How corporate greed, neglect of public education doom America

Sunday's New York Times observes symptoms of distress and diagnoses an illness in America.

Problem is, corporate interests own the cure and choose not to administer it to us.

The text is extensive, but here are a few of the highlights. Read and weep.

When Barack Obama joined Silicon Valley’s top luminaries for dinner in California last February, each guest was asked to come with a question for the president.

But as Steven P. Jobs of Apple spoke, President Obama interrupted with an inquiry of his own: What would it take to make iPhones in the United States?

Not long ago, Apple boasted that its products were made in America. Today, few are. Almost all of the 70 million iPhones, 30 million iPads and 59 million other products Apple sold last year were manufactured overseas.

Why can’t that work come home? Mr. Obama asked.

Mr. Jobs’s reply was unambiguous. “Those jobs aren’t coming back,” he said, according to another dinner guest.

The president’s question touched upon a central conviction at Apple. It isn’t just that workers are cheaper abroad. Rather, Apple’s executives believe the vast scale of overseas factories as well as the flexibility, diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers have so outpaced their American counterparts that “Made in the U.S.A.” is no longer a viable option for most Apple products.
...
One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. Apple had redesigned the iPhone’s screen at the last minute, forcing an assembly line overhaul. New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.

A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames.

Did you catch that? Company has a factory. Factory workers don't live in homes, they live in factory dormitories -- ones that house eight thousand individuals. When materials arrived near midnight, the workers were rousted from bed, given "a biscuit and a cup of tea" and sent to work for a 12-hour shift.

That's not employment; that's slavery by some prettier name.

Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

If that is true, it may be because we do not engage in a sort of slavery sanctioned by a hybrid corporate-federal government.

But while Apple is far from alone, it offers a window into why the success of some prominent companies has not translated into large numbers of domestic jobs. What’s more, the company’s decisions pose broader questions about what corporate America owes Americans as the global and national economies are increasingly intertwined.

“Companies once felt an obligation to support American workers, even when it wasn’t the best financial choice,” said Betsey Stevenson, the chief economist at the Labor Department until last September. “That’s disappeared. Profits and efficiency have trumped generosity.”

Truly, "Made in America" was once a rallying cry, an ad campaign and a deciding factor in how consumers spent their money. Now it's a wistful memory.

Over the holidays, I received a Sunbeam heating blanket that worked for three days before quitting. It was returned and replaced with a duplicate, which worked less than a week. With a call to the Sunbeam customer service line, I learned that all of the component parts of the blanket, from the fabric to the heating elements, to the controller, were manufactured in China and shipped to a factory in Waynesboro, Mississippi, to be packaged and distributed to retailers. At one time, I complained, Sunbeam was an American company and made American products. Response: Sunbeam makes American products that are manufactured in China and packaged in America for distribution.

Which is not the same. The difference stems from nothing more than corporate greed.

That's greed exhibited by corporate interests who criticize our public schools for not turning out trained assembly-line slaves.

Though Americans are among the most educated workers in the world, the nation has stopped training enough people in the mid-level skills that factories need, executives say.

To thrive, companies argue they need to move work where it can generate enough profits to keep paying for innovation.

Once, we prized innovation and genius for its capacity to strengthen our nation. Now, we define innovation and genius by its capacity to generate corporate profits and by nothing else. A century ago, Western civilization produced an Einstein who, given time and resources to apply himself to thinking, revolutionized science. Today, that Einstein would be arrested in intellectual development and made a corporate slave -- on an assembly line, given biscuits and tea, for a 12-hour shift.

Left to their own devices, corporate interests in America would transform public education into public workplace training centers. Haven't they already begun?

In its early days, Apple usually didn’t look beyond its own backyard for manufacturing solutions. A few years after Apple began building the Macintosh in 1983, for instance, Mr. Jobs bragged that it was “a machine that is made in America.” In 1990, while Mr. Jobs was running NeXT, which was eventually bought by Apple, the executive told a reporter that “I’m as proud of the factory as I am of the computer.” As late as 2002, top Apple executives occasionally drove two hours northeast of their headquarters to visit the company’s iMac plant in Elk Grove, Calif.

But by 2004, Apple had largely turned to foreign manufacturing. Guiding that decision was Apple’s operations expert, Timothy D. Cook, who replaced Mr. Jobs as chief executive last August, six weeks before Mr. Jobs’s death. Most other American electronics companies had already gone abroad, and Apple, which at the time was struggling, felt it had to grasp every advantage.

In this sense, Apple was a late-adopter of the manufactured-abroad model, the very opposite of the other corporate behemoth that may as well be credited with creating that model: Wal-Mart. Nearly three decades ago, locally-based media outlets were documenting the demise of locally-owned retailers as Wal-Mart moved in, soaked up the customer base and starved Mom-and-Pop competitors. Its secret was its business model, buying and retailing the products of Third-World countries at bargain-basement prices and targeting the working class, those hardest-hit by economic instability. Its success, of course, was historic, astronomical.

And our most recent governor promoted it more than he promoted his own state, certainly attended to its needs more than he attended to the needs of South Carolina's working poor.

Trying to find American-made, American-manufactured products in a Wal-Mart today is like searching for needles in haystacks.

For Mr. Cook, the focus on Asia “came down to two things,” said one former high-ranking Apple executive. Factories in Asia “can scale up and down faster” and “Asian supply chains have surpassed what’s in the U.S.” The result is that “we can’t compete at this point,” the executive said.

I suspect not. How many American companies could demand that their workers live in factory-owned dormitories and be run out of bed with a half-hour's notice before starting a 12-hour shift?

Oh, that's right. We had mills in South Carolina, and mill villages, and the control that mill owners demanded over their workers in the villages looked and sounded an awful lot like the Times is describing in today's China. But all that ended when the mills were bought up by multi-national conglomerates and private equity firms -- paging Mitt Romney -- and shipped overseas.

It's not an issue of supply chains; it's an issue of control and profit.

The impact of such advantages became obvious as soon as Mr. Jobs demanded glass screens in 2007.

For years, cellphone makers had avoided using glass because it required precision in cutting and grinding that was extremely difficult to achieve. Apple had already selected an American company, Corning Inc., to manufacture large panes of strengthened glass. But figuring out how to cut those panes into millions of iPhone screens required finding an empty cutting plant, hundreds of pieces of glass to use in experiments and an army of midlevel engineers. It would cost a fortune simply to prepare.

Then a bid for the work arrived from a Chinese factory.

When an Apple team visited, the Chinese plant’s owners were already constructing a new wing. “This is in case you give us the contract,” the manager said, according to a former Apple executive. The Chinese government had agreed to underwrite costs for numerous industries, and those subsidies had trickled down to the glass-cutting factory. It had a warehouse filled with glass samples available to Apple, free of charge. The owners made engineers available at almost no cost. They had built on-site dormitories so employees would be available 24 hours a day.

The Chinese plant got the job.

“The entire supply chain is in China now,” said another former high-ranking Apple executive. “You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That’s the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away. You need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours.”

And we reward such companies with record-breaking profits, quarter after quarter after quarter, while our own college graduates move back home because there are no jobs to find.

For all the derision that our corporate masters gave China -- in fact, didn't they call it "Communist China" for years? -- they now seem quite comfortable with "communist China" and the record profits to be realized from collaboration with a government that fully subsidizes its national industries, and fully controls its workforce.

Let's hear it for the red, white and blue.

An eight-hour drive from that glass factory is a complex, known informally as Foxconn City, where the iPhone is assembled. To Apple executives, Foxconn City was further evidence that China could deliver workers — and diligence — that outpaced their American counterparts.

That’s because nothing like Foxconn City exists in the United States.

The facility has 230,000 employees, many working six days a week, often spending up to 12 hours a day at the plant. Over a quarter of Foxconn’s work force lives in company barracks and many workers earn less than $17 a day. When one Apple executive arrived during a shift change, his car was stuck in a river of employees streaming past. “The scale is unimaginable,” he said.

Foxconn employs nearly 300 guards to direct foot traffic so workers are not crushed in doorway bottlenecks. The facility’s central kitchen cooks an average of three tons of pork and 13 tons of rice a day. While factories are spotless, the air inside nearby teahouses is hazy with the smoke and stench of cigarettes.

Foxconn Technology has dozens of facilities in Asia and Eastern Europe, and in Mexico and Brazil, and it assembles an estimated 40 percent of the world’s consumer electronics for customers like Amazon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Motorola, Nintendo, Nokia, Samsung and Sony.

“They could hire 3,000 people overnight,” said Jennifer Rigoni, who was Apple’s worldwide supply demand manager until 2010, but declined to discuss specifics of her work. “What U.S. plant can find 3,000 people overnight and convince them to live in dorms?”

The factory houses its workers, feeds its workers, pays its workers $17 a day and demands 12-hour shifts, six days a week.

And our own federal government can't agree that education is a national necessity, and our state government begrudges such funding as it appropriated in 1995 to support public schools in 2012. Is the disconnect not obvious?

In mid-2007, after a month of experimentation, Apple’s engineers finally perfected a method for cutting strengthened glass so it could be used in the iPhone’s screen. The first truckloads of cut glass arrived at Foxconn City in the dead of night, according to the former Apple executive. That’s when managers woke thousands of workers, who crawled into their uniforms — white and black shirts for men, red for women — and quickly lined up to assemble, by hand, the phones. Within three months, Apple had sold one million iPhones. Since then, Foxconn has assembled over 200 million more.

So in addition to housing and feeding its workers, the factory also clothes them -- and color-coordinates them by gender.

Control and profit.

Companies like Apple “say the challenge in setting up U.S. plants is finding a technical work force,” said Martin Schmidt, associate provost at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In particular, companies say they need engineers with more than high school, but not necessarily a bachelor’s degree. Americans at that skill level are hard to find, executives contend. “They’re good jobs, but the country doesn’t have enough to feed the demand,” Mr. Schmidt said.

Absolutely false. Such graduates are not hard to find; they simply demand more in compensation, as a class, than corporate entities are willing to pay in America -- which is true across many professions, including education.

Furthermore, if supply is a challenge, consider for a moment that output is dependent upon input. When you deprive children of adequate education in their formative years, you shouldn't complain when they don't magically present themselves as engineers when you want engineers.

And when the costs of attending college to earn advanced degrees are prohibitive, and student aid is not a Congressional budget priority, and graduating with a bachelor's degree alone leaves young people with tens of thousand of dollars in debt, don't whine that you can't find enough engineers with doctorates. Perhaps if we redirected our national resources -- let's say the amount of a war or two -- to promoting education from early childhood through advanced graduate studies, we might do ourselves a favor.

It's a radical idea, but it worked well enough from the Roosevelt to the Johnson administrations, and America was the choicest place on the planet for corporate interests.

Modernization has always caused some kinds of jobs to change or disappear. As the American economy transitioned from agriculture to manufacturing and then to other industries, farmers became steelworkers, and then salesmen and middle managers. These shifts have carried many economic benefits, and in general, with each progression, even unskilled workers received better wages and greater chances at upward mobility.

But in the last two decades, something more fundamental has changed, economists say. Midwage jobs started disappearing. Particularly among Americans without college degrees, today’s new jobs are disproportionately in service occupations — at restaurants or call centers, or as hospital attendants or temporary workers — that offer fewer opportunities for reaching the middle class.

Would you like fries with that?

Are South Carolina's wealthy more selfish than the rest?

This note is not about Nikki Haley or Mick Zais -- in the strictest sense of the words, anyway -- but it may be about their campaign contributors.

Reporter Brian Alexander, writing at MSNBC online, describes a recent series of studies that reveal significant findings about the wealthy members of our communities.

Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different, and not in a good way: Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish. In fact, he says, the philosophical battle over economics, taxes, debt ceilings and defaults that are now roiling the stock market is partly rooted in an upper class "ideology of self-interest."

“We have now done 12 separate studies measuring empathy in every way imaginable, social behavior in every way, and some work on compassion and it’s the same story,” he said. “Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”

In an academic version of a Depression-era Frank Capra movie, Keltner and co-authors of an article called “Social Class as Culture: The Convergence of Resources and Rank in the Social Realm,” published this week in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, argue that “upper-class rank perceptions trigger a focus away from the context toward the self….”

In other words, rich people are more likely to think about themselves. “They think that economic success and political outcomes, and personal outcomes, have to do with individual behavior, a good work ethic,” said Keltner, a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley.

Because the rich gloss over the ways family connections, money and education helped, they come to denigrate the role of government and vigorously oppose taxes to fund it.

“I will quote from the Tea Party hero Ayn Rand: “‘It is the morality of altruism that men have to reject,’” he said.

Whether or not Keltner is right, there certainly is a “let them cake” vibe in the air. Last week The New York Times reported on booming sales of luxury goods, with stores keeping waiting lists for $9,000 coats and the former chairman of Saks saying, “If a designer shoe goes up from $800 to $860, who notices?”

According to Gallup, Americans earning more than $90,000 per year continued to increase their consumer spending in July while middle- and lower-income Americans remained stalled, even as the upper classes argue that they can’t pay any more taxes. Meanwhile, the gap between the wealthiest and the rest of us continues to grow wider, with over 80 percent of the nation’s financial wealth controlled by about 20 percent of the people.

Unlike the rich, lower class people have to depend on others for survival, Keltner argued. So they learn “prosocial behaviors.” They read people better, empathize more with others, and they give more to those in need.

That’s the moral of Capra movies like “You Can’t Take It With You,” in which a plutocrat comes to learn the value of community and family. But Keltner, author of the book “Born To Be Good: The Science of A Meaningful Life,” doesn’t rely on sentiment to make his case.

He points to his own research and that of others. For example, lower class subjects are better at deciphering the emotions of people in photographs than are rich people.

In video recordings of conversations, rich people are more likely to appear distracted, checking cell phones, doodling, avoiding eye contact, while low-income people make eye contact and nod their heads more frequently signaling engagement.

In one test, for example, Keltner and other colleagues had 115 people play the “dictator game,” a standard trial of economic behavior. “Dictators” were paired with an unseen partner, given ten “points” that represented money, and told they could share as many or as few of the points with the partner as they desired. Lower-class participants gave more even after controlling for gender, age or ethnicity.

Keltner has also studied vagus nerve activation. The vagus nerve helps the brain record and respond to emotional inputs. When subjects are exposed to pictures of starving children, for example, their vagus nerve typically becomes more active as measured by electrodes on their chests and a sensor band around their waists. In recent tests, yet to be published, Keltner has found that those from lower-class backgrounds have more intense activation.

Other studies from other researchers have not produced the clear-cut results Keltner uses to advance his argument. In surveys of charitable giving, some show that low-income people give more, but other studies show the opposite.

“The research regarding income and helping behaviors has always been little bit mixed,” explained Meredith McGinley, a professor of psychology at Pittsburgh’s Chatham University.

Then there is the problem of Tea Partiers’ own class position. While they are funded by the wealthy, many do not identify themselves as wealthy (though there is dispute on the real demographics). Still, a strong allegiance to the American Dream can lead even regular folks to overestimate their own self-reliance in the same way as rich people.

As behavioral economist Mark Wilhelm of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis pointed out, most people could quickly tell you how much they paid in taxes last year but few could put a dollar amount on how they benefited from government by, say, driving on interstate highways, taking drugs gleaned from federally funded medical research, or using inventions created by people educated in public schools.

There is one interesting piece of evidence showing that many rich people may not be selfish as much as willfully clueless, and therefore unable to make the cognitive link between need and resources. Last year, research at Duke and Harvard universities showed that regardless of political affiliation or income, Americans tended to think wealth distribution ought to be more equal.

The problem? Rich people wrongly believed it already was.

Deadline passes; Zais, Haley agree on destruction of public schools

Albert Einstein was one sharp cookie cutter. Without ever visiting South Carolina or meeting General Mick Zais, Einstein once said, "The world has become a dangerous place to live in, not because of some evil men, but because of the many that do not do anything about it."

It is very sad that Zais, Her Excellency Nikki Haley and others are so intent on leaving their mark on South Carolina that they don’t care if that mark is a scar. And we -- yes, we, those who vote and those who don't vote -- enable these despots by giving them public office, access to the machinery of public government.

This morning's The State brings an item that revealed several key thoughts for the day.

One is that too few of us are bothered to stand up and speak out for what is important. When the U.S. Department of Education got tired of playing "will he or won't he" with Zais, it set a midnight deadline on August 15 for him to act or lose $144 million in federal dollars to pay for teaching positions. So a protest was organized at the Rutledge Building, where Zais is encamped, and only a few dozen people came.

Yes, it was the first day of school. But not everyone is in school, or works in a school; everyone does, on the other hand, have a material interest in the progress of South Carolina's public schools.

Another fact is that the $144 million that Zais threw away doesn't represent some ideological victory for him, only rank stupidity. Those millions won't come back to South Carolina's taxpayers. They will go instead to the public schools of other states, and Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Perhaps, if we go to Hilton Head Island and listen intently enough, we may be able to hear thousands of little Puerto Rican children shouting, "Thank you, South Carolina taxpayers," from across the water.

Another fact is that South Carolina, of all the 50 states, was the only one in the Union who lacked the capacity to get a job done.

The money comes from the Education Jobs Fund, which has $10 billion to be divided up among all 50 states, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico. Governors had to apply for the money by September 2010. South Carolina and Wyoming did not apply, and the Texas application was denied because of an amendment in the bill that only affected Texas.

The Texas congressional delegation eventually got the amendment repealed, and Texas received $830 million. In Wyoming, while the governor declined the money, school districts applied separately and were awarded $17.5 million.

South Carolina needed to change federal law to receive its money. To be eligible, states had to meet one of four tests regarding funding for K-12 education and higher education. South Carolina met the K-12 funding standards, but did not meet the higher-education standards, according to Zais spokesman Jay W. Ragley. The Legislature controls funding for higher education.

Last year, when Democrats still controlled the House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, then the third-ranking House member, and U.S. Rep. John Spratt, then the chairman of the House budget committee, tried and failed to change the law so South Carolina would be eligible for the money.

South Carolina will be the only state not to receive the federal education money, which so far has saved or created 110,099 education jobs, according to federaltransparency.gov. Instead, South Carolina’s money might be divided up among other states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, according to an Aug. 5 letter to Zais from Ann Whalen, director of policy and program implementation for the U.S. Department of Education.

The best that Zais could do was write a letter of his own -- most likely written by Ragley, or another flack, and only signed by Zais -- in which General Zais made the grandiose declaration: "South Carolina can meet our educational challenges without micromanagement by the federal government."

If Ragley wrote this, he demonstrates that despite his Ohio upbringing and education, he's a passable student of South Carolina history and has a gift for mimicry of our state's epic demagogues. His statement's grandiosity matches perfectly the defiant tone, for example, of Governor "Pitchfork" Ben Tillman in 1890: "The whites have absolute control of the government, and we intend at any hazard to retain it."

And Governor Coleman Blease in 1911: "I am opposed to white people's taxes being used to educate Negroes. I am a friend of the Negro race. The white people of the South are the best friends to the Negro race. In my opinion, when the people of this country began to try to educate the Negro they made a serious and grave mistake, and I fear the worst result is yet to come. So why continue?"

And Governor Olin D. Johnston in 1944, following the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith v. Allwright: "History has taught us that we must keep our white Democratic primaries pure and unadulterated so that we might protect the welfare and homes of all the people of our state. White supremacy will be maintained in our primaries. Let the chips fall where they may."

And Governor Strom Thurmond in 1948: "There's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the Negro race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Of course, these demagogueries are explicit about their subject matter. But South Carolina's premier message man, taught us how to say the same thing using different words: "You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N***, n***, n***.' By 1968 you can't say 'n***' — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N***, n***'."

That's Lee Atwater, Newberry College Class of 1970, which brings us back around again to Zais, who warmed the seat of Newberry College's presidency from 1999 to 2009: "South Carolina can meet our educational challenges without micromanagement by the federal government." The words are different, aren't they?

But The State added one more significant factor is its reporting today: Haley's steadfast support for her man at the state department.

Haley, who was at Daniel Island Monday for a bill-signing, told reporters she supports Zais’ position. “I trust what he is doing is right,” Haley said, according to a video of her comments her staff posted on YouTube. “He is trying to get our education house in order so that the dollars are going into the classroom and so we are not as dependent on federal dollars in a way that we don’t need to be for our kids. So I support him on that and will continue to support him on that.”

First, since when is it necessary for the governor of South Carolina to travel to Daniel Island to sign a bill? Two months after the legislature has vacated Columbia? The State and others should call this what it is, whether it's a fundraising junket, a family beach trip or a photo opportunity in support of the governor's perpetual campaign plan.

"Getting our educational house in order," Haley said: another example of an Atwater abstraction. Doing so begins with destruction of the foundation, it appears: Eliminate as many teachers as possible, and the whole enterprise will fail, and then we can build an education system entirely in the private sector, with its profit margins for campaign contributors.

Meanwhile, Zais's mouthpiece spins and spins:

Ragley said that while the state will not receive the latest federal money, school districts did see an increase in how much the state spends per student, up to $1,788 this year from $1,615 last year. The $1,788 does not include $92 per student in one-time money. Per-pupil spending is down from its high of $2,476 a student in 2008.

“South Carolina school districts have to come to realize they have to do more with less,” Ragley said.

More with less. We're already doing without a governor and a state superintendent of education, and without adequate funding. Even Pharoah provided the Hebrews with mud when he took away the straw for brick-making.

More with less is an exercise in futility, which was not lost on one of yesterday's protestors:

Duffy Allen, a retired teacher from Newberry County schools, said she knew South Carolina would not receive the money. But she came to protest anyway, because “public education is my heart and soul.”

“I do feel like it’s futile,” she said. “But it’s necessary to still make your voice heard.”

South Carolina accepts $125M in federal funding -- for sand

If anyone still labors under the misimpression that South Carolina has a state Superintendent of Education, their delusion shall have no leg to support it past midnight tonight, the deadline for General Mick Zais to request our waiver for $144 million in federal funds -- South Carolinians' own tax money, set aside by Congress for South Carolinians to spend on saving teachers' jobs.

Zais, supported by Her Excellency Nikki Haley, has decried the federal funding as "intrusion" into the state's affairs. Such federal "intrusion" must be repelled.

And he's had aid and comfort from South Carolina's two meager contributions to the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint and Lindsay Graham, neither of which has lifted a finger -- in public, Senator Graham, in public -- to support the state's beleaguered schoolchildren and their educators against the despot occupying the Rutledge Building.

DeMint, in particular, has sharpened his teeth on the topic of Congressional earmarks -- those damnable set-asides of funding for goody-goody purposes by members of Congress who would rather not hear their pet project debated aloud on the floor for all to hear. Of course, in the case of the education jobs bill, there was plenty of open debate on the floor; no earmark was this appropriation. It got the full treatment.

But hark! Word comes from Washington that SOMEone allowed a little funding to slip through, SOMEone whistled and looked the other way while a whole hundred and twenty-five millions dollars in federal funds -- government intrusion, I swear it -- has come creeping into the state to pay for -- wait for it... wait for it... -- SAND.

Sand. Sand that will be poured onto our beaches and washed away by the tides. Sand, and $125 million worth of it.

The incapable ideologues warming our state's seats in Congress cannot be bothered to shake Zais or Haley into agreement over saving South Carolina jobs, but they're of one accord on the importance of trucking $125 million worth of sand into a state that sits on the Atlantic coast.

MULTI-MILLION-dollar bridges to nowhere — whether they’re in Alaska or South Carolina’s Pee Dee — make easy, and appropriate, examples of wasteful federal spending. But how much do we gain when we eliminate such boondoggles in order to spend millions of dollars throwing sand into the ocean?

The Associated Press reports that the moratorium on congressional earmarks has freed up so much money that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be able to spend $125 million this year on beach renourishment — about $25 million more than in recent years.

We understand why the state of South Carolina and coastal communities would spend money pouring sand on the beach: Tourism is our state’s top industry, our main draw is white, sandy beaches, and so an argument can be made that artificially maintaining those beaches is simply a smart investment, even though the physics of coastal islands means that the process must be repeated every decade or so.
...
It’s particularly galling that federal tax money would be spent on beach renourishment when our government is borrowing 39 cents out of every dollar and necessary programs face the possibility of deep cuts to reduce that number.

Yes, and when our own leaders refuse $144 million that would actually result in jobs.

Next time you go to the beach, build a little sandcastle in honor of the veteran educators in your community. Make sure you stay long enough to watch the tide roll in and take the little castle away, just as South Carolina's leaders have taken away vital careers from veteran classroom educators and left them to count in the unemployment figures.

Foolish law harms some, helps others in Dorchester 2

This article from the Summerville Journal Scene tells the story, but the root of the problem is asinine. Bottom line: If you've never taught in Dorchester District 2 and you want to teach there, now's the time to apply.

Dorchester District 2 is facing the challenge of finding and hiring up to 25 high school teachers by the time school starts in mid August.

The district learned it would receive an additional $1.3 million for its operating budget after the State Legislature and Dorchester County Council passed their final budgets well into June.

The trouble is that state law requires existing certified employees to renew their annual contract by May 15 if they want to remain employed in the same district, school officials said.

Only teachers new to DD2 can be hired at this point.

See the asinine part? Teachers who believed they wouldn't have a job in August obviously didn't renew their contracts. (What contracts? Who are we kidding? It's a letter of intent, not a real contract.) Now, thanks to a foolish state law that protects school districts at the expense of giving individual educators their freedom, and thanks to lawmakers who couldn't get the job done in a reasonable time, those who didn't renew letters of intent for imaginary jobs are now shut out of employment.

I hope, oh, I hope they qualify for unemployment benefits and are being counted in the 10.5 percent unemployment that the Haley administration has racked up in seven short months.

The additional funding allows the district to hire 25 much-needed high school teachers if high quality candidates are available, Raynor said. The timing presents a challenge because so many teachers have already signed contracts, she said.

“If we don’t get teachers, we need to put money aside for the year after that,” Superintendent Joe Pye said. “It is now the middle of July. School starts in a month. There is a shortage of high school math and science teachers.

“We’re lucky if we can find one . . . let alone four or five English and social studies. We really need 10 of each. We’re only going to do half of those now.”

Pye said he hopes to have all 25 teachers hired by the end of the school year, but says 15 is a more realistic number. For now, Pye can hire recently certified teachers or teachers moving into the community.

Come on, recent college graduates. Dorchester's a pretty spot, and if you don't claim those jobs, Teach for America will see the place as a prime expansion opportunity.

Want to hear the worst part of this self-inflicted debacle?

To cope with severe federal and state funding cuts two years ago, the DD2 district office decided to reduce 60 high school teaching positions through attrition to save $2.8 million.

“That meant they had to teach 25 to 30 more children,” Pye said.

Teachers started teaching 180 students a day instead of 150 and were given six classes a day instead of five.

“We’re trying to bring back some of the things we cut,” Pye said.

The district added 13 teachers in its original budget, but needs another 47 before schedules can be changed to five classes per day, according to Pye.

Even if 25 teachers were miraculously hired before Aug. 15, another 23 would still be needed to restore cuts from two years ago.

“I am committed to putting the teachers there and I’m not going to stop until I get the 45 there. We just don’t have the teachers out there applying. We have an opening in math we’ve been trying to fill for one month and we finally got it filled. Now I’m going to need six or eight more math teachers for all the high schools.”

What the district can do is begin to reduce class size, Pye said.

“At the end of the day teachers will be teaching less students than they once did. Then we’ll drop teacher caseload average of 180 down to 150.”

Unnecessary budget cuts led to unnecessarily high class sizes. Now unnecessary delays in passing a budget have led to unnecessary delays in reducing those class sizes again.

Superintendent Joe Pye got this part dead right:

“It does effect our student achievement and graduation rate. It has a direct correlation. That’s why it’s so hard to cut stuff. You may never see it again. We have to bring this back.

“This has put quite a threat on students and teachers and everybody with these large numbers. It’s made it very impersonal. We’ve got to treat children as if they’re our own. Nobody wants their child to be one of 180.”

I'll start the campaign right here and now: Joe Pye for State House, Joe Pye for State Senate, Joe Pye for State Superintendent or -- best of all -- Joe Pye for Governor. A man with such common sense has no business withholding himself from a position of leadership.

Haley to college students, seasonal workers: Get a job

Irony: A woman who couldn't explain what, exactly, she did part-time for a consulting firm and a hospital, gets elected governor of a state whose chief industries are tourism and agriculture, and she quickly moves to block a policy that pays unemployment benefits to seasonal workers and college students when their tourist- and agricultural-season jobs come to an end. Seven months after taking office, her state is tied for fifth in the nation with 10.5 percent unemployment.

At least a few of these college students are South Carolina's future classroom educators, getting a head start on finding summertime jobs to augment the low salaries they'll collect once they find a coveted teaching job.

Chris Haire of the Charleston City Paper caught an item on Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel and wrote about it:

According to Gov. Nikki Haley, hordes of college students have been filing for unemployment benefits once their summer jobs have ended. Even worse, the state was actually playing along, paying them what I would imagine are millions and millions of dollars every year.

Thankfully, Gov. Haley put an end to this wasteful and shameful practice, according to the Fox News report. To which I have to say, bless you, Nikki, bless you.

However, in her interview with Fox News, Haley wasn't clear on exactly how many college students were receiving unemployment checks and how much money the state was paying out to them.

In order to get an answer, I sent an e-mail to Haley's ever-prompt spokesman Rob Godfrey. Below is the letter:

Hey Rob,

Chris Haire with the Charleston City Paper again.

I've got a couple of questions about a statement that Nikki Haley made on Fox News this week regarding unemployment benefits for seasonal employees.

During the interview, which you can find here, the governor says that thanks to her efforts, the great state of South Carolina "stopped giving benefits to seasonal employees that were college students working for summer getting benefits."

This is the first that I have heard that the Palmetto State has a problem with college students bilking the state out of unemployment money. It's quite surprising that it has been allowed to go on all these years. Believe you me, I'm glad that Gov. Haley has put a stop to this practice. It is a travesty.

However, I need to get a few numbers and whatnot from you.

One, how many college students working seasonal jobs were collecting unemployment in 2010, 2009, and 2008? (I'm sure these figures are readily available.) And then can you give me figures concerning how much unemployment money was going to these particular college students for those years as well?

Two, the governor claimed on Fox News that benefits to seasonal employees have been stopped. However, reading over the law and other reports, it would seem that benefits haven't stopped; they've merely been changed or limited? In fact, seasonal employees who are laid off during the season can still collect unemployment.

Perhaps you and Haley are aware of another definition for "stopped" that I'm not privy to. I've spent the vast majority of my teen and adult years either drunk off my a** or high as a kite, so I easily could have missed any changes to the lexicon. If you can point me in the direction of an online dictionary with this definition, I would appreciate it.

Three, you know, I just can't stop thinking about all of those college students getting unemployment benefits, and, well, I don't know about you but I sure could have used a few extra bucks in college, and I'm just baffled that none of my friends told me about this. ... How did Haley first hear about this? Is this something Haley has firsthand knowledge of? Did she collected unemployment benefits while a student at Clemson? ...

Four, The Sun Times out of Myrtle Beach seems to indicate that the vast majority of seasonal employees in Horry County that collect unemployment benefits are not college students seeking summertime jobs, but the men and women, the husbands and wives, the fathers and mothers, who call Myrtle Beach home; they are the ones who work in the hotels, restaurants, bars, and other places of business serving the Grand Strand's seasonal tourists. Have you considered contacting The Sun Times seeking a retraction?

It bothers me to no end to think that the media has no regard for the facts and, in this case, would ignore the horrible truth that Haley uncovered: that South Carolina college students, particularly those in Myrtle Beach and, I would think, Charleston as well — gasp — have been filing unemployment claims when their summer jobs came to an end and not, well, adults who have families to support, mortgages to pay, and groceries to buy. (Fortunately for Haley, the latter vote but the former do not.)

Five, and please forgive me for asking this, but the naysayers out there, the negative ninnies, might say that Gov. Haley claims that college students were bilking the state out of vast sums of unemployment funds in order to make her accomplishment seem all that much more grandiose. I know that's a strange claim to make.

After all, Haley certainly accomplished quite a good deal by changing the rules regarding who does and who doesn't receive unemployment benefits, so it would make absolutely no sense for her to act as if college students were solely responsible for bilking the state out of what I would think would be millions of dollars by falsely filing unemployment claims.
...
Once again, Rob, I appreciate your help, and I look forward to your prompt reply.

Best Regards,

CWH

Orangeburg 4 buys food service software, cuts food service workers

To laugh, or to cry?

Children in Orangeburg District 4 may get healthier meals this year, thanks to the board's decision to purchase "new food service management software program that will enable food service managers to meet requirements set by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Child Act of 2010."

But because of the bad economy, they'll have fewer food service workers to prepare and serve their food.

The big winner? The software management company, which will collect $8,000 annually to "maintain" their software.

The OCSD 4 Board of Trustees voted unanimously at Tuesday's meeting to purchase the new program for $59,319. Assistant Superintendent Larry Wolfe said the old program, purchased 10 years ago, could not meet many of the new federal requirements. For example, the lunchroom service had to do a complete nutritional analysis of all the food served in the schools, something the old program could not do, Wolfe said.

The new program also has an inventory management menu planning component, he said. The inventory is uploaded into the system from the vendor, and it keeps up with the food on hand, he said. The manager can make purchases through the program, he said.

Wolfe noted that the district had to cut back on personnel because of the economic downturn, and the new program would cut staff work time.

In addition to the cost of the program, the district will pay about $8,000 annually for a maintenance contract with the company, Wolfe said.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect the initial cost of the software might fund at least three food service worker positions, and the annual maintenance cost might fund half a position per year. After all, we're talking about lunch ladies who work in public schools; thanks to the pittance they're paid, many qualify for public assistance while working full-time.

Student questions teacher on Haley jobs ploy

Student says to his teacher at the end of the first day of school: "Since the kid who sat in my desk last year made A's on his tests, and since I'm going to make A's on all my tests this year, would you go ahead now and give me an A for the course?"

Teacher replies: "I'm sorry, but this is the first day of school. The grade that was earned by the student who sat in your desk was his grade, not yours. And the only credit you have earned so far is credit for being present in class. I haven't given, and you haven't taken, any tests yet, so how could I possibly award you an A for the course?"

Student: "Governor Nikki Haley said she's created -- er, announced the creation of -- about 10,000 new jobs since she's been in office, though some of them were announced by Governor Mark Sanford's administration before she was inaugurated, and several thousand of them won't actually be created for another few years. See, here's the article.

South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley is boasting about job numbers in speeches and interviews, repeatedly saying she's thrilled about the 10,000 jobs announced since she took office in January. A close look at the number shows that Haley's tally is both overstated and easily misinterpreted.

Thousands of the positions will not arrive in South Carolina for years. Some actually were announced before she took office. Hundreds are the fruit of a deal that Haley tried to derail.

After repeated questioning by The Associated Press, the state changed its jobs total several times before finally lowering it to about 9,000 positions; 4,000 of those are with Wal-Mart.

Teacher: I see. It's just as you described.

Student: So, since the governor could claim credit for other people's work, and for things that haven't actually happened yet, I thought I could do the same. Why can't I?"

Teacher: "Because while politicians may operate in a world of illusion and outright deception, classrooms and schools operate on real facts and figures. Here are some simple principles that will serve you well if you live by them: Apply yourself and do the work that is expected of you. Address and finish the task set before you. Claim credit for only your achievement, and only after you've achieved something."

Student: "Will that help me become governor one day?"

Teacher: "Probably not. The standards for succeeding in politics are quite low and have no real relationship to the standards that are set for ordinary citizens, and that ordinary citizens have set for ourselves, to become respectable, responsible, contributing members of our communities and society."

Student: "Why are the standards different?

Teacher: "They shouldn't be, but our governing documents allow people who win elections to take office. Unscrupulous politicians are masterful at manipulating voters' hopes and fears to win elections, so they can pursue their own agendas once they take office."

Student: "Are all politicians unscrupulous?"

Teacher: "History is full of politicians with scruples. Unfortunately, they don't often win elections. And if they do win an election and govern by their principles, they don't often win re-election."

Student: "Is it more important for the governor to be a good recruiter, or to be involved in federal issues?"

Teacher: "Tell me more about your question."

Student: "The article I showed you says this:

And the head of the state manufacturers association says he's pleased the governor has been aggressively recruiting employers as she promised she would while campaigning.

"Her job is to recruit. So far, we like what we see," said president and CEO Lewis Gossett. "One thing we've heard from companies that she talks with, and our members, and people involved is that she's pretty darn good with negotiations."

Student: So it sounds like business leaders in South Carolina like the job she does for them. But I found another article from last week that says this:

“Being a governor is no longer about leading on state issues,” Haley said. “What I’ve noticed is we have to deal with a lot of federal issues, and that’s OK.”

Student: "So, is the governor supposed to be a recruiter for South Carolina's business community, or is she supposed to get involved in federal issues, as she said?"

Teacher: "Why don't you read about the governor's job description in the state Constitution. You may find the answer there."

Student (after reading his iPhone for a few minutes): "The Constitution doesn't spell out what the governor's job is, except to be the commander-in-chief of the 'organized and unorganized militia,' to make sure our laws are 'faithfully executed,' and to give information to the General Assembly. It doesn't say anything about recruiting businesses or getting involved in federal issues. That's not much of a job, is it?"

Teacher: "But the governor is the chief executive officer of our state."

Student: "So, does she work for us?"

Teacher: "Not necessarily. Since the Constitution doesn't specify what the governor should or must be or do during her term, the Constitution gives her broad latitude to define the job as she wants to."

Student: "Do you get to do that as a teacher?"

Teacher: "No. In fact, the roles and responsibilities of teachers and other school district employees are highly proscribed. Because South Carolina is a right-to-work-for-less state, most people who have jobs in South Carolina can be dismissed by their employers if they do or say anything their employer doesn't like, no matter how trivial, and even if it has nothing to do with the work."

Student: "So, if the governor wants to be a recruiter for business, she can do that?"

Teacher: "That's right."

Student: "And if she wants to get involved in federal politics instead of govern on state issues, she can do that?"

Teacher: "That's right."

Student: "And since South Carolina is a right-to-work-for-less state, if she does something we don't like, we can fire her?"

Teacher: "No. The right-to-work-for-less rules do not apply to the governor. Her job is safe, almost without exception, until the next election. Then, if voters want to replace her, they can."

Student: "That's hardly fair. That means even if she turns out to be a rotten governor, she gets to stay in office until her term is finished. And if she decides to work for business leaders instead of regular working South Carolinians, then we just don't have a governor."

Teacher: "That's exactly what it means."

Student: "I didn't realize how crazy our system of government is in South Carolina."

Teacher: "It's understandable. You were distracted by all the smiling faces and beautiful places."

Will Haley's book feature a chapter on veto overrides?

Really, a book?

Her Excellency, Governor Nikki Haley, has been in office slightly more than five months.

In that time, she has booted the state university's largest benefactor in history from the board of trustees and replaced her with a campaign contributor. See Moore, Darla.

She fired the state's popular and effective retirement system director and quickly named a replacement without notifying key officers. See Boykin, Peggy.

She has presided over a rise in the state's unemployment rate, seeing it return to double digits. See Job Creation, Lack of.

Though millions of South Carolinians, with jobs and without, stretch the weekly groceries bill with ground beef and Hamburger Helper, she has lived well on the public grace, enjoying "menus with Peruvian squid tubes, rabbit loin, shiitake mushrooms and other exotic ingredients," plus "small amounts of Fresh Market Chilean sea bass at $25.99 a pound and Yellowfin tuna at $21.99 a pound, and a number of Publix sushi platters," as well as spending public funds "to buy a Riedel wine decanter and Riedel cabernet/merlot wine glasses." See "Let Them Eat Cake."

She has offended lawmakers in both parties with petty slights, withholding invitations to a Governors Mansion from some, turning another away at the gate. See Brown, Boyd; also Howard, Leon; also "Petulance and Pettiness"; also Not the People's House.

She injected herself gracelessly -- and has infamously sought to drag national candidates -- into a dispute between a federal agency and a corporate campaign contributor operating in South Carolina. See Boeing.

She has fueled a well-publicized feud with another elected executive officer, declaring him "irrelevant" to the state's official business. See Loftis, Curtis.

She bungled an agreement made by her predecessor's economic development team with one of the world's largest companies, who had begun construction on a location in South Carolina but shut down and withdrew when she engaged in a foolish game of chicken over tax breaks. See Amazon.

After campaigning on a platform of "transparency," she has conducted closed-door meetings with national bond-rating agencies and shut the state's retirees out of discussions about their retirement system. See Griswold, Sam.

She embarrassed the state by ignoring the President of the United States during a briefing of governors in the State Dining Room of the White House, and checking email on her iPad instead. See Reuters Photographer, Caught by a.

She provoked legal action from the President Pro Tem of the state Senate by issuing an executive order in contravention of constitutional powers and state law, losing the fight before the state Supreme Court. See McConnell, Glenn. See also Supreme Court.

She earned a stunning rebuke from the full legislature by issuing 35 vetoes and having all but nine overridden, just as quickly and spectacularly as were the vetoes of her predecessor, and garnered an especially raw accusation of double-dealing and dishonesty from a lawmaker from her own home legislative delegation. See Bingham, Kenny.

And she bragged, oblivious, to a small audience of fans in Florence this spring that she hadn't made any mistakes while in office. See Hubris.

All the while, apparently, Her Excellency has been writing a book, no doubt expounding on the highest principles of governance and her nascent, derivative political philosophy. (See Sanford, Mark.)

S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley has a book deal.

Sentinel, a conservative imprint of Penguin Group (USA), said Wednesday that Haley’s “Can’t is Not an Option” will come out in January.

Haley, a Republican and Tea Party favorite, was elected last year. At 39, she is the country’s youngest governor and only the second Indian-American governor.

In an interview in March, Haley said writing had been “therapeutic” and that she would cover everything from growing up in rural South Carolina to her contentious 2010 campaign, when she faced — and denied — allegations of infidelity.

Haley said she was not planning a run for national office. Her literary representative, Washington attorney Robert Barnett, has negotiated deals for Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Notice the names that her "literary representative" has aided in the past: Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, all presidents of the United States, including two two-term presidents. What is it that governor-for-five-months Haley has to offer that compares with these political giants? A Newsweek magazine cover?

The title is particularly trite: "Can't is Not an Option." Here's what "cant" is: "cant" is "empty, uncritical thought or talk."

"Cant" is also the "jargon of a group, often implying its use to exclude or mislead people outside the group."

"Cant" is also "insincere, especially conventional expressions of enthusiasm for high ideals, goodness, or piety."

Yes, I know. She's using the word "can't" as a contraction for "cannot," as in "Haley can't play well with others" or "Her Excellency can't understand why people won't just do as she instructs them."

Here's a fun project for readers: What do you imagine will be the chapter titles of Haley's book?
Example: "Voters Would Soon Learn What Hit Them, Hard"

Here's another one: What do you imagine would comprise Haley's top ten list of governing principles?
Example: Reward your campaign contributors early and well.

Or another: What should be the subtitle of Haley's book?
Example: "Can't is Not an Option: If You Can Read This, We're Spending Too Much on Education"

House overrides Haley's attack on public schools

With all deliberate speed, by a vote of 97 to eight, the South Carolina House just addressed and voted to override Governor Nikki Haley's veto of $56 million to be applied to the base student cost in 2011-2012. Those voting to sustain Haley's veto included Rep. Thad Viers, Rep. Tracy Edge, Rep. Ralph Norman and Rep. Eric Bedingfield.

By a similar vote, 89 to 18, the House voted to override the veto of another $20 million in funds meant for public schools.

Invoking her own divine right, Haley dismisses public education

What people say and how we say it tells much about our psychology.

For example, South Carolinians reading the news that Governor Nikki Haley's vetoed $76 million in K-12 schools funding, and another $12.4 to buy new school buses for children attending public schools, might take her actions as examples of fiscal austerity.

It's the statement she made to the media that demonstrates her veto was motivated by contempt for the institution rather than mere austerity:

"We could give double this budget to education and there would be people saying it's not enough," she says. "It is now time in South Carolina that we look at how we are spending."

This, from a governor whose children, she says, attend public schools in Lexington County.

Why should we consider this contemptuous?

It's simple. Haley swore an oath to uphold South Carolina's Constitution. The oath was, ""I do solemnly swear that I am duly qualified, according to the Constitution of this State, to exercise the duties of the office to which I have been elected, and that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the duties thereof, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of this State and of the United States. So help me God."

That Constitution's Article XI is titled "Public Education," and it has only four sections. Section 1 establishes a State Board of Education and describes how its members will be elected. Section 2 establishes the office of the State Superintendent of Education. Section 3 clearly states, "The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable." And Section 4, just as importantly, prohibits state aid to private and parochial schools: "No money shall be paid from public funds nor shall the credit of the State or any of its political subdivisions be used for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution."

While we're at it, our Constitution sets forth in Article VI, Section 7, that "There shall be elected by the qualified voters of the State a Secretary of State, an Attorney General, a Treasurer, a Superintendent of Education, Comptroller General, Commissioner of Agriculture, and an Adjutant General who shall hold their respective offices for a term of four years, coterminous with that of the Governor." This puts the election of the State Superintendent squarely in the hands of South Carolina's voters. This prevents a despotic governor from controlling, by appointment, the state's most important institution.

Since her inauguration, Haley has sought to take control of the State Superintendency described in Section 2 (and whose election by the voters is defined in Art. VI, Section 7), ignore Section 3 and circumvent Section 4. None of these actions are actions that "preserve, protect" or "defend" the state Constitution.

From this, the careful reader and observer of this governor's administration might reasonably conclude that Haley is motivated by contempt for public education specifically, and contempt for the state Constitution generally, in making several of the decisions she's rendered in her short tenure.

But one other bit of evidence begs to be considered.

Alongside the description of the wreckage left behind by Haley's line-item vetoes, today's edition of The State publishes the actual letter sent by Haley to House Speaker Bobby Harrell. It bears reading. Its opening paragraphs:

We are line-item vetoing portions of H.3700, R-106, the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-2012 General Appropriations Bill.

We appreciate the cooperation of the General Assembly thus far. Our number one goal should be to learn from the past and avoid repeating mistakes related to spending that put South Carolina government in turmoil over the last four years. Our country and state's economy is not out of the woods yet. We strongly believe that, if we sustain the vetoes and live within a reasonable cap on spending, we will establish a firm footing and new mindset of government working for the people and not the people working for their government.

Our Constitution is clear on the principle that there will be only one governor at a time in South Carolina. The office of governor is not a position shared by more than one person. So by calling herself "we," in these paragraphs and throughout the 11-page veto letter, Haley is employing the pluralis majestatis, or the royal we -- a "nosism" used by monarchs and popes. It grew out of the moldy old "divine right of kings," which Henry II of England used to declare that "the monarch acted conjointly with the Deity."

So "we," when used by the monarch, is shorthand for "God and I."

Has Haley presumed that the Almighty ordained her choice of vetoes? If so, is it appropriate to believe that God ordains the withholding of $76 million from South Carolina's K-12 public school system, and the withholding of $12.4 million needed to buy new school buses? Really, did Haley consult our state's clergy on this matter before invoking the "divine right of kings"?

If so, that surely explains her inferred capacity to see the future, reflected in the part of the veto letter explaining her veto of $12.4 million for buying school buses: "We are vetoing this line because the state should not purchase new vehicles now for a fleet of school buses that we would likely sell to a network of new providers as part of a privatization effort." Before the legislation has taken such an action, Haley declares that it will be so. Again, was God consulted on this matter?

In vetoing the total budget for the South Carolina Arts Commission, Haley and God, presumably, wrote: "We value the arts, much like we value the Heritage Golf Classic, and like the Heritage, we also know that we have strong private partners that have the ability and the willingness to continue funding the arts."

Who knew God was a fan of golf? Does He have a position on the historic exclusivity policies of golf clubs? Where does He stand on the Tiger Woods affair?

And, given the massive volume of art dedicated over two thousand years to Him and His image, is it His will that private interests be trusted completely to support the arts? I'm reminded that the Church sponsored Michelangelo and countless other artists over time, and the Borgias, in collaboration with the Church, established support for the arts as a public enterprise more than seven centuries ago.

We may presume from Haley's veto letter that God has no interest in party politics, because Haley clearly uses the singular "I" to explain her veto of funding for the 2012 Republican presidential primary.

As I have made clear throughout the budget process, I believe private dollars are the appropriate way to fund a partisan Presidential Primary.

But by the time Haley gets to the veto of $56 million for public education, she reverts to the pluralis majestatis and her divine right; they make it clear that Superintendent Mick Zais's judgment pleases them.

There are two issues with this line item that move us to veto it. First, we agree with Superintendent Zais that funding the EFA -- a recurring expense -- with one-time money is an irresponsible way in which to budget. Second, prior to these dollars being allocated by the Senate, South Carolina's education spending was on-par with most other states. Our issue in education is not how much money we spend, but how we spend it.

If Haley is in league with a Deity, it is certainly not the Deity of "Suffer the little children" and "Whatever you do for the least of these, you do also for me." Or, lest we forget, "Render unto Caesar..."

A last note regarding Haley's use of the pluralis majestatis: The late U.S. Navy Admiral Hiram Rickover famously declared, and asked, "Three groups are permitted that usage: pregnant women, royalty, and schizophrenics. Which one are you?"

And Mark Twain similarly concluded, "Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial 'we'."

Here in South Carolina, where we've lived without a monarch since 1776 -- and, indeed, many argue that we've lived without a monarch since 1670, when Charles Towne was planted -- Her Excellency, unsatisfied with the history she's already made, is charting a course that must return us to monarchy, its divine rights and its contempt for the common man.

There's an example in modern popular culture of this sort of monarch; she, too, used the royal 'we' and warned us that "resistance is futile."

Hopefully, the legislature can make quick work of Haley's vetoes today and disabuse her of any monarchist tendencies germinating on the Capitol's first floor.

South Carolina's children suffer Nikki Haley's wrath

The least among us -- South Carolina's children -- were ineligible to vote last election day. Governor Nikki Haley apparently interpreted that fact to mean that none of them supported her, so she owes them nothing in return. Today, she inflicted upon them the greatest pain she could muster, stripping from the 2011-2012 budget $76 million for their education in K-12 schools and $12.4 million to buy them new school buses.

It wasn't the largest of her 36 vetoes; she struck out the entire capital reserve fund, totaling $107 million, but that fund is used in many different ways across the state, according to The State's summary of Her Excellency's damage. It includes "money for economic development, tourism and millions for building maintenance, particularly on state college campuses."

That leaves the veto of $76 million for K-12 public schools as the largest single-purpose wound from her attack on the budget.

Haley proved to the arts community that their fears were founded and that she's no friend to them, erasing completely the meager $2.1 million that lawmakers set aside donated to the state Arts Commission.

The bright spot in the summary is that Haley vetoed roughly $680,000 in taxpayer funding for her party's 2012 presidential primary.

But The State's summary gave no indication that Haley struck down a single piece of corporate wealthfare, a single tax break benefiting the state's wealthiest or its business community.

Clearly, the targets of her veto pen were South Carolina's children, too young to vote for her opponent in 2014.

Haley spun her deeds differently, of course, saying that "her goal was to limit growth in state spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth." This concept has been tried and failed in other states, most notably in Colorado where its was enshrined in the state Constitution in 1992 and called the "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" or TABOR. For nearly two decades, it has so wrecked Colorado's economy that lawmakers and citizens there initiated efforts to take it back out of their Constitution.

In fact, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities uses Colorado as the model of what not to do to your state's economy with hare-brained Libertarian notions:

TABOR, a state constitutional amendment adopted in 1992 in Colorado, limits the growth of state and local revenues to a highly restrictive formula: inflation plus the annual change in population. This formula falls far short of being able to fund the ongoing cost of government. At a time when health care costs are growing much faster than inflation and the population is aging, TABOR’s inflation-plus-population formula forces annual reductions in the level of government services.

By creating what is essentially a permanent revenue shortage, TABOR pits state programs and services against each other for survival each year and virtually rules out any new initiatives to address unmet or emerging needs.

This is true even in good economic times. For example, from fiscal year (FY) 1997 through FY 2001, amidst a booming economy, Colorado refunded $3.25 billion in "excess" revenue to taxpayers as required by TABOR. (Whenever revenues for a given year exceed TABOR’s revenue limit, the extra amount must be returned to taxpayers.) Yet even as the state was giving up more than $3 billion in "excess" revenues, its services were deteriorating: average per-pupil funding for K-12 education was falling; several local public health clinics were forced to suspend prenatal services for low-income women because of insufficient program funding; and between April 2001 and October 2002 the state was forced to suspend its requirement that students be fully vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) because Colorado, unlike other states, could not afford to buy the vaccine.

Google "right-wing TABOR formula" and you'll find an assortment of other states that have had this silly and arbitrary straitjacket put on their economic growth.

This is, you know, another illustration that Haley's administration is little more than a third term for former Governor Mark Sanford; during her terms in the House, she "proposed a bill to limit the growth of the state budget every year to the rate of population growth in the state plus inflation, something Gov. Mark Sanford advocated."

The State also drew Sanford into its review of Haley's vetoes, and found this conclusion while searching for good news:

Haley issued 36 vetoes, a far cry from predecessor Mark Sanford who often issued more than 100 vetoes.

In Sanford's case, lawmakers made quick work of delivering override votes.

Haley's vetoes go to the House tomorrow, and I'm hopeful that that chamber can dispatch her handiwork as quickly as it handled Sanford's. A two-thirds vote is needed in the House, then the Senate, to clean up the damage.

Zais may forfeit $144 million in jobs funding

Has anyone from Governor Nikki Haley's office been in communication with Superintendent Mick Zais recently? I ask because Haley ran on a platform of "Less Talk, More Jobs," and Zais seems to be pushing "Fewer Jobs, More Talk."

The Greenville News explains:

Leaders of two of the state's largest public education associations lashed out at state Superintendent of Education Mick Zais on Monday for turning down the chance to win a grant of up to $50 million in federal Race to the Top money, even as the state's efforts have languished in attempting to claim its share of nearly $144 million in federal money to save teaching jobs.

All 49 other states received their portion of the $10 billion teaching jobs grant.

Zais, a former brigadier general now in his sixth month as leader of the state's K-12 education agency, decided against applying for the Race to the Top money, one of President Obama's key education initiatives, saying he opposes “federal intrusion” as a means of improving the quality of schools.

Leaders of the South Carolina School Boards Association and the South Carolina Association of School Administrators went on the offensive Monday, joining the state Board of Education in calling for Zais to reconsider his decision not to compete in Race to the Top.

“We are willing to support the state superintendent and the leadership to improve education,” said Molly Spearman, executive director of the School Boards Association. “But we really feel that some very bad decisions are being made without input from the folks who are on the ground working in these districts.”

J.W. Ragley, a spokesman for Zais, said the Republican state superintendent is living up to his campaign promise in not seeking the grants, which he said come with strings attached.

“Dr. Zais took a clear position as a candidate for public office. He did not support Washington's Race to the Top program because it provided one-time money for recurring expenses, which is the definition of an unfunded mandate,” Ragley said. “His position has not changed since assuming office in January.

“What message is the education establishment sending to students by demanding Dr. Zais change his position regarding Race to the Top? It's acceptable to break your word?”

To put a fine point on it, Mr. Ragley, yes. It is a sign of intelligence to evaluate conditions and make decisions based on new conditions or new information, even if those decisions oppose an earlier-held viewpoint.

And it is certainly a sign of foolishness, if not wanton malice or stupidity, to hold to a viewpoint despite new information or changing conditions merely because you once held the viewpoint. Presumably, you once ate baby food from jars because that's what you liked. Presumably, you once wore diapers because it was the best of several unattractive options. Do you still eat baby food from jars and wear diapers? If not, why not? Is it because, perhaps, conditions changed and you made different decisions based on new information? If that is the case, then surely you're capable of learning, growing, and even changing your position.

This is one more example that elections have consequences, and that elevating unqualified candidates with no previous electoral experience to high office is the sort of criminally tragic act that keeps South Carolina trapped in a time-warped cage of its own making. Hiring inexperienced political lackeys to deliver the daily pap is another.

The separate issue of the missed opportunity for $144 million for teaching jobs goes back to the previous administration.

South Carolina didn't qualify for its share of the money because the law says states must not have reduced their proportionate level of funding for both K-12 and higher education over the two years when they were receiving stabilization funds from the federal government.

That ensures states don't simply slash state spending when they see federal money coming and instead use the federal money to accomplish the grant's purpose of saving jobs.

Although South Carolina's budget was reduced from $6 billion in 2009-10 to $5.8 billion this year, the percentage of the budget that was spent on K-12 schools went up, from 39.7 percent to 43.3 percent. But the percentage spent on higher education fell, from 9.2 percent to 7.3 percent, according to figures from the state Education Department.

In the previous round of stabilization money, the formula allowed states to calculate their spending percentages on the total of K-12 and higher education — which would qualify South Carolina for this grant. The total percentage of the budget spent on education rose from 49.8 percent to 50.7 percent over those two years.

When the issue arose last August, Zais' predecessor, Democrat Jim Rex, had tried to get Congress to tweak the law so the state didn't lose out on the money, which would pay for an estimated 2,600 teaching jobs. But that hadn't been done by the time Rex lost his re-election bid to Zais in November.

If the money isn't sent to South Carolina by Sept. 30, it will go back to the federal treasury.The two education associations are urging the state congressional delegation to seek an amendment or a special “bypass” law, similar to what was done in Texas, to get the money.