Out-of-state readers: Welcome, and help!

I've noticed something about the readers of Educating South Carolina over the past year, and it has both entertained and puzzled me: Many of ESC's readers are reading from outside South Carolina.

I don't mean that a bunch of South Carolinians are taking vacations across the border and checking-in via their Blackberries. I mean there have been a good many readers from across the nation, regularly visiting the blog and hanging around a while.

I know this because Blogspot lets me track my readership from day to day, and lets me know where they're reading from. It's a nice thing to know -- and now's probably a good time to say a big howdy to the 29 folks who read regularly from here in South Carolina: Howdy! And thanks for reading.

But let me extend a hearty welcome and ask some questions -- in all good humor and out of sincere curiosity -- of those reading from Far Off: What is it that attracts you to our pain, our heartache, our yearning to be free of foolish shackles, our constant struggles to overcome the kakistocracy of our government, our daily performance of the rites and rituals of living as broad-minded and big-hearted educators in one of the reddest of red states?

Why do you visit?

Of course, South Carolinians make up the lion's share of readers, thankfully. But since January 1 of this year, 453 North Carolinians have stopped by, 250 Georgians, 150-plus Texans, 129 Tennesseans, 128 New Yorkers, 117 Floridians, 104 Ohioans, and 103 Californians. And those are the states from which more than 100 readers have come to the blog these past two and half months. In fact, ESC has been visited by readers from every single state in America since January 1 except one: South Dakota. I reckon South Carolina and South Dakota have enough in common.

Is it schadenfreude? Delectatio morosa? Epicaricacy? I hope that's not it.

Or is it, perhaps, given the current state of affairs across the nation -- thanks to education deform (not reform), "Waiting for Superman," Michelle Rhee and Scott Walker -- are you looking for news from a state that has always had it worse? To offer you guidance on your own downward spiral?

If that's it, come and sit a spell. O, the tales we can tell.

See, educators in South Carolina have never had collective bargaining rights, never had any rights at all. We have had the right to take a tiny little salary and call it a living.

We've had the right to be demoted when a principal or superintendent wanted to give his niece or nephew, fresh from college, a plum role usually earned by a veteran teacher, or in a newly-renovated classroom usually assigned by seniority.

We've had the right to keep working through the flu, and through viruses, because sick leave is hard to come by. We've had the right to pay for our own substitute teachers when we want time off, and have the time to take off, and have a principal who'll let us take it off.

We've had the right to be grateful for our jobs. That's a big right we have. A lot of our colleagues, especially during the past decade, have lost that right through budget cuts that went to pay for corporate tax breaks, because keeping our corporate owners happy is far more important that educating the children of poor and working people.

But I digress. You'll get there soon enough, I know, because South Carolina has always been a sort of anchor, holding our professions and our society in place, somewhere around 1951.

Though many states have journeyed farther ahead -- winning all sorts of rights and benefits, organizing and empowering themselves, rising up to govern and influence their own lives and livelihoods -- we've stayed right here, half wishing that we could be doing the same and half knowing, in the darkest corner of our hearts, that you'd all grow tired soon enough of pulling and pushing for progress, and that when you take your collective eyes off the ball, you'll come snapping backward like a ball on a long rubber string.

We're America's ball and chain. But we come to accept it, adapt to it, even appreciate its familiarity, like that song Annie Lennox sings: "I love you like a ball and chain."

O no, fair readers from Far Off. South Carolina's educators have never been so organized that we could demand better health care benefits, the way that many of you have done in your states. We've operated on the take-what-we-get principle, because to do otherwise might land us on our ear, without pitiful health care benefits AND without a job.

I know that where you live, educators often have time to write books, do research, earn a second doctorate, or take a year's sabbatical and study in Europe. We've envied that.

Not here, no, not here. We're too busy. We've got second and third jobs to work, many of us, because it costs so much to add our families to our state health plan coverage, and that money has to come from somewhere.

Why do we stay here, you ask? Good question. Snow is one good answer; snow and ice tend to corrode the undercarriage of a car, and corrode the good spirits of a happy educator, too. And you may have noticed that many of you from Far Off tend to drive quite differently than we do here -- no offense meant -- and it's just safer to keep off of snowy and icy roads.

Yes, it is funny, I know, when you hear that we've got a little snow shower coming and we race to empty the store shelves of the staples: Milk, bread, peanut butter, moon pies, Little Debbie cakes and batteries. We laugh about that, too, while we're piled up on the sofa, drinking hot chocolate and waiting for those two inches to melt so we can go back to school tomorrow.

So climate has something to do with it. But community has a bigger role to play, I think. We know one another here; even if we don't know one another personally, by name, we know one another culturally speaking.

Within a year, a brand-new teacher in a medium-sized school will learn where all of her colleagues attend church (and if they don't, God forbid, and are in danger of hellfire and torment everlasting), where her colleagues' children are attending college and what teams they root for, who got their jobs by luck or merit and who got them because the superintendent in the next district over has a cousin who works in our district office and a favor got repaid, and which children's parents are regulars in the crime blotter and which ones' parents are "the town" this-or-that (the town lawyer, the town doctor, the town dentist, the town dance instructor, the town clerk, the town police chief, etc).

Though there is misery in public employment, there is some strange comfort in knowing that the misery is shared by many others.

It's familiarity again -- knowing every thing and every one, and knowing that they'll all be the same tomorrow and next year. For some of us, familiarity is like a warm handmade quilt to wrap up in and hide. For others of us, it's one of those heavy Army-surplus wool blankets: never big enough, itchy and too hot, too fast. Those who feel comfortable in it find no reason to leave, despite the misery. Others adapt, sadly and eventually, to the chafing. Those that don't adapt to the chafing do leave and never come back.

Are you, readers from Far Off, the sons and daughters of ones who never adapted to the chafing?

Or are you those who left so long ago, never to return? Are you checking in from time to time, looking for signs that it's okay to come back home?

If you are, then let me tell you this quickly: It's time to come back home. Now. Bring your parents, bring your grown-up children and your still-little children.

I say it's time because we're tired of fighting alone, and because you have a lot to teach us about how you organized and empowered yourselves in Far Off, and won the rights you did.

I say it's time because, frankly, although we say we don't like hearing folks say, "Well, back in New Jersey, here's how we did it," we need to know how you did it -- not everything, but the important things.

I say it's time because things move in cycles, like the pendulum of a clock swinging back and forth. We've been in this present darkness so long that it must be time for the light to come out again soon.

I'm hopeful of it.

Who knows? If enough of you come back, we might soon have enough like-minded ones of us that we can move our state legislature a step back toward progress.

We might soon have enough that we can speed the pendulum along, back to the center.

We might soon have enough that we can pull up that anchor and begin moving forward from 1951, maybe a decade or two.

We might soon have enough that we can lift our old familiar ball and chain, lay it on the anvil, and strike with enough collective force that we can unbind ourselves and our state for good. I know we can't change our history, but with enough people pulling together, we can climb up out of our present and decide our own future.

So, tell me, readers from Far Off: Who are you? What draws you to read here? What advice can you offer us? And when can you come and help?

Our lawmakers giveth, and our lawmakers taketh away

Tears of joy may have erupted across South Carolina last week as a House committee approved a plan to raise state employees' and educators' salaries by two percent (and law enforcement officers' salaries by five percent), effective July 1. These folks have had their incomes frozen by the legislature for years, with some not seeing an increase since 2007.

But they've dried up pretty quickly as the rest of the proposal has come to light.

They would have to pay an extra 4.6 percent for their state health insurance and most likely will have to pay an extra 1 percent of their salaries into the state retirement fund to help make up for its $13 billion deficit.

Result: Net loss in salary.

That's right. Same work, one more year, more students in classes, fewer colleagues to share the burden, greater expectations, fewer resources for classroom instruction, no advocacy from the state's highest-ranking leaders, no rights to take collective action, and for all of this bounty, state employees and educators will take home less pay.

And this is called a good start.

For lawmakers, maybe. It's an election year. There's a budget surplus of nearly a billion dollars. So throwing public workers a bone looks good, feels good, and gets a little media coverage. It's a great day in South Carolina.

But not so great a start for public employees.

For years, Jo Ellen Dowdy, a high school math teacher in Lexington-Richland 5, considered her job as “secondary income” to her husband, a mortgage broker. But when her husband lost his job during the housing crash, their family of four had to depend on Dowdy’s teacher salary.

A raise would “mean a lot,” she said.

“We’ve made it through, but there were a lot of sacrifices to be made,” she said. “The salary should get to the point where a male can raise his family as a teacher instead of having to look at it as a second salary sort of profession.”

But Carlton Washington, executive director of the S.C. State Employee Association, called the pay increase “disappointing and short-sighted.”

For months, lawmakers have said state employees will have to make sacrifices to help resolve the $13 billion deficit in the state’s retirement fund.

“They have a billion dollars in new money this year, and 2 percent is what they recommend?” Washington said. “A 2 percent raise when employees are 20 percent behind inflation and a 4.5 (percent) increase in health insurance last year and a proposed increase in health insurance this year? That (salary) recommendation just does not represent shared sacrifice.”

The 2 percent increase for teachers would apply to all school district employees. It is possible because lawmakers agreed to give an extra $152 million to education in the state’s fiscal year that starts July 1, bringing the basic amount the state pays school systems for each student up to $2,012 from its current $1,880. Most of that money is dedicated for teacher salaries.

“Every single employee is important to the district. Everybody is needed in their role and everybody should be rewarded,” said state Rep. Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington. “With the retirement issues we are all dealing with, if we don’t provide them some remuneration, we are going to be in trouble.”

Update: We're not going to be in trouble. We're in trouble.

We've laid off educators. We've cut public employee rolls. We've furloughed. We've hiked health care premiums. We've done little else but give away massive corporate tax breaks.

The cupboard's bare; even the mice and cockroaches have vacated for Georgia and North Carolina. Now, Providence has defied our regressive tax policies and delivered an additional billion dollars to the kitchen, and the best our chefs can do is serve up some crumbs -- claiming that the meat and potatoes have to go to pay down old obligations.

Law enforcement issues also weighed on the committee.

The state Department of Public Safety had requested $4.2 million to hire an additional 56 officers, including 40 new state troopers. It did not get the money. Instead, its workers would get a 3 percent raise in addition to the 2 percent raise for all state employees, for a total of 5 percent. That raise also applies to Class 1 police officers at the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Probation, Pardon and Parole Services.

“We are losing tenured officers to local governments who are now paying more,” said state Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, chairman of Ways and Means’ Law Enforcement subcommittee.

That extra 3 percent raise does not apply to officers at the State Law Enforcement Division. Instead, lawmakers gave SLED roughly $2.5 million to hire 45 new SLED agents.

“We had a discussion about that. The bottom line is ... I needed the agents to be able to do the jobs that SLED is supposed to be doing,” SLED Chief Mark Keel said, noting the additional raise only would have applied to the agency’s Class 1 police officers, not its full staff.

Here's a thought. How about restoring all the step increases in public employee compensation that have been frozen for the past two, three, four, five years -- all of them, not just two percent's worth of them. And how about addressing class size by bringing back educators to the classrooms?

And if we've lost so many law enforcement officers, how about slicing off a big chunk of revenue to bring back those folks, too?

What? All of that will mean raising revenues on South Carolina's wealthiest? Assessing taxes on fair market value for those mansions on the golf courses? Maybe even levying a millionaire's tax? A luxury tax?

Well, if that's all it takes, what's the hold-up?

What a blessing it is that God gave South Carolina so many blessed entrepreneurs and wealthy folks who can afford to shed a little excess change to help the rest of us. How godly of them to exhibit the generosity. And how blessed we would be to have lawmakers who take seriously their charges to South Carolinians.

Public employees, I guarantee, would settle for only sufficient blessings to have a little money in their pockets at the end of the month, so maybe they could save a little bit, too. They don't need the mansions of gold and titanic yachts and Humvees; I suspect they'd be happy with finishing out their mortgages, knowing their health care is safe and having a little retirement security.

'Haley Public Employment Tax' levied on public employees

From the beginning of her political career -- seems like only months ago -- Governor Nikki Haley has made it clear that she thinks taxes are too high and should be cut.

Which made it stunning news last week to hear that she had initiated, supported and led passage of a brand-new tax on public employees. Apparently, some taxes are good and fine, depending on who is subject to pay them.

This is a tax that only affects public employees, so it is appropriate to call it a Public Employment Tax.

And, as Haley was its inventor, it's entirely appropriate to call it the Haley Public Employment Tax.

It will be interesting to hear Haley deny that it's a tax of her invention; I understand that the proposal came to the Budget and Control Board as an agenda item from her board staff, she gives final approval to the agenda, she chose the director of the board, and she chairs the board. Therefore, it's her proposal, and she led it through to passage by the board.

So the Haley Public Employment Tax is hers to own.

I've read and re-read the coverage by The State to understand this tax:

Families covered by the state’s health insurance plan will pay $143 a year more for health insurance under a new plan approved Tuesday by the State Budget and Control Board.

The 9 percent increase will be spread equally between employees and employers, with each paying 4.5 percent more.

But why was nine percent necessary? According to the board's consultants, only 4.5 percent was necessary, and that was fully funded in the budget this year. Why was it necessary to tax public employees another 4.5 percent out of their pockets?

“We have never increased rates unnecessarily. This is the first time. It is unprecedented in state government,” said Sam Griswold, president emeritus of the State Retirees Association. “To me, you are building a profit into the system.”

Haley denied the system was turning a profit, saying any money left over automatically goes to pay down state pension debt.

Pension debt? Has anyone ever heard of this? If the system is fully funded and healthy, there shouldn't be any such thing as pension debt, should there? Which means that the additional 4.5 percent tax on public employees' salaries is, in fact, a profit to the system.

The insurance plan insures 408,605 people, close to 10 percent of the state’s population. That includes employees, retirees and their families. In addition to state employees, the plan also covers teachers and some employees for local governments and school districts.

Employees covered by the plan were hit with huge increases in the mid 2000s, including a 39.6 percent increase in 2003, according to the Budget and Control Board. Historically, employers – the state, city, county or school system – have borne the brunt of premium increases, with nine increases since 1999. Employees’ costs only have been increased five times since 1999, the last one coming in 2005.

Only five times since 1999? That's five times in 12 years, or, an average of slightly less than every other year during that period.

Henry Price, a retired USC journalism professor, attended Tuesday’s meeting to hear for himself the future of his health insurance premiums. He said he pays about $250 a month for his and his wife’s health insurance, and the increases will add an extra $120 a year to his bill.

“I think 3 1/2 (percent) covers the problem. Four-and-a-half is adding extra money into the system,” Price said. “You can say, ‘Well, it’s just pennies.’ But pennies mount up.”

Quite right. And the net result is going to be that next legislative session, when budget writers see that the health plan is now receiving a profit thanks to the Haley Public Employment Tax, they're going to feel compelled to take back some of the state's employer contribution. Mark my words.

Well, that was The State's coverage, but I trust what Sam Griswold says about public employment and employee benefits. He's the president emeritus of the Retired State Employees Association, and beyond that, he's neck-deep in experience working with the Budget and Control Board and the state treasury.

"The premise of our concern with the increase in health insurance premiums of 4.5% is that they were not needed to fund the program and were thus unnecessary," Sam wrote in a message to retired state employees and others last week.

Sam is so well-versed in this business that he prepared data to present to the Budget and Control Board last week -- but his data never made it into the agenda materials given to the board members, and were not posted on the board's website.

Want to see his data document for yourself?

Enjoy:
Griswold PageAnd here's his explanation of it:

I will explain this page to you and show you why this increase was not needed.

Focus on the two columns labeled Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 (s1 and s2). S1 assumes the imposition of the 4.5% employee rate increase. S2 assumes NO rate increase. The program is required by law to maintain a reserve fund to pay claims for up to 45 days in case an epidemic occurs or some other projection of claims costs is in error. The first line is the amount of that reserve fund being carried over from 2011. The second line is the amount available to pay claims. The difference between the two columns is $19 million and represents the increase of 4.5% from employees in s1.

The third line is interesting. This line transfers $158.9 million out of plan income to the Other Post Employment Benefits Trust Fund. This Fund was set up a couple of years ago to conform to new government accounting standards requiring that the projected cost of providing health insurance to retirees be included in the State's liabilities on its balance sheet. This fund was set up to reflect that the State acknowledged this liability. The law states that each year any funds not needed to run the insurance program will be transferred into the OPEB fund. Last year the transfer was $16 million. So this year, 2012, in this particular line, is $158.9 million not needed to run the insurance program.

Go to the last line in the top box. This is the amount we have available in 2012 to pay claims. S1 is $19 million larger than s2. Your increase.

The second line in the second box shows how much we expect to pay in claims. Subtracting the claims from the revenue ends up with Projected Ending Claims Reserve at 12/31/2012. That amount is $233 million in s1 and $214 million in s2 (your $19 million showing up again and it has NOT been spent). This is the amount of the operating reserve that is supposed to be able to fund an additional 45 days of claims payments if needed.

Now the fun part: go to the bottom line of the third box. This line tells you how many days of reserve we have and the excess days that are funded. Under s1, we see 51.8 days which is 6.8 days more than the 45 day reserve required by law. Under s2 (remember this is the figure with NO rate increase) we see 47.6 days which is 2.6 days more than the 45 day reserve needed.

THE CONCLUSION: Had no increase been imposed on employees/retirees, the program would have had enough funds to pay every claim, maintain an operating reserve that complies with state law--even exceeds it, and still transfer a record amount of $158.9 million into the OPEB Trust Fund. The 4.5% increase on employees/retirees was not needed.

Sam Griswold is no joke.

The same cannot be said for those occupying our seats of power.

So, I wondered if my interpretation of the Haley Public Employment Tax was accurate. And Sam said, "It was an increase not needed by the program to operate at full funding. It is the imposition of a tax."

So there is a tax that Haley has found she can love and can raise. It happens to be levied against all the men and women who do the state's work for meager compensation, and pray daily not to get sick and require health care provided by the state's ever-more-costly, ever-weakening health plan.

Lawmakers disappointed in session, point to Haley

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

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

Rep. Jerry Govan said the same.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Better luck next governor, Rep. Cobb-Hunter.

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

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

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

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

Paris, Munich, New York, and New Delhi is next

In the past month, Governor Nikki Haley has indulged her professed love of travel by visiting Munich, Paris and New York City. This fall, she's headed to India.

The trip to New York took some by surprise, as Her Excellency demanded -- by way of an executive order -- that the General Assembly ignore the sine die joint resolution it adopted in early June and return to Columbia until its work -- as she prescribed it -- was done. The Supreme Court kicked the order to the curb, lawmakers returned to Columbia as they intended and worked through the end of last week to dispatch three dozen vetoes that Haley sent them.

But while lawmakers were doing the governor's laundry, the governor was in New York City. Last I knew, the business of the South Carolina is not conducted in the Big Apple. But Haley was there, spending one day on the business of the Republican Governors Association and the next three days presumably taking Manhattan by storm.

It's not clear what our governor was accomplishing on behalf of South Carolinians for three days in New York City during the July 4 weekend. Most people who didn't have jobs while she was here didn't suddenly have work because of her efforts in New York. Godfrey, her spokesperson, told The State newspaper it was "personal time," and "time with her husband and children."

This is puzzling. For educators and school district employees, "personal time" is time away from work, time spent at home, time grieving the loss of loved ones or addressing other issues of a personal nature. If Haley is, indeed, a state employee now, does "personal time" mean something different for her?

When the governor travels outside the state, a security detail is dispatched to travel with her. Did one travel with her to New York? If so, did her security return when her "business" was finished on Thursday night, or did security go sightseeing in New York with her? Are there photographs? I've never seen the Statue of Liberty in person; I wonder if my tax dollars helped to pay for the Haleys to see it? Did they take in a show on Broadway? Did they go to the top of the Empire State Building?

Will the governor post her photographs so that the rest of South Carolina's children can enjoy vicariously what her own children enjoyed in person?

Oh, to be the child of a jet-setting governor: The fine hotels, the haute cuisine, riding down Fifth Avenue in style, the cameras and attention, the fawning tourists clamoring for autographs, safety provided by South Carolina's finest, all so far from the red clay and dust, the common collards and grits, the humidity and inescapable summer sun, the huddled masses yearning for jobs.

We know from Godfrey, her spokesperson, what Haley didn't do: She didn't meet with her publishers at Sentinel, the "dedicated conservative imprint" of Penguin Books, although Sentinel happened, by coincidence, to announce the publication of Haley's memoir on the first day she spent in New York.

Rep. Leon Stavrinakis is one lawmaker who is as puzzled by the governor's behavior as I am.

Stavrinakis said Haley’s a hypocrite for taking a trip out of state before the budget was completely finalized after she tried to force legislators back into session to restructure government. Haley’s attempts to bring lawmakers back to Columbia, saying they hadn’t finished their work for the year, failed under a ruling by the state Supreme Court in early June.

“If she is going to chastise legislators and try to cost the state tens of thousands to try to bring us back to Columbia, then she needs to be there, too,” he said.
...
Her public schedule, released Tuesday, made no mention of her trip to New York but lists on Thursday three RGA meetings, three calls for the group and a newspaper interview that spanned from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. The schedule does not list any events for Friday.

The Legislature adjourned Wednesday after the House and Senate voted on the budget vetoes.

The governor did not respond to questions about her decision to leave the state during part of the budget veto discussion.

She may not be answering questions from South Carolina's reporters, but Her Excellency granted an "exclusive" interview to reporters for India Abroad, "the oldest and most widely-circulated Indian-American weekly newspaper." This is the same newspaper who named Haley the 2010 India Abroad Person of the Year at a dazzling ceremony in the Cotillion Ballroom ("the setting for Al Pacino's memorable tango scene from Scent Of A Woman") and the Grand Ballroom of New York's The Pierre.

It isn't surprising that Haley would grant an interview to India Abroad -- after all, it published an item titled 'South Carolina laps up Nikki Haley' after her primary victory in 2010 -- but it is surprising to read how Haley characterizes South Carolina to the foreign media.

Let's consider, for example, the word "progressive." There was once a "Progressive" movement in America, "with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women."

Wikipedia notes further that

Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Alan Grayson, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and Paul Wellstone.

Clearly, "progressive" is a term that has specific meanings in American culture.

Yet, when India Abroad asked Haley to comment on what her election proved about negativity and racism in the South, Haley answered, "South Carolina is not the label that people have given. It is a very progressive state; it's a very smart state." One assumes that South Carolina is progressive and smart because it elected Haley its governor; had it not, we might all still be negative and racist.

Ready for more? Says India Abroad: "And now with a clear-eyed agenda for America, she's thinking of revisiting her roots. In October, she plans to visit India and her focus is clear."

Clear-eyed agenda for America? Seven months in the Governor's Mansion and she's already measuring for drapes in the White House?

Pop quiz: What nation has the most-educated populace? Let's ask a national leader with a "clear-eyed agenda for America."

What I want people to know about the Indian American community is that they are the most educated, they make the most money per capita, they are the ones least dependent on government assistance. And the fact that I am most proud of -- they give more to charity than any other minority in the country. And I want the entire world to know that.

So the answer is not America? Since when was the answer not plainly, simply, America?

Following an earlier interview with India Abroad, the writer characterized former Governor Mark Sanford as Haley's mentor. But in this exchange, it appears clear that Haley (a) has done a good job communicating to India her opposition to President Barack Obama and to health care for all Americans, and (b) isn't afraid of pushing Sanford under the bus:

Q: You were among the newly elected governors who met US President Barack Obama just weeks after being sworn into office. You had no compunctions in expressing your strong reservations and concerns about his health care reform bill. Will you continue to try to overturn it in South Carolina even though there was all this criticism that yes, you've spoken out against it, but you had no compunctions in accepting federal money?

A: Well, first of all, the previous administration accepted federal money. I did not. But what I would tell you is we have to look at our states and ask 'How do we get the most health care for the least amount of money?'

Haley, the national leader with the "clear-eyed agenda for America," also opined on immigration, an issue that must weigh heavily on the mind of South Carolina's chief executive. In a nutshell, Haley opposes letting any new immigrants into the country unless "they put in the time, they put in the money," and they are professionals. To let in immigrants who don't "put in the time, ...put in the money" is "offensive" to Haley's parents, she reports, and presumably to Haley.

She explains,

What we do need is professionals. We do need workers that we can't find in this country. That's the reason you expand the worker visa programme. That's the key to making sure that we get who we need.

Yes, we need more professionals, we need more researchers, we need more engineers and we need more help. But we need to make sure that the worker visa programme is a good one, so that we can bring them over easily and we know exactly who's documented and who's not.

To make it crystal clear: Investing in South Carolina's children so that those who want to attend college and become professionals is a bad thing; it shouldn't be a high priority in South Carolina's budget, and to invest more dollars in the education of South Carolina's children risks a veto from the governor.

But the same governor wants to expand a worker visa program so that we can bring more -- but specific -- foreign nationals into the United States to assume highly-skilled, high-paying jobs here.

If there's another way to read Haley's public pronouncements -- both here in South Carolina's media and in the foreign press -- I'm delighted to hear it.

In her expansive, exclusive interview with India Abroad, Haley comments on several other matters. No, she won't run for vice president. No, she's not going to endorse Sarah Palin for president yet. Yes, she's going to India in October, "taking a very high-powered trade delegation" with her.

No, seriously. The governor of South Carolina had this exchange with India Abroad:

Q: So, you will be taking a very high-powered trade delegation with you?

A: Absolutely, with the whole emphasis of trying to see how much trade we can bring to the United States.

That's well and fine. South Carolinians need jobs. Foreign investment may help our economy. I suspect our Treasurer, Curtis Loftis, will be pleased if Haley's "clear-eyed agenda for America" includes an improvement in our economy.

But Haley offered one more note that may intrigue the good folks at the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the working-class folks who don't get to spend a long weekend in Manhattan on the taxpayers' dimes when they feel like it.

Said Her Excellency to India Abroad:

We are a great state; great pro-business state. The cost of doing business in South Carolina is low, our trained work force is great. We keep the unions out so a lot of companies want to come to the state and invest in aerospace, automotive, research and development. So, I am heavily recruiting. Since I've taken office, we've brought 7,000 jobs. The unemployment number is down for the fourth time in a row. Exports are up, tourism is up and it would only make sense that we go to India and say, 'We want you here, we welcome you here, please come to South Carolina.'

Keeping unions out, but importing more foreign professionals on worker visas.

Demanding our lawmakers stay in town to finish the job, but taking the family for a long weekend in New York City.

Seven months in our chief executive's office, but traveling the world "with a clear-eyed vision for America."

Vetoing funds for children and working South Carolinians, but declaring to the world that we're a "progressive" state.

Unemployment has resurged under her administration, but says unemployment has dropped under her administration.

Hasn't finished a full term in office, yet publishing a memoir on the state's time.

Who, exactly, did we elect governor?

And what, by the way, was the total cost of the Haley family vacation to New York during the July 4 weekend, including the costs of security, paid by taxpayers?