House voting to keep their healthcare perks

The U.S. House is scheduled to take their 31^st vote on changing, delaying, defunding or terminating Obamacare today.  The outcome of today’s repeal vote isn’t in questions because every other vote taken on the issue has passed almost exclusively along party lines.

Obamacare opponents in the House will again claim that the healthcare reform is hurting small businesses.  And by now you should know that this is a crock. 

Small businesses defined as less than 50 employees have no mandate to offer health insurance.  Not now.  Not later.  That 50 or under workers criteria means that 97% of all businesses in this country have not been nor will be negatively impacted by Obamacare.  Of the remaining businesses, only 3 % do not offer insurance and will have to make decisions about shared responsibility for the healthcare of their employees.

But while there has been no downside for small businesses, there has been plenty of upside.  The Small Business Majority sent a letter to Congress this week agrueing against repeal.  “Since the enactment of federal healthcare reform, America’s 28 million small businesses have already benefited greatly from provisions such as tax credits, rate review and Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)”, read the letter.  The MLR alone is yielding $1.1 billion in premium rebates to small businesses across the nation.

Then there are the future benefits for small businesses starting in 2014 such as the health insurance exchanges.  These online marketplaces for health insurance will not only reduce premiums from less administration costs of small business health plans but also from the expected increase of carrier competition.

Assuming that the opponents of Obamacare know these facts and still put up the charade of voting to repeal for the purpose of protecting small business, then their real motivation must be something else.  Partisan politics certainly is a good possibility.

But there actually is a personal reason members of Congress would like to see Obamacare go away—their own health insurance.

One of the complaints during the construction of the healthcare reform legislation was that if the new process was good for American citizens it ought to be good enough for members of Congress.  So a provision was put into the law to have members of Congress get their health insurance through the new exchanges like everyone else and that when they retire they would no longer receive government-subsidized health insurance. 

Sam Baker of The Hill reports that one Democratic Official has said, “House Republicans are set to repeal the promise that members of Congress have health care just like everyone else and to restart the perk of lifetime government health care for themselves.”

Now that is a big incentive for Congress to kill Obamacare.

A needed message in State of the Union address

One of the issues we are expecting to hear about in President Obama’s State of the Union address tomorrow night is the housing crisis.  Economists tell us that the nation’s economy won’t dramatically improve until the housing market stabilizes and demand for new homes gets back on track.  That’s how important the housing construction industry is to creating jobs.

But that industry won’t be coming back for a while if there is no effective action taken by the federal government.

As I pointed out last October, according to an analysis by McClatchy Newspapers, at that time there were 2.2 million homes whose owners had received initial foreclosure notices or notices of default but hadn’t yet been foreclosed on.  Another 1.9 million properties at that time had owners who were 90 days or more behind on their payments but hadn’t yet been served with foreclosure notices.  That’s 4.1 million homes that are soon to be put into the foreclosure bucket.  To put that into perspective the official number of all houses for sale in the nation is only 3.5 million.

The drum beat for the President and Congress to take strong action to solve this crisis to boost our economy has been growing.  Last week 27 Congressional Democrats from California asked for a meeting with the President after meetings with top Administration officials such as Tim Geithner failed to produce needed action.

For some time I’ve been advocating that we should “muscle the private banks and Fannie and Freddie to do everything in their power to keep the current home owners in their homes by letting them refinance at today’s rock bottom rates (no questions asked) and, if necessary, reducing the principle they owe.” 

There is a push in the House to have the government-controlled Fannie and Freddie write down mortgage principles for owners deep under water.  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke wrote this month that “it might be worth the expense to lose money now in an effort to shore up the books of the government-sponsored enterprises for the long term while helping the economic recovery.”

But what about the big private banks of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Ally Financial?  The states’ attorneys general have been working since the fall of 2010 to have these financial giants help the homeowners they victimized by their earlier foreclosure papers robo-signing scandal.  However this agreement is expected to compensate only about one million homeowners with principle reductions.  That will be too late for many and a drop in the bucket to really help our economy.

It is time for these private banks to give back to the country for bailing them out.  The profits they’re reeling in now wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the taxpayer. 

A call for principle reductions and the lowering of interest rates for both public and private mortgage holders in trouble should in the President’s speech tomorrow night.  If he really wants to get the economy rolling sooner than later, this is the course of action we must follow.

Report: Majority of Congress with no education in business

The Hill
8/23/11

By Mike Lillis

Almost 80 percent of lawmakers have no academic background in business or economics, even as Congress grapples with deficits, unemployment and other economic issues of tremendous complexity, according to an independent analysis released Tuesday.

The Employment Policies Institute (EPI) found that only 8.4 percent of lawmakers majored in economics or a related field, while just 13.7 percent studied topics related to business or accounting.

"This research suggests that our elected Representatives may want to dust off their Econ 101 textbook (if they have one) before trying to tackle weighty questions about the impact of taxes, spending, and debt on our economy and the labor market," EPI's release warns.

Most Capitol Hill lawmakers (55.7 percent) focused their studies on government, law or the humanities, EPI found, while 11.5 percent majored in science- or technology-related fields.

The report arrives as Congress continues to joust over deficit reduction, spending cuts, tax reform, and the role of the federal government in pulling the country out of a prolonged jobs crisis.

Republicans argue that the size of government – combined with enormous levels of federal spending – have contributed both to the recent recession and the slow pace in pulling out of it. They want to cut taxes, slash spending and scale back regulations they say are strangling private sector job creators.

Democrats, on the other hand, see the government playing an active role in bolstering the economy. They're pushing proposals designed to create jobs by increasing infrastructure spending, lending a lifeline to states and hiking taxes on corporations that outsource jobs.

Michael Saltsman, a researcher at EPI, was quick to concede that the lack a formal background in economics or business does not automatically preclude lawmakers from making informed choices about economic policy.

"There are plenty of people who have done it well," Saltsman said.

But given the intricacy of the economic issues lawmakers are tackling this year, a formal introduction to those topics "would certainly help them to evaluate these things better," Saltsman added.

In crunching its figures, EPI excluded nonvoting members, such as those representing Guam and the District of Columbia. The group also did not take into account those lawmakers without business or economic degrees who nonetheless launched business careers.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/news/177897-report-three-fourths-of-congress-has-no-education-in-business-economics

Fair and balanced???

The FOXNews of budget agreements. That’s the best description of the debt ceiling compromise passed by the House yesterday and by the Senate today.

No matter how many times FOXNews calls itself “fair and balanced”, the hard evidence tells the real story of slanted and faux news at the Murdoch network.

The same PR charade was used by President Obama to sell the bi-partisan compromise on lifting the debt ceiling. All his talk of a balanced approach that called for shared sacrifice for all turned out to be the equivalent of the “fair and balanced” FOXNews mantra.

The $1 trillion immediate deficit reduction in the agreement is all spending cuts. We’re told that the “balanced and shared sacrifice” part of deficit reduction will come from the special joint committee to be established to shave off another $1.5 trillion from the deficit. Don’t hold your breath.

The wealthy and multinational corporations have a firm grip on both parties (especially the Republicans) in Congress and the President. The big campaign contributions and highly paid Washington lobbyists will make sure that we don’t close the abuse of offshore tax havens by multinationals that will cost us $1 trillion in lost revenue over the next 10 years. Another $700 billion over the next decade will be lost because we won’t ask the wealthiest in the country to simply pay the same level of taxes from the 90’s (the last time we had a balanced budget).

And while the wealthiest Americans and multinational corporations are required to sacrifice, the rest of us, small businesses and our whole economy will feel the pain of our sacrifice.

I spoke with Christian Dorsey of the Economic Policy Institute yesterday. His organization projects that just with the first $1 trillion in spending cuts our nation will lose up to 2 million jobs over several years. The reason—unemployment benefits won’t be extended and the payroll tax holiday will end. That will mean a lot less money flowing into the pockets of consumers who will then spend less. Less consumer spending means hard times for small businesses and fewer jobs.

Add another $1.5 trillion in spending cuts according to this deal and here comes another recession. The wealthy will survive just fine and so will the multinational corporations. The rest of us—not so much.

Balanced deficit reduction

As the debt ceiling debate rages on, it appears that Congress and the President are looking at a plan to simply raise the debt ceiling enough to allow the federal government not to default for a short period of time and do some budget cuts along with it. What a tremendous waste of an opportunity to address the issue of multinational corporations using tax loopholes and offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

There is an estimated $1 trillion dollars of taxes over the next decade that these multinationals should be paying but won’t if we don’t change our corporate tax laws. That equals 1/4th of the debt reduction goal President Obama said he wanted. It’s low hanging fruit that these corporate giants and their advocates like the U.S. Chamber won’t let us pick because of all the campaign contributions and lobbyists at their command.

Fortunately there are other business organizations that understand the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes both budget cuts and responsible, common sense revenue increases.

Below is a letter from the American Sustainable Business Council being delivered today to House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Erick Cantor. Copies are being given to the President and other Congressional leaders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

July 19, 2011

RE: Debt Ceiling, Taxes and Deficit Reduction Approaches

Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor,

The American Sustainable Business Council is a network of business associations and companies representing over 100,000 businesses across the nation. Our members are part of a growing force within the U.S. economy that understands that financial success requires balancing economic, social and environmental needs.

We see an enormous opportunity in the public debate over the budget and debt, for fundamental reforms to grow our economy and strengthen our country. However, we do not believe the conversation is heading in the right direction. We are concerned that offshore tax havens, growing income inequality, rollback of environmental and safety regulations, and divestment from infrastructure and workforce development, present serious challenges to our global competitiveness. The continued practice of discounting externalities, subsidizing highly profitable mature industries, and rewarding off-shoring of U.S. jobs has contributed substantially to the national debt and undermined the health of the U.S. economy.

As businesspeople, we also believe that the tax code needs to be significantly modified so that small and mid-sized companies and middle class families, are not asked to pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. We are quite willing to pay our fair share, but find it troubling that many of the nation’s largest companies pay an effective marginal rate far, far less than we do.

We write to ask you to re-examine your basic assumptions of what is required to stabilize the U.S. economy and address the budget deficit. Please understand that not all business leaders agree with many of the points you make daily in the name of defending the private sector. It is inaccurate to lump together large and small business—and businesses in every sector of the U.S. economy--as if all of our interests were exactly the same. Some might see this as a strategy to use the halo of small business to camouflage the excesses of big business.

We do agree with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable that we must raise the debt ceiling, and soon. However, we find that a diversity of business voices is not being heard on the specifics of the current budget debate. Many business leaders believe that raising revenues through tax code modifications, and supporting federal government services, is critical for economic health. Cuts to programs for the young, old, disabled and unemployed will hurt not only our customer base, limiting their capacity to buy our products, but our nation as a whole.

Further, we disagree with the perspective that any tax increase destroys jobs. We believe that there are important distinctions to be made between good taxes and bad taxes, between incentives that create jobs and real value for the economy and those that don’t. There are expenditures that are critical to improving productivity and the nation’s infrastructure and those that are a waste of money. Removal of certain subsidies for mature industries, in our view, does not constitute a tax increase but rather a smart business decision. This is how we run our companies – moving resources towards areas of greatest need in a constantly changing marketplace.

We would point out that during the 1980’s, President Reagan raised taxes many times and unemployment continued to fall. And, when President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, unemployment fell and investment expanded. We would like to see the discussion of job creation using proven methods re-elevated in the national debate, including government investment in areas of significant national interest, such as renewable energy development, manufacturing, education, high speed rail and basic R&D. The private sector and federal government must work together to ensure that America not only remains an economic powerhouse, but also a nation built on principles of fairness.

We have two other important concerns: (a) the largest companies rarely pay the statutory rate, instead often paying half that in practice while small businesses, who account for most of the net job growth, consistently pay higher tax rates; (b) job creation in America is our top priority. To that end, we need to ensure that reduced tax rates actually result in jobs being created here at home, rather than being shipped overseas.

As this crisis is turning on fixing the Federal budget, we would highlight that the tax burden is being described as if the prosperous—whether individuals or corporations—are paying taxes at the highest marginal rate. A few of the nation’s wealthiest citizens claim that they are paying 50% of their income in federal or federal and state taxes. They are not.

In fact, the effective rates of taxation—the real rates that wealthy individuals and corporations pay—are half the highest marginal rate or less. Corporate taxes as a share of federal government receipts are at their lowest level since the 1950’s. Fixing these distortions and closing huge tax loopholes and subsidies in our Federal budget to generate revenue should be at the heart of resolving the current crisis.

With this as background, we offer a set of principles and solutions that our members see as essential to getting our country back on track:

Principles

• Taxes have a critical role to play in funding research to generate innovation and growth, providing for our national defense, and creating an equitable economy.

• Raising revenue to fulfill essential obligations, such as maintaining/improving infrastructure is smart policy, as are taxes that fund workforce investments.

• The national burden for debt reduction should not fall on small companies.

• Small and mid-sized businesses use their assets to reinvest in their communities and workforce. They are the backbone of the U.S. economy, creating most of the net new jobs over the past decade.

• Regulations are needed, as the marketplace isn’t perfect. We find that carefully crafted regulations can save more money than they cost, as evidenced by the inadequacy of banking regulations that cost our nation over one trillion dollars in lost assets.

Solutions

• Reducing the budget deficit should not be achieved exclusively by reducing public expenditures, many of which improve the nation’s competitiveness. Drastically cutting expenditures will also likely increase the unemployment rate. Revenue enhancements should be a key part of proposals for deficit reduction.

• Taxes that assure a stable middle class and maintain consumer demand—key to our economic future—are welcome.

• An effective and graduated Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax could assure that companies pay their fair share of taxes. Small businesses pay on average far higher effective rates than most Fortune 100 multinationals because of widespread use of tax havens. The Stop Tax Havens Abuse Act of 2011 would go far to close these loopholes. We must stop subsidizing the largest and wealthiest corporations at the expense of our domestic businesses and the national economy.

• Corporate subsidies should be limited to spurring innovation, preserving the environment and public health, hiring veterans and minorities, and other job creating initiatives. Initiatives such as the Small Business Jobs Act are relatively inexpensive ways to continue to spur growth.

• America’s wars should either be paid for by surtax or by adjusting the defense budget. The defense budget should not be immune from cuts. Due to deficiencies in the federal contracting process, which appear to favor a few large corporations, we believe there is room for substantial savings.

We have not endorsed any comprehensive deficit reduction package, however select policy solutions in line with these principles have been proposed by groups as diverse as the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the Cato Institute, and the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Estimates suggest that enacting policies in line with these principles could easily save upwards of $2.75 trillion dollars over a decade, without cutting into essential federal programs on which this nation was built.

A ‘sustainable’ economy focuses on building long-term value and assets. It invests in next generation ideas and technologies while contributing to the well-being of our communities. We believe these ideas and policies to be consistent with a fair marketplace, represent the views of thousands of small businesses across the country, and will foster long-term economic prosperity.

Thank you for your consideration and interest.

Sincerely,

David Levine, Executive Director
American Sustainable Business Council

The Hill: A Charlie Brown Congress?

Below is the opinion editorial by Frank Knapp that ran in The Hill's Congressional Blog on June 29, 2011.

A Charlie Brown Congress?

Lucy is at it again. “I’ll hold the ball, and you come running and kick it,” Lucy tells Charlie Brown.
We all know what to expect. Charlie Brown will run to kick the football and Lucy will pull it away...again. Charlie will fall flat on his back.

This gag is playing out right now in Congress. U.S. multinational corporations (aka Lucy) are holding hundreds of billions of dollars in profits overseas to avoid paying U.S. taxes. They want Congress (aka Charlie Brown) to let them bring those dollars back to the U.S. without paying hardly any taxes (Congress committing to kick the ball) in the belief they will invest them in production and hiring here at home (the football flying through the air instead of Charlie).

This process is called a “repatriation tax holiday” and, just as in the Peanuts cartoon, Congress has seen this before.

In 2004, most of the same multinational corporations made the same offer. Even the Bush administration thought it was a bad idea and said it would be unfair to companies who had “already paid their full and fair share of tax” and “would not produce any substantial economic benefits.”

Still, Congress agreed to a “one-time-only” repatriation run at the ball. But instead of using their almost tax-free billions for hiring and investing here, companies like Hewlett-Packard, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company, Merck and Honeywell International gave big windfalls to their corporate owners and shareholders in stock buybacks and dividends while laying off tens of thousands of American workers.

The National Bureau of Economic Research found that the tax holiday did not increase domestic investment, employment or research and development. Instead, they found, a dollar increase in repatriated earnings was associated with an increase of almost a dollar in payouts to shareholders.

It’s not that Congress has amnesia about this failed tax policy, as some have suggested. Charlie Brown remembers Lucy’s trick all too well.

“You must think I’m stupid,” Charlie Brown tells Lucy in the Great Pumpkin episode. But Lucy persists, “This time you can trust me. See, here is a signed document testifying that I promise not to pull it away.”

Tax holiday advocates say this time the legislation will really guarantee that the repatriated profits will be used to invest and create jobs in America.

Charlie Brown, in spite of all of us yelling, “Don’t do it,” gives in. “It’s a signed document,” he says. “I guess if you have a signed document in your possession, you can’t go wrong. This year I am really going to kick that football.”

“AAUGH!”

Lucy pulled the football away with the excuse the document wasn’t notarized.
There’s no foolproof way of writing legislation to stop corporations from behaving the way they did in 2005. And the reality is that the corporations don’t really need the repatriated profits to invest and create jobs here. As conservatively calculated by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities from company financial statements, the ten corporations doing the heaviest tax holiday lobbying (Adobe Systems, Apple, CA Technologies, Cisco, Duke Energy, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Pfizer and Qualcomm) have at least $47 billion in cash and other liquid assets readily available for domestic investment and job creation right now.

When Lucy suckers Charlie Brown more than once, she knows that she can do it again and again.

Giving U.S. multinational corporations another “repatriation tax holiday” will encourage them to shift even more of their profits into offshore tax havens until the next time they trick Congress to try and kick the ball. As a result, our country’s deficit will increase when an estimated $79 billion more in corporate taxes is not collected over the next 10 years according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation. That means the rest of us will continue to pay more than our fair share for the essential services of government.

These big corporations benefit immensely from all the advantages of being headquartered in our country. They need to start paying their taxes just as every citizen and small business does.

That’s why Congress should listen to our raised voices: “Don’t do it, Charlie Brown!”

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/169051-a-charlie-brown-congress

How SCE&G Rate Hike Was Cut Nearly in Half

The Saluda Dam

On Wednesday, the S.C. Public Service Commission (PSC) approved an electric rate hike for SCE&G that was 48.75% less than the company’s request.

The 4.88% increase instead of a 9.52% hike was good news for all SCE&G customers, including small businesses. The increase will take place over 3 years instead of the proposed 12 months.

Intervention Matters
This was my 5th time intervening in an SCE&G rate hearing and the 5th time seeing significant cuts from original rate hike filings (43% in 2002, 49.4% in 2004, 20% in 2005 for natural gas, 35% in 2007). SCE&G has had other rate increases to cover the increased cost of fuel but those are pass-throughs so the company does not profit.

Catching the Same Breaks as the Big Guns
The S.C. Office of Regulatory Staff (ORS) has been a valuable asset to the Small Business Chamber in our efforts to keep utility bills as low as possible. They were particularly instrumental in the negotiations for this case in helping with my request to defer $3 million of the rate hike for small businesses from the first year of the increase to the second year in hopes for a better economy. SCE&G had intended to offer larger utility customers this break.

Small business customers of SCE&G will now see only a 1.35% (instead of 2.23%) increase in the first year, 2.52% the second year and 1.01% the third year.

At my request, SCE&G has also stated its intention to look more favorably on small businesses in future proposed adjustments—to make our rate more equitable compared to other classifications. The new rates moved us in that direction, although we’re not there yet.

Different Factors at Play -- This Time Around
But while we have seen reductions in rate hike requests as large as this one, the contributing factors were a little different.

In my radio interview with Dukes Scott, Executive Director of ORS, he pointed out the very diverse group of official parties to the case opposing the rate hike was important.

Large industrial, big retail, small business, conservationists, non-profits, and private citizens all were at the negotiating table—a richer mix than usual.

Wide Variety at Hearings Sealed the Deal
Then there were the very important public hearings. In addition to the Small Business Chamber, non-parties to the SCE&G case—including AARP-SC, S.C. Appleseed Legal Justice Center and S.C. Fair Share—sent e-mail blasts to their members encouraging attendance at hearings. Scott particularly cited AARP’s efforts in turning out large crowds at the hearings.

“I know that the testimony from the consumers at the night hearings was so important to us for getting a further reduction than I think we could have gotten without them,” Scott told me.

Workers’ Comp Rates to Drop Big

Where was that headline 11 days ago? 

On June 10^th, the S.C. Department of Insurance put out a media advisory saying that its Director, Scott Richardson, had approved an overall 9.8% decrease in worker’s compensation insurance rates (technically the cut was to something called “Loss Costs in the Voluntary Market” but I don’t want you to quit reading).

A 9.8% cut!!!!!!  In his economy this is great news for small business but I don’t know that any of our daily newspapers reported the story.

In 2005, a 32.9% hike in workers’ comp insurance was proposed, and in 2007, a 27.7% increase was put on the table.  Several South Carolina dailies reported these stories primarily because the big business organizations pushed the news as proof that reform was needed and claimant attorneys were driving up premiums.

“Blame the lawyers, not obscene insurance company profits,” they said.

But when it came time to fight these rate hikes in court, the big business organizations were nowhere to be found. 

Only The S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce and the State Consumer Advocate went before a judge to successfully fight the proposals.  Turned out that lawyers weren’t responsible for increased costs at all – and the judge dramatically reduced the proposed rate hikes to 18.7% (http://www.scsbc.org/view_press.asp?id=199) and 9.8% (http://www.scsbc.org/view_press.asp?id=256)  respectively.

So why did no reporter in the state pick up this very important, good news story about our businesses possibly saving big on future workers’ comp premiums?

Two reasons. 

First, there are far fewer reporters at our daily papers, as I pointed out in Monday’s blog.  This is especially true for pure business reporters.  The remaining ones simply don’t have the time to find and report every important story.  And, I hate to say this, but there might be no business reporter in South Carolina that knows enough about workers’ comp insurance to even understand how rates are determined.   I only found out about this 9.8% cut from Mike Whiteley of Workcompcentral.com in Texas.

Second, big business unfortunately sets the tone for what is a business story in this state and they had no interest in pushing this good news.  A cut in insurance rates doesn’t fit their tort reform story line.   “Only by cutting lawyers’ compensation can we ever reduce insurance premiums,” they scream year after year.   Ooops.

The reality is that while some reform in the civil justice system might be needed, it isn’t the lazy, ineffective kind of simply capping damage awards and lawyer compensation.  But that’s a story for another day.

Today’s message is this:

1. There are not enough hard news reporters at our dailies, and
2. There’s an undeserved big business special interest influence on reporters.

Both are keeping you from really being informed – and that’s not good news. 

The Mainstream Media's Epic Fail: Alvin Greene and the 2010 Primary

"I think the ultimate story that…should come out here is this is a major failure on the part of the media."  - Dan Cook, Editor, Free Times, Columbia SC, in radio interview on U Need 2 Know, WOIC (1230 AM,) June 17, 2010. 

Dan nailed it.  He was talking about the real story behind the Democratic U.S. Senate primary victory of Alvin Greene.  

Very few in the print media covered the contest the way that a U.S. Senate race deserves, until of course, it was too late to inform the electorate about the qualifications of Mr. Greene and his opponent Vic Rawl.  (My focus is on the print media because I hold them to a much higher standard for reporting the news.  Most electronic news is just ripping and reading what the print media has already reported or very shallow coverage dictated by the medium itself.  Bloggers might be the only exception.)

And depending on the results of the GOP Gubernatorial runoff, Dan’s comment might apply there also. 


Candidate Nikki Haley’s entire, long campaign has been about total transparency of a legislator’s voting record and income so that the public will know who they are really representing in the General Assembly. 


She garnered 49% of the Republican primary vote on that platform.

  "I knew her to be a connected person who had access to a lot of folks and information, and in my business, that sort of information is critical to get ahead." 
- Bob Ferrell, Wilbur Smith


Now only five days before the runoff she has been exposed as playing the same good ol’boy money games she has been sanctimoniously carping about.  Several years ago the Columbia engineering firm Wilbur Smith contracted with Representative Haley for one purpose only—information.  "I knew her to be a connected person who had access to a lot of folks and information, and in my business, that sort of information is critical to get ahead,” said Bob Ferrell of Wilbur Smith. (CNN’s “Political Ticker” Blog, 6/18/10)

Representative Haley wasn’t privy to this valuable information because of her family’s clothing business or her husband’s military service or her volunteer work for her church (whichever) or PTA.  The information she had was due solely to her serving in the South Carolina General Assembly.  Period.

Huffmon, courtesy ETV

John O’Connor, a print reporter with The State, finally broke the initial story on Representative Haley that has been hiding in plain view if anyone would have had the time to look for it earlier when it might have mattered to primary voters.

Scott Huffmon, political science professor at Winthrop University, agrees.  “This could have helped tarnish Nikki’s image three months ago, but not at this point.” 

I’m not criticizing our state’s print reporters.  There simply aren’t enough of them.   


Every daily in this state – heck, across the country – has cut their hard news staff to save money. 


Brent Nelsen, unsuccessful GOP primary candidate for S.C. Superintendant of Education, spotted this problem in his contest.  

“The media need to play a more active role in sorting through candidates," notes Nelsen. "The state’s financially strapped newspapers have cut back the number of reporters writing articles and opinion columns on politics.”

Most of the hard news reporters remaining hardly have time to look behind a press release to really understand the complexities of an issue.  Being able to do real investigative reporting is probably what most aspire to, but there is no time when your editor keeps handing you more and more story assignments to turn around by press time that day.

“The media need to play a more active role in sorting through candidates." - Brent Nelsen

Our reporters have simply been beat down, grateful to still have a job and looking for that one break that can help them escape a collapsing industry.

The consequences of all this are more than just Alvin Greene and Nikki Haley; the public is missing important stories on government and business every day.  In fact, I’ll share with you one of those stories in my next blog post here at UnConflicted.

Governor's Small Biz Veto Overridden

First, the good news:

The House in action, Courtesy SCETV

Overridden!

The House voted Wednesday to override Governor Sanford’s Veto #14 of the Small Business Development Center’s budget and the Senate followed suit today.

The small businesses of this state greatly appreciate the House and Senate votes and send special thanks to Rep. Dwight Loftis and Rep. Anton Gunn. More about them later.

Low Profile, Major Significance
The media has so far overlooked the House vote on Veto 14 and instead has focused on the higher profile overrides that allowed funding for DHEC, technical colleges, the State Museum and others. But all of us who worked very hard to save the SBDC budget need to understand the importance of that vote because it was the first veto override the House permanently agreed to.

House Floor Play-by-Play

As the House began taking up the budget vetoes Wednesday morning, there were a lot of nervous and glum faces in the lobby, mine included. As the House voted on the electronic board, it quickly became clear that red—the color on the board indicating a vote to sustain a veto—was going to dwarf green—the color to override. Only one veto was overridden out of the first 13 but even that one was quickly reversed.

I was not optimistic.

Every sports fan knows that when your team is being routed, something needs to happen to break the momentum of the game. Most often the easiest thing to do is call a timeout and refocus the attitude of the players.

Skelton's Word of Caution
With the House clearly in the mood to sustain Sanford’s vetoes (see The State newspaper's blog updates from Tuesday), Representative B.R. Skelton (R-Pickens) took the podium just before Veto 11 and urged his fellow members to consider the consequences of their votes. He cautioned the body that the next several votes involved critical elements of economic development for the state.

Smith (D)

Following Mr. Skelton to the podium was Representative James Smith (D-Richland) who chastised the House for sustaining vetoes dealing with education, healthcare and clean rivers funding yet overriding a veto for money going to consultants (the House immediately reconsidered that vote and the board quickly switched to red). Mr. Smith joined Mr. Skelton in calling for more thoughtful voting.

Several more votes lit up the board to sustain and then it was time for #14. Good fortune struck. The mood was still red but the House’s attention was diverted to deal with a non-budget bill.

Veto 14 was now up for a vote.

Loftis (R)

Loftis Goes for the Green
Representative Dwight Loftis (R-Greenville) took to the podium. Mr. Loftis has been a supporter of small business, and earlier I had asked if he would have my letter arguing for keeping the funds for the SBDC placed on each member’s desk.

He not only agreed to do that but also said that he would speak in favor of an override vote. And that he did, eloquently stating the case for maintaining the budget for the only state agency providing direct and tangible services to our small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Gunn (D)

Gunning for the Override
Following Mr. Loftis to the podium was an old friend and advocate for small business, Representative Anton Gunn (D-Richland). He too cited the benefits of the SBDC telling of his own family’s use of their services.

The red spell had been broken, and the message of support for our small businesses and economic development took hold. Green lit up the board 102 times to only 15 reds—an amazing turnaround (just look at blogger Brad Warthen's exchange with House Majority leader Kenny Bingham on June 13, 2010.)

A Shift in Momentum
Sure, the House sustained many more vetoes (see FitsNews) after that crucial vote. But the momentum had been altered. It was OK to push green when merited. Lighting did not strike. No electric shock came with pressing the button. Even GOP Gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley voted green with us.

It was clear that not every Sanford veto was justified. The Governor had made errors in judgment and the House not only had the power, it had the responsibility for the good of the State to say so. And it did.

Thanks to all who contacted their House and Senate members asking for an override of Veto #14. All the efforts paid off.

And thanks to the members of the Legislature for doing the right thing.