Poll: Americans reject attacks on public employees' rights

Give average Americans an opportunity to demonstrate their humanity and intelligence, and they'll take it.

Bloomberg News Service conducted the poll and is reporting its findings, so no one can argue that this is a liberal-biased poll.

A new Bloomberg News national poll finds that Americans believe, by a wide margin, that public sector workers should have the right to collectively bargain. 64 percent of respondents, including a plurality of Republicans, believe public workers should be able to bargain collectively for their wages, while 63 percent believe that states should not be able to break pension agreements they’ve already made. This, of course, comes after a number of Republican governors used budget woes to justify removing collective bargaining rights from public employees.

Just as educators and other public workers are being assaulted from all sides, thanks to zombie legislation drafted by the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council and being revivified in states from Maine to Louisiana -- including the voucher-and-tax-deduction bill right here in South Carolina -- ordinary Americans are saying they side with the nation's rank-and-file working class.

It's a powerful and moving piece of news.

As battles rage between state workers and Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio, 63 percent don’t think states should be able to break their promises to retirees, and respondents split over whether governors aim to balance their budgets or weaken unions that back Democratic foes, according to the poll conducted March 4-7.

The poll shows that political challenges to government workers are failing to draw broad support from a public more concerned about unemployment than government deficits.

Overreach. That's what Americans are calling the actions of a far-right movement that took advantage of bad economic times to storm state houses across the nation in 2010, and immediately set to work dismantling the social fabric that it took the entire twentieth century to weave.

“The Republican Party sees an opportunity to attack and possibly destroy the base of their opponents’ political power,” says poll respondent Dale Palmer, 59, a Democrat and retired teacher from Zephyrhills, Florida.

Palmer says budget deficits are a result of the economy and years of tax cuts, not the actions of public employees. “They’re putting it now on the backs of their enemies even when these particular unions are willing to bargain,” he says.

That's the influence of blind and aggressive ideology, not pragmatic governance.

And here's the kicker:

Sixty-three percent of those surveyed -- including a majority of Democrats and independents -- say corporations wield more political clout than unions. Public employees, meanwhile, are viewed favorably by a large majority: 72 percent, compared with 17 percent who have an unfavorable view.

Government employees account for the majority of union members in the U.S. as a result of the long decline in manufacturing industries. In 2010, 7.6 million of the 14.7 million U.S. union members worked in the public sector, according to the U.S. Labor Department.

Sixty-four percent of respondents, including a plurality of Republicans, say public employees should have the right to bargain collectively for their wages. Sixty-three percent, including 55 percent of Republicans, say states without enough money to pay for all the pension benefits they have promised to current retirees shouldn’t be able to break those obligations.

The awareness of the injustices being perpetrated on public employees is widespread and deep. Sixty-four percent of self-identified conservatives in America can't coalesce behind a single candidate for the United States presidency, yet that many of them agree that fair is fair, hard work deserves respect, far-right governors and legislators have misinterpreted their elections, and that corporations are the real power behind the damage being done to America. That's a powerful set of conclusions.

Randy Turner, a 32-year old construction worker from Springfield, Missouri, who participated in the poll, says he sees unions as a corrective force against a government that exerts enough power.

“Trying to make us not have a right for unions for anything is wrong,” says Turner, an independent voter who isn’t a union member. “They help our economy, they help the job market -- all kinds of things our government doesn’t help.”

The skirmishes have intensified support for unions among their members and Democrats, a potential challenge to Republicans in the 2012 elections, says Scott Keeter, a pollster with Pew Research Center in Washington.

“That fact might not change the outcome of the current battles, but could have implications for voter turnout among these groups next year,” he says.

Any chance this might lead governors like Nikki Haley to review their anti-worker positions and rhetoric? Probably not. Haley and others like her were elected largely because of their far-right supporters and blood-red messaging, and they'll be loathe to leave those hardline positions behind so quickly.

But the Bloomberg poll shows that they're not reflecting the views of most Americans.

A majority says unions are appropriate for firefighters, nurses, teachers, prison guards and police officers. Respondents were divided only over whether custodians and office workers also should be unionized.

Poll respondent Margaret Coakley, 72, a retired psychiatric social worker from New York who lives in New Harbor, Maine, says politicians are wrong if they blame public employees for the financial ills of their state.

“It’s outrageous they’re pointing to public employees now,” she says. “That’s not where the problems are.”

Kelly: "Workers are better off with unions than without them"

So Patrick Hayes of Charleston, thanks to having been a member of an educators union in California, knew that organized citizens can be effective at guiding their own destinies.

And veteran firefighter MichaelAnthony Parrotta of Myrtle Beach, president of the state firefighters association, pointed out that South Carolina is home to tens of thousands of unionized workers already, working daily to keep the state's economy afloat and to preserve, protect and improve our quality of life.

More than a week ago, editorialist Barbara Kelly of Savannah published a note in Bluffton Today saying similar things and offering some historical context for the benefit of readers. Her point is spelled out in the headline: "Labor unions help workers know their rights."

A labor union is an organization established by and for workers to pursue collective workplace goals such as wages, benefits, and workplace rules.

Because of labor unions the whole society has benefited — hours of work per week, vacations, sick days, rules for safety and health of workers. These benefits were not gained through free market generosity but through years of work and sacrifice by those who wanted workers to have a say in their day-to-day life. Workers vote about whether or not they want to be in a union and they elect their representatives.

So why do some hate unions so much? They are not always perfect, but neither are most organizations. But they provide power to their members that those people could not gain as individuals.

In 1619, North America had its first labor uprising. Polish craftsmen who produced glass, pitch, and tar for the Jamestown Colony went on strike because they had no voting rights. They were given rights and went back to work.

In 1884 the Federation of Organized Trade (forerunner of the AFL) said that eight hours shall constitute a legal work day.

In March of 1911, 147 people, mostly women and young girls, died when the top three floors of a 10-story New York building caught fire. (The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire) These workers would probably have lived if rules for workplace safety had been in place.

In 1955, the AFL-CIO merged.

Those are just a few of the important dates for the labor movement in this country.

Almost none of the benefits that workers expect today happened by accident. The idea that companies will take care of workers when there are no rules is a chance workers shouldn’t have to take. Also, a level of job protection is another benefit of unions. One can’t be fired on a whim, but can be terminated only for good cause.

In 1938, the Fair Wages and Hours Act set a 40-hour work week and banned child labor. I doubt this would have happened without unions.

In a “right-to-work” state, such as South Carolina, membership in a union and payment of dues can’t be a condition of employment. A map of these states includes all of the south and a part of the midwest and west. The average worker in these states earns about $5,000 less than workers in other states. So are these really just right to work for less states?

I did a quick comparison of teacher salaries in these states as compared to other states. Both beginning salaries and average salaries were less in most right-to-work states, compared to states that allow unions. But that is only one of the benefits for teachers. Union contracts also negotiate for things such as class size, a free lunch time, health benefits, planning time, and assessment. For other workers, they can negotiate for things that are relevant to their workplaces and conditions. Pension benefits may also be negotiated.

In the end, workers are better off with unions than without them. But they have a choice. And many of the right-to-work states have very high unemployment and are no more attractive to companies than other states. So this hatred and demonizing of unions makes no sense.

It seems like just another one of those political arguments that doesn’t really benefit people. Another talking point. Another campaign slogan.

Unionized employees are our working neighbors, not demons

Patrick Hayes, who initiated the online petition to restore educators' salaries, told the Charleston City Paper that he previously taught in California:

Hayes previously taught in California, which allows teachers to join unions. In South Carolina, teachers are barred from collective bargaining.

Perhaps because of Hayes's experience as a union member, he knew that citizens have rights, and that citizens who organize themselves in large numbers can exercise those rights to great effect.

His commentary reminded me of the opinion-editorial in Sunday's The State by MichaelAnthony Parrotta, a 25-year firefighter in Myrtle Beach and president of the South Carolina Professional Fire Fighters Association.

As Parrotta points out, unions exist in South Carolina, and union members go a long way toward improving life for the rest of our citizens.

I am a firefighter in South Carolina. I respond when the alarm goes off without the slightest hesitation, just like the men and women who work alongside me. Our job is to save lives and property. We do that job with pride. We are deeply committed to keeping our neighbors and communities safe, because we are proud citizens of the great state of South Carolina.

We are also union members.

In her State of the State address, Gov. Nikki Haley proclaimed my fellow firefighters and paramedics and I “are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina.”

Her rhetoric made it sound like she was talking about truly evil people. Or an angry invading force. Instead of me and tens of thousands of other hard-working citizens.

Does she really want to deny all of us a voice in our work lives, or drive us out of South Carolina?

That’s a lot of taxpayers, a lot of moms and dads, a lot of Little League coaches. Police officers, dock workers, mail carriers, paper mill workers, utility workers, UPS drivers and more, who work long, tough hours and help keep our state’s economy humming along, are also union members.

What does Gov. Haley have against us?

We are employed here and pay our taxes here. We live middle-class lives. We own houses, keep our yards up and spend money in the state we call home.

Maybe Gov. Haley doesn’t like that our membership in our unions allows us to advocate for such things as better equipment to make sure we can respond effectively and fast.

Maybe the governor doesn’t like that we are able to earn a living that gives us and our families a decent life and keeps us off public assistance.

Or maybe she is listening to the same politicians in Washington who are failing our country by doing the bidding of big corporations — the ones with headquarters well outside of our state that profit mightily from the hard work of South Carolinians.

In her address, Gov. Haley said the state of the state is “surging.” Really? Where’s it surging to? Our state’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average. Our citizens are among the lowest paid in the nation.

We know that Wall Street profits have been surging in the past few years. But have you been surging? Are your wages surging? What about your home values?

Gov. Haley is not the only extremist politician pointing fingers at people who work for a living as the evil ones. Her agenda looks like it was written by national corporate lobby groups that just can’t seem to get enough profit and power, and don’t care a whit about the good people of South Carolina.

Firefighting is not the career to choose if you seek fame and fortune. If that’s what you’re looking for, you might try politics. We often refer to fire fighting as “the calling,” because most of us from an early age feel a call to serve our communities. It is tough but rewarding work. And for too many of my colleagues, exposing our bodies to dangerous, traumatic and physically demanding situations and carcinogenic fumes means our career won’t be a long one.

It’s time to stop treating the employees who provide our public services and those who keep our economy going as though we’re selfish demons. We are your neighbors. We go to work every day, just like you. We care about this state and its citizens.

We are not corporations with headquarters in other states or other countries that answer to profit-hungry shareholders on Wall Street. We are South Carolinians who have just as much of a right to have a voice in the workplace and a say in our futures as the folks writing Gov. Haley’s speeches.

You know, South Carolina's lawmakers make a big deal often of criticizing the "status quo." But the status quo is that South Carolina is a "right-to-work-for-less" state that prohibits collective bargaining. Maybe one big step away from the status quo might be to repeal both of those laws, and see what happens.

One thing's for sure: We couldn't do any worse than we've been doing.

Thanks, Mr. Parrotta, for what you and your colleagues do daily to keep South Carolinians safe and to protect our property.

Duplicitous Gov. Haley, who hates duplication, duplicates.

A parable.

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

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

First, the record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that is not written.

So that is not done.

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

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

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

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

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

That was written. That was done.

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

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

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

Except that it was duplication of services and unneccarily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?