay for private schools.

Various estimates suggest that between $7 million and $15 million has been donated to legislators and candidates, or used to mount propaganda campaigns, in support of the scheme.

The fiscal impact statement of the bill is estimated to cost the state $37 million in the first year, and more in subsequent years. I'd say that a lot of payback.

Jon Butzon of the Charleston Education Network said the House bill will harm public education.

“It’s only going to benefit a few and anybody who gets anything can already attend a private school,” he said. “The bigger issue is the General Assembly has a constitutional responsibility to every child of the state of South Carolina and it’s not meeting its responsibility.”

That responsibility, he said, is to fully-fund public education, as required by the state Education Finance Act. For the coming year, the House passed a $6.5 billion budget that underfunded public education by $700 million, or $1,002 per student.

So our lawmakers under-fund the base student cost by $1,002 per student, then moan and groan about the poor results coming out of public schools, and use them as justification for a voucher scheme that isn't paid for in our budget. This isn't public policy; it's a bad Three Stooges reel.

So while legislators plan to abrogate their responsibility to pay for public education as required by the law -- particularly laughable in a year when the state has a $900 million surplus -- they are also trying to sell the education moonshine of the need for tax deductions for people with kids in private school.

“They’ll sit up there and point the finger, but the Constitution says they’re responsible for every child,” Butzon noted. “This bill lets them off the hook to sell the smoke and mirrors that voters deserve a choice. Where is THAT in the Constitution?”

This House bill is a fraud that takes us all as April fools. Let’s hope the state Senate doesn’t fall for this illogical, vituperative political malarkey.

Amen. The State's "Buzz" author seems to think the Senate will bury it quickly, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Award-winning writer Corey Hutchens of the Free Times offered his own circumspection of the matter in this week's edition:

The Palmetto State has been a national flashpoint in the school choice movement since former Gov. Mark Sanford introduced the issue in 2004. In doing so, he attracted out-of-state pro-voucher forces whose outside money and hardball political tactics have become legend.

In 2009, Sanford’s lieutenants circulated a “hit list” of GOP incumbents who opposed school choice. Groups aligned with the issue recruited and funded primary challengers.

Gov. Nikki Haley, long a darling of the private school choice movement, said early in her administration that she won’t make the divisive issue a priority — but will sign a school choice bill if it makes its way to her desk.

In 2010, a Winthrop University poll showed likely voters in the state were evenly split on education tax credit proposals, which was a significant change from previously reported negative public perception.

Funny thing about polls is how the language of the questions often leads to pre-determined answers. Ask someone, "Would you support taking public dollars away from public schools?" and, if they support their local public schools, they may answer "No."

Now ask the same person, "Given that we spent roughly the gross national product of a Latin American nation on public education but haven't yet seen a graduate win a Nobel Prize, would you support giving state money to private schools where class sizes are small, school lunches are nutritious and children seem happy?" You might get a teary "Yes."

So I'm not that excited about polls unless I can read the questions and compare apples to apples.

Debbie Elmore, spokeswoman for the South Carolina School Board Administrators Association, who has fought such legislation for years, agrees that more lawmakers might have voted for it because it’s a “tamer” bill, but cites other reasons, too.

She blames outside school choice groups using what she calls bullying and harassment tactics to antagonize Republican lawmakers who oppose school choice, particularly in the Upstate.

During Sanford’s administration, the school choice debate made Howard Rich a household name. The wealthy New York City-based antigovernment activist dumped millions into South Carolina in support of school choice by funding SCRG and pro-voucher candidates.

One of former Democratic S.C. Superintendent of Education Jim Rex’s legacies was making the word “voucher” toxic when it came to school choice legislation. The language has since changed to “tax credits.”

This year, the national tea party-aligned FreedomWorks has zeroed in on certain lawmakers with phone calls and direct mail in their districts.

The efforts aren’t new, but are they finally paying off?

While Elmore won’t go that far, she says they’ve certainly taken their toll.

“I think that they’ve worn down the weary,” she says.

Wearing down the weary: Another tactic that doesn't lead to great public policy.

As I noted, The State seems to believe that the Senate will kill the voucher bill quick. True, the filing deadline for Senate races passed on March 30, so the voucherites don't have that to hold over Senators' heads. But a lot of Senators already have opposition, so we'll see.

Writes The State:

As any civics teacher can tell you, the role of a lower house – in South Carolina’s case, the state House – is to hotly reflect the desire of the public.

Now.

Elected every two years, House members cannot afford to be philosophical.

Even so last week’s S.C. House vote to start (it will never end) diverting state tax revenues – via tax deductions and credits – to parents who home school or send their children to private school was surprising.

No. 1: The voucher movement has been noisily renouncing any communal societal obligations – humbug!!! it’s failed!!! – for a decade.

No. 2: New York real estate millionaire Howard Rich and his friends have put nearly $2 million into S.C. political races over that decade to elect enough legislators – overwhelmingly Republicans – to turn the state into a K-12 lab experiment.

What’s surprising?

What took so long?

Lower houses, like the S.C. House, are the legislative equivalent of the grand jury that would indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor said he – or she – wanted it. You, Joe or Mary Donor, or Bill or Sarah Voter want it? It’s part of the GOP agenda! You get it!

Of course, your civics teacher also would remind you that that is the proper role of a lower house, and the role of an upper house – in this case the famously deliberative S.C. Senate – is to sort the good ideas that the hotheads in the lower house have from the bad ones.

And it will.

(Heck, the S.C. Senate even kills good ideas that come from the House.)

Bottom line? The latest school choice bill will go nowhere this year. It felt good (in the House). But the Senate will kill this puppy so smoothly it won’t even yelp.

And, this being the end of a two-year session, after the bill dies in the Senate, it can all start again next year.

The Buzz sure hopes so.

South Carolina could use the added economic impact of Mr. Rich financing another 10 years of Palmetto State political races and blogs.

Must we suffer that injustice to reap economic growth?

I appreciate that The State added the vote breakdown, so we can see who did what on the fateful day.

For those of you keeping score, here’s how the House vote broke down:

For – 65 members, all Republicans – Rita Allison, R-Spartanburg; Todd Atwater, R-Lexington; Nathan Ballentine, R-Richland; Bruce Bannister, R-Greenville; Liston Barfield, R-Horry; Eric Bedingfield, R-Greenville; Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington; Don Bowen, R-Anderson; Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg; Alan Clemmons, R-Horry; J. Berham Cole, R-Spartanburg; Tom Corbin, R-Greenville; Kris Crawford, R-Florence; Bill Crosby, R-Charleston; Joseph Daning, R-Berkeley; Greg Delleney, R-Chester; Tracy Edge, R-Horry; Shannon Erickson, R-Beaufort; Mike Forrester, R-Spartanburg; Mike Gambrell, R-Anderson; Dan Hamilton, R-Greenville; Nelson Hardwick, R-Horry; Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston; Jim Harrison, R-Richland; George Hearn, R-Horry; Phyllis Henderson, R-Greenville; William Herbkersman, R-Beaufort; Bill Hixon, R-Aiken; Chip Huggins, R-Lexington; Chip Limehouse, R-Charleston; Deborah Long, R-Lancaster; Phillip Lowe, R-Florence; Jay Lucas, R-Darlington; Peter McCoy, R-Charleston; Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley; D.C. Moss, R-Cherokee; Steve Moss, R-Cherokee; Chris Murphy, R-Dorchester; Wendy Nanney, R-Greenville; Ralph Norman, R-York; Phillip Owens, R-Pickens; Steve Parker, R-Spartanburg; Andy Patrick, R-Beaufort; Michael Pitts, R-Laurens; Tommy Pope, R-York; Joshua Putnam, R-Anderson; Rick Quinn, R-Lexington; Kevin Ryan, R-Georgetown; Gary Simrill, R-York; B.R. Skelton, R-Pickens; G. Murrell Smith, R-Sumter; G.R. Smith, R-Greenville; J. Roland Smith, R-Aiken; Mike Sottile, R-Charleston; Edward Southard, R-Berkeley; Kit Spires, R-Lexington; Tommy Stringer, R-Greenville; Eddie Tallon, R-Spartanburg; Bill Taylor, R-Aiken; Anne Thayer, R-Anderson; David Tribble, R-Laurens; Brian White, R-Anderson; William Whitmire, R-Oconee; Mark Willis, R-Greenville; Tom Young, R-Aiken

Against – 49 members, including five Republicans – Paul Agnew, D-Abbeville; Terry Alexander, D-Florence; Karl Allen, D-Greenville; Carl Anderson, D-Georgetown; Michael Anthony, D-Union; Jimmy Bales, D-Richland; James Battle, D-Marion; William Bowers, D-Hampton; Joan Brady, R-Richland; Lester Branham, D-Florence; Doug Brannon, R-Spartanburg; Curtis Brantley, D-Jasper; G.A. Brown, D-Lee; H. Boyd Brown, D-Fairfield; R.L. Brown, D-Charleston; Mia Butler Garrick, D-Richland; Bill Clyburn, D-Aiken; Gilda Cobb-Hunter, D-Orangeburg; Laura Funderburk, D-Kershaw; Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston; Jerry Govan, D-Orangeburg; Chris Hart, D-Richland; Jackie Hayes, D-Dillon; David Hiott, R-Pickens; Kenneth Hodges, D-Colleton; Jenny Horne, R-Dorchester; Lonnie Hosey, D-Barnwell; Leon Howard, D-Richland; Joseph Jefferson, D-Berkeley; Kevin Johnson, D-Clarendon; Patsy Knight, D-Dorchester; David Mack, D-Charleston; Joe McEachern, D-Richland; Walt McLeod, D-Newberry; Elizabeth Munnerlyn, D-Marlboro; Jimmy Neal, D-Lancaster; Joe Neal, D-Richland; Denny Neilson, D-Darlington; Harry Ott, D-Calhoun; Julia Parks, D-Greenwood; Lewis Pinson, R-Greenwood; Todd Rutherford, D-Richland; Ronnie Sabb, D-Williamsburg; Bakari Sellers, D-Bamberg; James E. Smith, D-Richland; Leon Stavrinakis, D-Charleston; David Weeks, D-Sumter; Seth Whipper, D-Charleston; Robert Williams, D-Darlington

Profit motive fuels forced privatization

Today's online edition of The State newspaper includes a reader survey on the bus privatization issue; go here to weigh in, and be sure to forward the link to friends and family who will vote, too.

Reporter Gina Smith catches the crux of the issue in her opening statement: "South Carolina school systems are fearful they are about to be handed a bill for tens of millions of dollars by the S.C. Legislature."

Unnecessarily so, because the system as currently run is pretty doggone efficient, given the age of South Carolina's school buses -- which, let's remember, include a good number of buses discarded and sold to us by Alabama, Tennessee, maybe even Kentucky -- and the territory they are tasked to cover.

That bill, they fear, could start coming due this week as S.C. House members begin work on a proposal to require the state’s school districts to operate their own school bus systems or contract those operations out to private companies.

Currently, South Carolina is the only state in the nation that owns and operates its own school bus fleet. That fleet, all agree, is in pitiful shape. The average bus is about 14 years old and has more than 200,000 miles.

Advocates say getting the state out of the school bus business will benefit both the state – in over its head, running a massive bus system – as well as the local school districts, who will gain control over bus routes, bus stops and get new buses. It also will get the state out of business that it has no business being in.

“For the state, it gets us out of the bus business that we’re running so poorly right now. There will be big savings in efficiencies for the state,” said state Rep. Jim Merrill, R-Berkeley, the bill’s primary sponsor. “For the school districts, they get more local control. They can sit down with a bus company and work out the details of a bus system that works for their specific district.”

More local control. That's funny, really. Lawmakers like to give local control to local school boards when it benefits the lawmakers -- like pushing a privatized school bus system on local boards -- but it likes to snatch local control away from them when it suits a political ideology.

Remember why we have a made-up statewide charter school district? It's because local school boards had the authority to approve or deny charter applications. That was called local control. But lawmakers who want to use charters as a weapon against traditional public schools, and who love to prate about local control as public policy, were all too happy to take local control away from local boards in that case. Now we have an unaccountable statewide charter school board issuing charter approvals willy-nilly, and the little charters are growin' like kudzu.

And read this part one more time: "For the school districts... They can sit down with a bus company and work out the details of a bus system that works for their specific district." Doesn't that sound an awful lot like collective bargaining, in which a school board negotiates the terms of a contract "that works for their specific district"?

If we're moving in the direction of empowering local school boards to negotiate all of their business, let's call it what it is -- collective bargaining -- and get out of the way altogether. After all, what's the difference between a school district's workforce and a school district's business partner? It's all in the label we attach, isn't it?

Gov. Nikki Haley supports privatizing the bus system and outlined a plan to do so in her executive budget. Her office says she is in “broad stroke” agreement with Merrill’s bill but has not been involved in working on its details.

I doubt anyone is surprised by this. Haley's got her eyes on bigger prizes. Her book drops on April 3, which means she's gunning for the New York Times best-seller list, one more stop on the road to total world domination. Details of school bus privatization are way beneath a governor who campaigned on bus privatization.

But some school districts are crunching the numbers and say they cannot afford the change.

School districts – looking into a future of ever-higher fuel and vehicle costs – fear the state’s contributions to school districts will not keep up with their rising costs.

Earlier this month, the Florence 1 school board passed a resolution opposing Merrill’s privatization bill.

School board chairman Porter Stewart said Friday it will cost his district about $10 million to buy new buses and about $6 million a year to operate a bus system.

“It’s a lot of money and, of course, there’s no guarantee this doesn’t become an unfunded mandate or a not-fully (paid),” Stewart said.

Also late last month, Horry County school board members expressed concern the proposal could cost their district about $39 million to buy a bus fleet and another $16 million a year in operating costs, according to media reports.

The school bus system cost the state more than $112 million to operate two years ago, the most recent cost figures available. School districts collectively pitched in an additional $138 million.

Under the privatization proposal that House members will begin work on this week, the state would continue to put the same amount of money into the bus system, giving it to local school districts that could operate their own bus systems or contract with private bus systems to buy and maintain buses as well as operate bus routes.

Initially, the state is likely to send even more cash to the school districts to help with the transition, Merrill added.

But it’s an unnecessary change, Florence 1’s Stewart said.

“Nobody has brought to my attention that we’re having major problems with our (Florence 1) bus system. Why do we need to change that which is working very well at the local level?” he asked. “We haven’t asked for this change. We don’t need this change.”

Crystalline logic, you must admit: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

But what is obvious common sense in far-flung sections of the state carries no weight in Columbia, where ideology is all.

The privatization idea is part of Republican mantra that the private sector is more efficient and, thus, less expensive than government-operated endeavors.

Ah, ideology is all. When the civilization we've built is strewn in ruins, the ideologues will still have their ideology.

Does the idea accomplish anything? No, but why should that matter? Ideology is all.

But questions remain about whether privatization actually saves money.

A three-year study, released last summer by the state Department of Education, found it cost the state more in time and money to privatize a school bus shop than it had to run a state-owned shop. However, state Superintendent of Education Mick Zais, a Republican, dismissed those results, saying the private company involved lacked the experience needed.

I recall this vividly. There's always a reason to discount a study's finding when you don't agree with them -- and when a major donor to your governor wants a lucrative state contract.

Ideology is all!

Concerns that privatization is a way for the state to cap its costs and hand the responsibility for future higher costs to local schools and taxpayers extend beyond the Florence 1 and Horry County school districts, said Scott Price of the S.C. School Boards Association.

“Several districts are very concerned about the state punting it down to the local level and not providing adequate funding,” he said.

Price said small districts and rural districts would be hit hardest. “Some districts are not going to be equipped to handle the costs of maintenance shops and new buses,” he said.

A legitimate concern to local school boards, right? They're given meager funding, usually a restricted ability to raise more revenue on their own, and they have to balance the demands of their parents with their capability to meet needs.

How does a politician address the concerns of a local school district about a proposal that threatens to upset all their apple carts?

But Merrill counters it is still early in the process, and his bill can be amended to handle any concerns. For example, several, small districts could band together to form a consortium, making a private bus system more affordable.

“It’s disappointing to see some already working against the bill,” Merrill said. “We’re trying to work with everyone on this. Let’s first see how the bill needs to be amended and work together on this.”

Ahhh, all our problems can be ironed out -- and you'll still do what you're told. If necessary, a few of you poor districts will have to band together -- doesn't that sound like consolidation? -- because ultimately, you'll do what you're told. If we have to tweak a few words in the bill to say that we heard concerns and responded to them, we will, but in the end, you'll do what you're told.

Ideology is -- say it with me, boys and girls -- ALL! We're going to privatize this state, come Hell or high water, because Governor Nikki Haley says we will. Gone are the days when politics was the art of bringing people together in the marketplace of ideas; that was liberal pap from the start. Today, politics is the art of moving public money into the private sector to reward campaign contributors with profits.

And when private entities make bigger profits at the expense of public coffers, we all win, right? That's what the ideology says:

House Majority Leader Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington, said any savings at the state level would be shared with school districts.

“This bill is a starting point. No one should get hung up on any language in the bill,” said Bingham, a former Lexington 2 school board member. “Unless the districts buy in and take ownership of this, it will not happen. But I would think they would want this. It’s more local control. And there will be savings at both the state and local level. No one is interested in passing on a lot of costs to districts.”

Oh, we're not calling it profits anymore -- profits are bad -- we're calling it "savings" now. Savings is good. Right, judges?

Judges?

Oh, so it is profits, after all?

Yeah, you're right. Privatization is about profits.

Lieutenant Governor Ken Ard has resigned

Adam Beam of The State newspaper has reported that Lieutenant Governor Ken Ard has resigned his office, via a press statement.

The resignation comes after a nine month investigation by a state Grand Jury into ethics violations, including allegations Ard used campaign money to buy personal items, including iPads, clothes, football tickets and a TV. Attorney General Alan Wilson and SLED Chief Mark Keel have a news conference scheduled for this afternoon.

“During my campaign, it was my responsibility to make sure things were done correctly. I did not do that. There are no excuses nor is there need to share blame. It is my fault that the events of the past year have taken place,” Ard said in a news release. “ I regret the distraction this has caused for the people of this state, my family, my staff, and other elected officials in South Carolina. It is because of these mistakes that I must take full ownership and resign from the Office of Lieutenant Governor. Once again, I am deeply sorry and take full responsibility for the entire situation.”

Lt. Gov. Ken Ard presided over the SC Senate Thursday. Here he waits for a group of senators to discuss an amendment. Ard is the focus of a state Grand Jury investigation for ethics laws violations that is now entering its ninth month.

“I want to thank the great people of South Carolina for the incredible opportunity to serve as their Lieutenant Governor. It truly has been an honor and an experience I will never forget. The love and support you have shown my entire family has been humbling and something I will always remember.

“I also want to thank my family, especially my wife, Tammy, and my three children, Jesse, Mason, and Libby. You have lived this experience with me. There were challenges and setbacks, but you were steadfast in your support and were there for me at every turn.

“To those who volunteered and worked on our campaign, thank you from the bottom of my heart. You were always there and never expected anything in return.

“To my staff, I have nothing but praise. Your professionalism and work ethic have been exemplary from day one. You have remained focused on carrying out the duties of our office in spite of other distractions.

“To all of the above and more, I owe a great apology. During my campaign, it was my responsibility to make sure things were done correctly. I did not do that. There are no excuses nor is there need to share blame. It is my fault that the events of the past year have taken place.

“I regret the distraction this has caused for the people of this state, my family, my staff, and other elected officials in South Carolina. It is because of these mistakes that I must take full ownership and resign from the Office of Lieutenant Governor. Once again, I am deeply sorry and take full responsibility for the entire situation.”

Uh-oh, "the help" are gettin' ideas; time to crack down again

If there's one thing that frightens lawmakers and their corporate sponsors, it's the idea that hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of low-paid workers might one day realize that millions of low-paid workers have greater electoral power than a few hundred corporate sugar daddies.

It's what led South Carolina's electeds in 1954 to make our state a "right-to-work-for-less" state, meaning that we all have the right to work for the lowest bidder and get fired for any ol' reason.

But every so often, when the social tide seems to move toward the empowerment of the proletariat, our lawmakers step up to the plate again and crack the legislative whip, just to remind us field hands of our place.

I reckon the recent attention paid to the Occupy Wall Street movement, and all the Oscar nominations for "The Help," has spooked some lawmakers, so now is another one of those times. Hence, the opinion-editorial in today's The State.

Every South Carolinian should have the right to make a living for his or her family without being forced to join a union or pay dues.

O, we have that right. What we don't have is any degree of influence or control over our wages, benefits or working conditions because South Carolina is a "right-to-work-for-less" state and prohibits workers from engaging in collective bargaining. That means either we accept what our corporate masters offer us, or we go hungry and homeless, because there's always someone hungry and homeless willing to accept what our corporate masters are offering.

Yay, South Carolina.

We must continue to safeguard this important individual freedom.

Well, how do you kill a mule that's been dead since 1954? Dig it up and shoot it again?

In the House, we recently passed the Right to Work Act of 2012 to strengthen our state’s right-to-work laws. This legislation, which I introduced earlier in the session, garnered bipartisan support and now has headed to the Senate.

Is that the legislation that simply repeats what's been on the books since 1954?

This bill is critical because it updates our laws to make South Carolina the strongest right-to-work state in the nation. While some might characterize it as anti-union, nothing could be further from the truth.

Wait a second: If a piece of legislation isn't anti-union, it's pro-union. Is this a pro-union bill we're talking about? Are we now overturning the old "right-to-work-for-less" statute?

No, that's not what this bill does. So it must be anti-union.

For a moment there, I felt lightheaded and dizzy. Now I realize that when a lawmaker says his bill isn't anti-union, a big load of bovine rhetoric is about to follow.

The purposes of the legislation are to ensure freedom of choice and to level the playing field so that all sides — employees, employers and unions — are protected and armed with knowledge about their rights.

This is very, very funny, because I suspect the folks who are most knowledgeable about their rights are union members. Which is precisely the problem for our lawmakers!

The bill has several important provisions that shore up our existing right-to-work laws.

First and foremost, it gives workers the right to protect their hard-earned paychecks. Under South Carolina’s current right-to-work law, if you join a union and sign up for a payroll deduction, the draft is often irrevocable for a year, even if you resign union membership. The bill lets workers stop payroll deductions any time.

If we applied this logic to cable television service and our utility companies, we could all recoup a nice chunk of change every time the power went out or the cable company took two days getting to our houses. So why not apply this principle to them?

Oh, that's right: Utility companies and the corporate cable giants contribute a lot of money to political campaigns. So they're safe, no matter how expensive it gets when everything in the freezer goes bad after a storm, or when we miss two days of cable service because our managers won't let us take a half-day to wait at home for the cable guy. Boy, it pays to be a powerful corporate entity; you can buy the laws you want.

Workers in a "right-to-work-for-less" state, not so much.

Second, it lets employees hang a poster in their workplaces outlining the fundamental principles of South Carolina’s right-to-work laws.

Hey, can employees hang their own posters outlining the benefits of collective bargaining, or union membership, or just basic run-of-the-mill (pardon the pun) organizing? Mm, I don't see that spelled out here in the op-ed.

And here's another question: Does this mean workers can bring their own handmade, hand-lettered posters to work for this purpose -- you know, to express their creativity? Or must they use a poster produced by their corporate masters for this purpose?

The posters would be available electronically or in hard-copy from the S.C. Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation.

Oh, so no creativity. Must use corporate master's poster or none at all. Aren't these already posted prominently right beside the signs saying, "Don't like minimum wage? Quit!" and "There's a sucker born every day. If you don't know anyone else born on your birthday, it might be you! Now get back to work." And my personal favorite: "Big Brother is watching."

So I thought employers already hung "right-to-work-for-less" posters in their workplaces.

Employers already can hang right-to-work posters, but employees do not have the statutory right to do so. This would give employees and employers equal rights to display a poster if they choose.

Oh, I get it. So if Bertram Wormley, the guy who details all the managers' cars as a side job, wants to post one of these "I love to work for low wages and no benefits" posters, he can do it now, without the boss's approval. Man, that's power.

The bill also seeks to level the playing field for all S.C. businesses that compete for government contracts. Recently, there has been a push at the federal level and in neighboring states to require project-labor agreements, meaning that union-worker quotas are involved when awarding public contracts. Under the new legislation, state and local governments would not be able to require or prohibit project-labor agreements as part of awarding a contract, incentive or tax credit.

So a project-labor agreement is one that requires employers to abide by federal labor laws, and we don't like them, because federal labor laws grant workers more rights than we want workers to have. It's that doggone federal government, intruding again in our mistreatment of poor people. When will it learn to let us run our slave-labor system as we want?

The bill further protects South Carolinians by increasing fines for right-to-work violations, which have not been indexed to inflation, bringing them up to a level that is punitive.

I have to say, I am so glad that we're now getting around to indexing things to inflation, because public employee wages have lagged way behind inflation for generations.

Could we amend that section of the bill to index public employee wages to inflation then, so that every time inflation creeps up, public employees get an automatic bump to keep pace?

Passing the Right to Work Act this year is a critical next step in protecting freedom of association in South Carolina, one of our basic constitutional rights.

Another critical step in protecting freedom of association might be to set aside time every week for workers to receive information about the wages, benefits and working conditions enjoyed by their counterparts in other states. Hey, networking South Carolina's workers with other states' workers is the epitome of freedom of association, isn't it?

Forcing workers to pay union dues to get or keep a job is simply wrong,

and it hasn't been done since 1954, right?

and we must make it a priority as a state to have the strongest right-to-work laws in the country.

Don't we already? I mean, we prohibit collective bargaining so the proles can't negotiate for their own wages, benefits and working condition. We prohibit payroll deduction of dues so the proles have to write their own checks each month. We shoot and kill people who want workers to have the ability to organize themselves -- that was the Honea Path Massacre at Chiquola Mill on September 7, 1934. And we close down plants where workers dare to vote to organize themselves -- that was the Darlington Manufacturing Company, owned by Roger Milliken, in October 1956.

If that doesn't make us the most anti-union, strongest "right-to-work-for-less" state in the union -- oops, the Union -- then I don't know what will.

As the Obama administration is promoting union activity, now is the time for us to send a strong message that South Carolina is a right-to-work state.

I can't think of a single thing the Obama administration has done to promote union activity... and I think everyone, I mean everyone, from Key West to Puget Sound, knows all about what sort of state we have here in South Carolina.

The Senate will be taking up the bill in the coming days and weeks, and I am encouraged that many senators were involved in developing it or have expressed support. Gov. Nikki Haley also has been a vocal advocate.

It gladdens my soul that Haley was able to tear herself away from her service to Mitt Romney's campaign, and from her busy schedule of snubbing the President and First Lady of the United States and attending out-of-state fundraisers at the public expense, to lend her voice to this important issue.

As it moves through the General Assembly, I ask my fellow legislators to make strengthening right to work a top priority this session. In addition, I ask employees and employers to contact your senators to express support for this important bill, which protects freedom of choice in South Carolina.

So it's a pro-choice bill?

Now that's utterly reprehensible.

Press conference brings attention to educator salaries

When was the last time you saw The State and the Charleston Post & Courier publish stories about restoring educator salaries, on the same day?

Both are trailing the Charleston City Paper by a day, but better late than never. Nothing beats a trend, and news of this one may reach the Upstate by this evening or tomorrow.

The spark for this feeding frenzy by the media is a press conference held just a couple of hours ago at the State House, featuring fourth-grader teacher Patrick Hayes of Charleston. Hayes initiated the online petition -- at the advice of his wife, we've now learned -- in frustration at having his salary frozen for four years. Hayes previously taught in California, where he was a member of an educators union, and where educators are accustomed to organizing in support of their interests.

Thanks to that experience, Hayes is a motivated fellow.

Hayes used a fellow teacher, Lindsey Egloft, as an example. Egloft said she makes $36,679 teaching fifth grade at Drayton Hall Elementary. According to the salary schedule or her district -- given the credits she has earned in a Master’s degree program -- Egloft said she should be making $38,050.

Next year, with lawmakers’ 2 percent raise, Egloft said she would be making $37,360.
...
“I’m going to stop talking about this issue when I’m being paid the salary I was promised when I took the job,” Hayes said.

A pretty pithy summary of the press conference, according to non-media sources who were there. Still, it's coverage. Maybe a later iteration will offer more detail of the dialogue between Hayes and Egloft.

The Post & Courier published a bit more background in its report:

His online petition, Restore Teacher Salaries, has amassed nearly 7,000 signatures since he posted it about a month ago, and his goal is to reach 20,000.

"There's a huge well of resentment about the way teachers have taken the brunt of the state's mismanaged finances," Hayes said.

South Carolina has seen a 24.1 percent drop in per-pupil spending from 2008 to 2012, which is the biggest decrease of any state, according to the Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Hayes, a married father of two, isn't one of the district's well-known teacher leaders, but he stays informed on local and statewide issues.

When he heard about the governor's "inflammatory" budget proposal -- which would decrease education funding by nearly $80 million despite a statewide surplus -- he said he felt compelled to act.

Hayes wrote emails to lawmakers and encouraged his co-workers to do the same, and his wife suggested an online petition. He told fewer than 100 people about it, but support grew fast.

"It's the nature of the cuts we've seen the last few years," Hayes said.

Lawmakers have slashed the funds that go to school districts, and they've given local education officials permission to ignore the salary schedule that dictates what teachers are supposed to be paid.

In Charleston, that has meant teachers haven't had a cost-of-living adjustment in three years or a step increase for additional experience in two years.

"It's the only career advancement we have unless we leave teaching and become administrators," Hayes said. "It's not a lot of money, but it's something that's going to happen every year and makes life a little easier."

Charleston County Superintendent Nancy McGinley has said giving teachers the pay they deserve is her No. 1 budget priority, and Hayes said some teachers plan to focus their advocacy on the local school board.

Hayes knows that part of the challenge is raising awareness, and he said a lot will have been accomplished if teachers' salaries can be restored in one year.

"It will take a combination of the state spending more money and districts prioritizing it," he said. "Most people have no idea that this has been going on, but when they hear about it, they want to help."

The State details Zais's parsimony, lack of advocacy

Situations like these make me wish there were cameras in committee rooms, so we could all watch the outright foolishness that occurs in them.

In today's The State, reporter Seanna Adcox adds more details to what we knew about Superintendent Mick Zais's lack of commitment to advocating for South Carolina's public schools and the children they serve.

Zais asked a Ways and Means panel not to cut a key funding stream for classrooms but did not ask for an increase. The so-called base student cost primarily pays teacher salaries. The current per-student allocation is $1,880 because of recession budget cuts, though a state funding formula calls for it to be $2,790 this year.

Noting the economy remains uncertain, Zais told the budget-writing panel his budget request for 2012-13 is largely unchanged from the current budget, with a few exceptions. That included $14.5 million to cover student increases, to prevent a drop in base student cost.

"These dollars go to the classroom, and that's where our priorities should be," Zais said.

With a puzzled expression, Rep. Michael Anthony, D-Union, asked, "Why, then, as state superintendent of our public schools, are you not asking for an increase to catch up?"

Mike Anthony's a straight shooter and a lifelong educator -- one of the precious few serving in the legislature -- and I'm sure he knows hundreds or thousands of educators whose success depends upon adequate funding.

House Minority Leader Harry Ott grilled Zais, repeatedly asking whether he's telling teachers they should go a fourth year without a raise.

The Republican superintendent said he's not sure the money is available, and legislators can provide more than he is requesting.

Budget advisors expect an additional $913.4 million in one-time and recurring revenue because of surplus from the fiscal year that closed June 30, along with more money coming in this fiscal year than legislators budgeted, plus continued growth. But required increases - including property tax relief, health care and reserve funds - gobble up most of that money.

It would cost $553 million to restore the base student cost to $2,790, according to the state budget office.

Ott said the Republican-controlled Legislature is highly unlikely to put any more into public education than Zais seeks.

"Your job is to fight for what you think is important for education. You have to take a position," said Ott, D-St. Matthews. "You get to write your budget for whatever you want. You are the man in charge of the request. We find the money."

Not to put too fine a point on it, but damn right.

Our Constitution authorizes one person -- only one, in the whole vast system of South Carolina's government -- to advocate on behalf of public schools and our children, and Zais won that position. Knowing he's tightfisted and opposes public education, maybe he shouldn't have run for the office. But he did, and he won, and whether or not he likes it, it's his job to tell the legislature how much it's going to cost to bring our public schools up to speed, and to walk the halls in Columbia every day in search of those funds. To do less is to abrogate his responsibility.

One would think that a man who rose to the rank of general in the United States military would understand responsibility and would honor it.

Teachers are usually paid based on their years in the classroom and level of degree. But legislators have suspended the step increases for the last several years. Zais said the Legislature could choose to return to the minimum salary schedule.

"How they make it up is up to them," Zais said.

At best, this is disingenuous of Zais. Our legislative majority isn't going to drop so much as a pecan without someone shaking their tree. As superintendent, you advocate for what you want, and you point out every instance that you don't get it from lawmakers.

For reference, Zais might do well to review the superintendency of Inez Tenenbaum, a superintendent who understood the job. Of course, Inez had been an educator before becoming an administrator. Clearly, it made a difference.

Zais' largest request for additional money - $36 million - would buy enough new school buses to comply with the state's 15-year replacement cycle, so the agency can get buses from the mid-'80s off the road. All but five of the state's 201 buses that date from 1984 through 1987 are for students with disabilities.

He also sought an additional $5 million to keep buses fueled and running. With two-thirds of the agency's fleet more than 15 years old, the buses are expensive to maintain and not fuel-efficient, Zais said.

Last year, the Legislature designated up to $12 million in unclaimed lottery money toward replacing them - overriding Gov. Nikki Haley's veto - but the money depends on how many prizes go unclaimed. So far, the agency has received just $2.2 million, which will buy buses for the School for the Deaf and the Blind in Spartanburg, said Zais spokesman Jay Ragley.

The last time legislators designated money for school buses was 2007, when they approved replacing the statewide fleet every 15 years. That would require buying nearly 380 yearly. But that law has been ignored amid the economic downturn.

The economic downturn has nothing to do with ignoring the school bus law; our legislators ignore laws when the wind blows and when it's still, when it rains and when it shines, when it's day and when it's night. Ignoring a law is taken as a prerogative of holding power.

Seanna, here's a great question whose answer ought to be included as context every time the Educating Finance Act and its base student cost as mentioned: How many years -- and specifically, which ones -- has the EFA's base student cost been fully funded since the law was enacted in 1977? I'm confident that someone in the Rutledge Building could tell you, if Zais would allow his staff to talk to the media. Or, you could file a FOIA request to get the data.

Zais recommends closing an incentive program for teachers earning national certification, which provides an annual bonus of either $5,000 or $7,500 - depending on when they applied - for the 10-year life of the certificate. Nothing would change for teachers already in the program.

Zais said studies indicate the expensive program does not improve student learning, but rather that already-excellent teachers pursue the additional certification.

Indeed, we want to leave behind absolutely no incentive for children to aspire to become teachers, and college students to consider education as a viable and stable career choice, and for education professionals to be compensated for their pursuit of additional credentials and professional development. The quicker we can remove all incentive, the quicker they'll leave the profession and we can get down to the business of closing public schools and selling their assets to private companies.