Cost of Posting State Agencies' Spending Online Overstated

(The following was published in the Commentary section of The Post and Courier on April 3, 2008)

By Richard Eckstrom

State government spending has grown tremendously over the last several years, and the public realizes that personal income levels have not grown anywhere near as fast as government spending. For example, spending by state government jumped twelve percent last year, yet the average South Carolina family’s income rose by just four percent. Clearly, government spending is out of touch with the economic realities faced by ordinary citizens.

Taxpayers deserve to know where that money is going. The General Assembly is now considering legislation that would require state agencies and local governments to post their check registers and credit card statements online. This proposed legislation, if enacted, would make it easy for citizens to see for themselves exactly where their tax money goes. In turn, this could expose wasteful spending and remind state agencies and employees that they ultimately answer to the people they serve. This is exactly the kind of common sense, good government proposal that no one should oppose. Many may not realize that the Comptroller General’s office has already implemented a similar system – at no cost to state agencies – that makes expenditure information for most state agencies available via an easily accessible website.

Agency compliance with any additional online data posting required by the proposed legislation could be implemented in most cases without costing the taxpayers a dime. Yet a recently released “fiscal impact statement” obtained by the General Assembly dramatically overstates the cost of implementing this proposal. Misinformed or biased “number crunching” only confuses lawmakers and gives governments an excuse not to make their spending available to the public.

According to initial cost estimates for implementing this proposed legislation, the state would need as much as $5 million to fully implement an online check register and credit card database. These estimates, provided by a few assorted state agencies, are simply not credible to me. In fact, I already provide spending information on more than 70 state agencies via a website at absolutely no additional cost to taxpayers. The proposed legislation would simply require local governments and the remainder of state government to follow suit.

I am told that some officials are already using the dramatically inflated cost estimates as political cover. They are arguing that it is a waste of taxpayer money to inform taxpayers how their money is spent.

Most state agencies are already in compliance with the proposed law, whether or not they realize it. The majority of state agencies already report their finances to my office for me to process their check payments and in turn I summarize and electronically post their spending information on the state website. The entire program costs taxpayers nothing.

State agencies exempted from reporting to my office now maintain their own similar financial databases that they could make available, if they wanted to, via the Internet at virtually no additional cost, simply by using the same type search engine that we are already using.

Otherwise, school districts and county and municipal governments would be able to comply with the proposed law simply by scanning their check registers and credit card statements onto a computer and posting their scanned files to their agency’s website. Keep it simple. Require each governmental entity to decide the easiest and least expensive route to comply with the proposed legislation.

But rather than taking this common-sense approach, some are lamenting that a vast network of new computers, databases and new employees will be necessary to manage an imaginary new bureaucracy. It is the usual ploy. If the costs to implement can be inflated, they think that maybe they can make go away these efforts at implementing more and better government transparency. But let’s be clear – their inflated cost estimates, which are awfully flimsy, are the only thing shielding lawmakers from the justifiable anger of the voters if this proposed legislation fails.

This typical big-government mind-set, that an entirely new bureaucracy is required to reinvent the wheel, is bogus. The real facts are clear. The majority of government agencies essentially already comply with the proposed bill. Those that don’t comply have a no-cost, or very low-cost, example to follow. Complying is simply a matter of being willing to make it happen.

The technology exists today. The infrastructure exists today. My office will assist any state agency with the transition to transparency. State lawmakers should welcome the chance to shine the sun on state spending and to invite the public into the vaults of government data. It should not cost them a thing to do so. And if they do not, the public would be justified in asking what it is their elected officials don’t want taxpayers to see.

Richard Eckstrom, a former Certified Public Accountant from Greenville, is the Comptroller General of South Carolina and one of the five members of the State Budget and Control Board. He served one term as State Treasurer and was re-elected in 2006 as Comptroller General.

South Carolina’s New Spending Transparency Website

This blog has often pointed out that well-funded, special interests in our state often have their way with policy, budgets, taxes, and spending, while the best interests of “we the people” can sometimes be overlooked. Sound fiscal management, balanced budgets, and even ensuring that jobs in South Carolina are only filled by those legally entitled to work here, shouldn’t be controversial or partisan issues. Unfortunately, some legislators know that we as private citizens are not organized, do not have highly-paid lobbyists in Columbia and Washington working for us, and are often too busy earning a living and looking after our families to pay attention to their mischief, or to even notice whose interests they are serving.

To help citizens oversee what government is doing, and to make it easier for each of us to hold our government officials accountable, I am very pleased to announce a new website that Governor Sanford and I have created that will provide a greater degree of information about how our tax dollars are being used.

Our new spending transparency initiative, available by clicking the flashing link at www.cg.sc.gov, contains information provided by my office on all funds expended by state agencies. This information covers travel expenditures, purchases of office supplies over $100, and spending for contracts over $100. The information is reported by agency, and it will be updated monthly.

Because it is budget time again in Columbia, the need for more transparency and accountability could not be clearer. For example, some in the Legislature have proposed borrowing $100 million from our Medicaid program’s reserve fund. Instead of saving that money for economic down times when revenues are low and demand for Medicaid services are high, some of our legislators have decided they want spend that money on non-essential projects in their districts.

As Governor Sanford has pointed out, “revenue growth is essentially flat, and the state is dealing with a $270 million budget hole created by budget writers paying for ongoing expenses with one-time money last year.” Yet our legislators are digging an even deeper hole of debt for hard working taxpayers to fill by adding another $179 million this year in one-time money to pay for ongoing expenses. This is being done at the very time when it appears our nation is about to experience a serious economic downturn. This habit of ignoring our day of financial reckoning guarantees that South Carolina’s budget crisis will be even more painful next year and in future years.

I’ve been working to open the curtains on government spending since I came into office because taxpayers have a right to know how their tax money is being spent. We’ll keep working to make this information even easier to access and as always, I would welcome your suggestions as to how we can make government finances even more transparent. If we all work together, vote responsibly, and hold our representatives accountable, we can build a more prosperous South Carolina, with a sound economy and greater opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

It’s your money being spent. And you have every right to know how it’s being spent. Please let me know whether you find this new web-based information helpful.

SECURING THE HOME FRONT

It is becoming clear to many Americans that the cost of our federal government’s reluctance to enforce immigration laws, to secure our borders, and to ensure our national security and the safety of American citizens, affects every facet of American life.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the net public cost for providing illegal immigrants with services like Medicaid, food assistance programs, our federal prison system, our court systems, and public education exceeds $10 billion annually.

Some states are recognizing the enormous costs and threats this problem poses to our American way of life. Many states recognize that employment is the most common incentive for illegal immigration to the United States, and some are beginning to hold scofflaw employers accountable for aiding and abetting criminal behavior. There is also growing awareness that those that hire illegal aliens are discriminating against U.S. citizens and legal resident immigrants. In response, some states are taking greater responsibility for addressing the crisis.

Arizona, Nevada, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, and West Virginia have enacted tough new laws requiring or encouraging employers to verify every job applicant’s legal status using a federal data bank. These states have also imposed tough new sanctions on employers, including a progressive penalty system for those found guilty of hiring illegal workers. Arizona will permanently revoke an operator’s business license for a second offense. As a result, states that have been aggressively implementing new laws have dramatically reduced costs and problems, as illegal aliens have moved back home or to other states.

There are an estimated 76,000 illegal aliens in South Carolina, costing our taxpayers $87.4 million annually for education alone. Between 2000 and 2006, South Carolina’s K-12 student enrollment increased by over 34,000 students, and is projected to increase by a similar number by 2015. This increase will, of course, result in the need to build many new schools. But that’s just one small part of the toll this crisis presents our state.

Consider our transportation systems. Increased traffic congestion results in slower commute times, greater fuel costs, and more need to repair and build roads and highways. The SC Department of Transportation already has a $5 billion maintenance backlog. The illegal wave that’s flooding our state and nation also increases problems with air quality and solid waste disposal, requires additional low-income housing, dramatically increases costs for many of our hospitals and clogs their emergency rooms, and stretches capacity while increasing costs for law enforcement.

Despite these added costs to taxpayers, threats to national security, discrimination against hardworking citizens and legal immigrants, and threats to our personal safety, when our state Senate recently had the opportunity to address the problem, it yielded to special interests that seem driven by a desire for low-cost labor. In response to overwhelming support from the citizens of our state for tough, meaningful reform, the Senate passed a bill so loaded with loopholes it would accomplish little.

Fortunately, our state House of Representatives passed stronger legislation that would hold employers accountable for aiding and abetting the criminal act of invading our country and claiming a job rightfully belonging to a legal citizen. The House and Senate bills have gone to a “conference committee” to hammer out differences, and there is hope that the provisions in the stronger House bill will prevail.

It is disappointing that many elected officials would not only put the interests of special interests above the welfare of the citizens of South Carolina, but that they would do so on matters that concern the very security and survival of our state and nation. If they would do so on matters like this of such enormous cost and importance to the safety and security of us all, think of how ready they must be to put our interests below those of special interests on so many lesser matters.

This issue emphasizes again the need for every patriotic South Carolinian to know what is happening in our state, to speak out on the issues of our times, to hold our elected officials accountable, and to ensure on Election Day that those we elect truly do represent “we the people."

An Economic Stimulus for Whose Country?

We know it is an election year when the U.S. Congress votes to send us all a check. Several weeks ago the Congress approved and President Bush signed legislation granting $150 billion in tax rebates with the stated intention of stimulating the U. S. economy. According to the Internal Revenue Service, “starting in May, the Treasury will begin sending economic stimulus payments to more than 130 million individuals. The stimulus payments will go out through the late spring and summer.”

Much as we all appreciate the unexpected rebate of even a small portion of our federal taxes, past experience indicates that were our national leaders truly interested in the long-term health of our economy, rather than pleasing taxpayers in an election year, they would sharply cut taxes and make it more profitable to work, save, and invest.

As one presidential candidate asked, whose economy are we stimulating when the U.S. government borrows $150 billion from China to give $600 to each taxpayer so that they can purchase goods made in China?

A recent paper published by The Heritage Foundation states that “tax rebates fail, because they do not encourage productivity or wealth creation. To receive a rebate, nobody has to work, save, invest, or create new wealth.” It also pointed out that “every dollar that government rebates ‘inject’ into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another.”

This is not mere speculation on the part of The Heritage Foundation; it points out that the “quick fix” of random tax rebates has been tried before, in 2001, and “had little economic impact.” On the other hand, the tax rate cuts of 2003 were effective because they “were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth.”

It should not be surprising that those countries that suffered most severely from the deadening hand of socialism are today experiencing vibrant growth through flat and low taxes. In fact, every flat-tax country, except Hong Kong, is a former Communist nation. In Eastern European countries like Slovakia, rich and poor alike pay a 19 percent tax on their incomes, and their economies are growing faster than the rich Western European countries, where many companies now are considering moves to the East.

What is most extraordinary is that while many in the U. S. Congress continue to focus on class envy and socialist redistribution schemes, the country that suffered most from the Marxist nightmare has implemented a 13 percent flat tax rate, four percentage points lower than the most ardent flat tax supporters in our country have requested. Since adopting the flat tax, Russia’s economy has grown by 10 percent, which exceeds growth in the United States and Western Europe during the same period. Hong Kong has had a flat tax for over 50 years and is the world’s fastest growing economy. There are even signs that China may follow Hong Kong’s example.

The recent rebate approved by Congress brings to mind a quotation often cited by President Reagan:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

In our land of freedom, free enterprise, and opportunity, we should relearn the principles that made our nation the great arsenal of democracy, the principles that those so recently enslaved by socialism have learned through their bitter trials. Low taxes succeed because they reward work, encourage savings, and provide the investments that lead to new jobs and economic growth. The cynical quick fix, given in an election year, may help pay a few bills, but in the long run it only deepens our national debt and does little to improve America’s economy.

To Fix Our Schools, Let’s First Fix Our Testing System

It often seems that one of the reasons South Carolina ranks last among the states in student achievement, as measured by SAT scores and the state graduation rate, is because our education officials are so preoccupied with matters that relate only marginally to the academic success of students in the classroom.

Under an accountability plan that our state education leaders negotiated with the federal government, in return for federal funds under The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, not a single school district in South Carolina met federal yearly progress targets last school year. Furthermore, only 37 percent of schools in the state made “adequate yearly progress” toward the agreed-upon goal that all students will score proficient or higher in English, math and science by 2014. Even more disturbing, state education leaders have said that these numbers will only get worse.

Instead of devoting our full attention and all of our resources toward ensuring that every student achieves at his or her maximum ability, our state holds the “distinction” of being the only state in the nation to own and operate its own school bus fleet. Ours is also one of the few states in the nation that administers its own testing system that we’ve named the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test (PACT). This test diverts vast resources and attention from what should be the focus of our educational establishment, and by any standard it fails to provide timely and useful diagnostic information that would actually allow teachers to better understand and address student performance.

Most states purchase commercially available achievement tests from companies with the professional and scientific expertise to administer tests customized to individual state standards. Unlike those national achievement tests that provide diagnostic information about individual students within a few days, our PACT results are only available long after students have moved on to another grade. Also, the PACT does not provide diagnostic information about individual students, nor does it allow us to compare our students’ achievement with their regional and national peers.

In recent years we have spent approximately $65 per-student administering the PACT, while most states obtain far more useful information for under $10 per-student. In addition to many hidden costs of administering the PACT, such as field-testing possible questions, our state spends over a half million dollars on salaries tied to the test, while districts are forced to additionally spend tens of millions of dollars to purchase the national diagnostic tests in order to obtain useful information about individual students.

Many dedicated teachers complain about the time lost in preparing for and administering tests. It is particularly unfortunate to waste valuable time preparing for and administering a test that does nothing to help us understand and address the education crisis in our state. It often seems that many of our state’s education leaders are more focused on hyping the results and masking the failures of the status quo than serving the teachers, families, and students in our state.

Before the crisis can be addressed and our education problems fixed, we need to implement a testing system better than the PACT that will allow us to diagnose the problems, great as they may be, and ensure that every child is receiving all the help he or she needs to realize his or her God-given potential.

To do justice to our students and their teachers and to focus our efforts where those efforts are needed, it’s time we turn over school bus operations to those who understand the transport business -- and its time we turn our student achievement testing over to those national companies that are expert in the field.

LET'S PUT THE CHILDREN FIRST

The South Carolina General Assembly has convened this month amid reports that our legislators will be addressing the way education is funded in our state. After forty years of “fixing” South Carolina’s schools, let’s hope they will seize the opportunity to think comprehensively and to truly change the culture in our school districts where half of all students entering high school drop out, and so many of those who remain chronically fail.

One of the advantages of South Carolina’s last-in-the-nation performance in education is that it provides the political impetus to think “outside the box.” Too often our goals in education, while well-intentioned, have been far too modest. For example, a former State education leader pledged that our State’s education performance would eventually rank among the upper half of states. But what does it mean to rank among the top 25 states, when our nation’s performance in math, reading and science ranks at the bottom of the world’s industrialized nations? Aren’t we aiming too low?

We need to acknowledge that while our legislators can provide powerful incentives for excellence, money alone is not the answer to what ails schools, including those in South Carolina. This has been proven many times, but nowhere as dramatically as in Kansas City, Missouri.

In 1985 a federal district judge, concerned about segregation and low-performance among minority students, ordered the state and the Kansas City school district to spend nearly $2 billion over 12 years to build new schools, integrate classrooms, and bring student test scores up to national norms. The money on a per-pupil basis was higher than any of the 280 largest districts in the country.

But rather than focusing on the individual needs of students and intensive tutoring to remediate problems, the money bought higher salaries, 15 new schools, an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an underwater viewing room, television and animation studios, a 25 acre wildlife sanctuary and zoo, a robotics lab, a model United Nations with simultaneous translation capability, field trips to Mexico and Senegal, and taxis to replace school busses. After twelve years, test scores were no higher and there was more, not less, racial segregation.

In South Carolina some of our districts with the highest per-student spending have highly competitive administrative salaries, comfortable and modern district offices, and shameful school facilities for teachers and students. As with most bureaucracies, when money is targeted at organizational framework, there is a tendency for administrators to spend money on themselves first, and what little remains trickles down to teachers and students in the classroom. Our current system also results in many rules and regulations that tie the hands of principals and teachers. These rules and regulations result in a lot of uniformity among schools, but often don’t encourage excellence.

To ensure that education spending is directed to the classroom, where it is needed, many are proposing a concept called Weighted Student Funding. This is a per-student, rather than a per-district, approach where all students are assigned a foundational, or base, educational dollar value. That value is “weighted” higher, if need be, based on the relative difficulty to educate the student. In this way, economically disadvantaged and Special Education students would receive a greater amount to address their needs.

Once an appropriate amount of educational aid is assigned to a pupil, the student carries that money to his or her school directly, in the form of “real dollars,” and school-based budgeting is done annually based upon the total generated by all students who attend that school. With students free to choose among an array of schools, including charter schools, this mode of funding encourages excellence because schools are accountable to families for their performance, rather than merely to administrators for compliance with rules and regulations.

Many of South Carolina’s dedicated teachers recognize what needs to be done to improve the performance of their students, but their hands are tied by a command and control system that looks more like a totalitarian regime than the United States of America.

Even our students recognize the problems. I recently received student essays from a Midlands area high school in which one student concedes that “the only way for a district to get higher test scores is by rigorously challenging students in its schools.” The same student acknowledges the problem of social promotion, while another states that “our government is putting the money into the hands of irresponsible leaders who care more about themselves than helping our state get out of the position that it is in.”

By shifting funding from large, impersonal district bureaucracies to principals, teachers, and students, we can ensure that our education tax dollars are being used where most South Carolinians want them used, for the benefit of our children.

Every year in the life of a child is precious, and parents and their children do not have five or ten years for our Legislature to address the crisis that currently exists in our schools. Let’s encourage our legislators to put aside half measures and compromises and instead ensure that every family in our state has access to schools that work for children, and not just for those who oversee them.

A NEW YEAR'S RESOLUTION?

The end of one year and the dawn of the next is a time to inventory what we have accomplished and what remains to be done. It is a time of resolutions and a time for fresh new beginnings. It gives us a new slate and an opportunity for a fresh start.

At this time next year our forty-fourth President will be preparing to appoint a new cabinet, writing an inaugural address, and overseeing the transition to new leadership for the executive branch of the federal government. One third of the United States Senate will have just been elected, as will the entire House of Representatives.

Here in South Carolina we will also be electing the entire General Assembly -- all the Members of the House and Senate. For these reasons, among many others, the new year is a critical crossroads in our lives as Americans. Candidates are particularly sensitive to the will of the voters, and the year ahead offers “we the people” the opportunity to powerfully influence the direction of our state and nation and to shape the policies that will determine the kinds of lives our children and grandchildren will have.

As I think back on the great policy issues of 2007, one thing stands out. The issue of border security and illegal immigration became a national firestorm. Americans rose up as they have on very few issues to demand that our borders be secured and our laws be enforced. Having been badly burned on their amnesty bill and its “paths to citizenship” for law breakers, one would think that lawmakers would have learned a lesson. Unfortunately, some of them came back again and again trying to achieve the same end.

In the days before Christmas, as Congress was finalizing a massive spending bill to keep the federal government running, lawmakers passed a bill laden with more than eleven thousand pork barrel projects (they call them “earmarks”) worth approximately $20 billion. These projects receive almost no public scrutiny and debate.

Earlier this year Congress and the President had pledged to cut the number of pork barrel projects in half, from the 2005 peak of 13,492 to 6,746. But old habits die hard. Congress was, however, astonishingly successful at cutting one major project and its $3 billion price tag -- the border fence that Congress had previously approved and that the American people have been demanding!

Of course, efforts are underway to restore funding for the border fence. The organization that has probably done more than any other in mobilizing public opinion in support of border security and enforcing our immigration laws, NumbersUSA, has already collected volumes of signatures asking President Bush, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid to restore funds for the border fence.

When one sees the U. S. Congress boldly defying the will of the American people, it strongly suggests that there is very strong counter-pressure from highly organized special interest groups. Legislators have determined that small, well-funded, special interests, perhaps with a financial interest in lots of cheap labor flooding into the country, can be of more help to them politically than can the vast, disorganized citizens they are supposed to represent.

There is a lesson here for us all. We need to take our responsibilities as citizens and voters very seriously. We need to challenge our representatives when they ask for our votes, and we need to hold them accountable if they betray us. A good New Years resolution would be to register on the NumbersUSA website, take advantage of the free faxes they provide for contacting the Congress, and make sure your representatives truly do represent you, and not some special interest that wants to pick your pockets for spending you oppose.

The year ahead is an exciting opportunity for all of us, working together, to ensure that our state and nation have leadership worthy of our families, our history, and our ideals.

My family and I wish you a New Year full of joy, peace, and hope. May God richly bless you in 2008 and beyond.

A JOYOUS AND BLESSED CHRISTMAS TO ALL!

There was a recent news story that British primary schools have been voluntarily giving up what had been a staple of their Christmas season for generations, the school nativity play. It was reported that only one in five schools are planning to perform the traditional nativity play this year. To American readers, the idea of schools making any mention of Christmas, faith, or allowing prayer and Scripture reading has become strange and foreign. And it is particularly sad to see such things voluntarily abandoned elsewhere when they have been forcibly forbidden by court order in our own country.

The news story explained that while most British parents want the tradition of nativity plays to continue in British schools, many school officials have decided to abandon the plays out of concern over “not offending anyone.” Sound familiar?

Because expressions of faith have been stripped from America’s public schools, it does not seem as shocking when Christmas displays are stripped from our courthouse squares, the word “Christmas” is eliminated from retail advertising, sales people are forbidden to wish customers a “merry Christmas,” and public officials celebrate “winter holidays.” In recent weeks there has even been controversy over whether it is appropriate for political leaders to wish their constituents and voters a “merry Christmas.”

Were it not so commercially lucrative, all celebration of Christmas would probably be eliminated everywhere but inside our churches. We are doing what the British schools are doing, surrendering the public square to a small number of secularists aided by the ACLU, and convincing ourselves that even though the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christian, it would be impolite to let it show.

The judges and educators that have banned even the reading of a psalm at a school assembly program or a prayer at graduation will tell us that one of the reasons for the chronic failure and increasing violence in our schools today is that too many students lack “self esteem.” Could there possibly be a connection between that lack of self-esteem and the fact that schools prevent a student from talking about where he or she came from, what the purpose of one’s life is, and where we are headed?

The acknowledgment that one can be the adopted child of not merely a king, but the King of Kings, who loved us before the world began and who “so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have life eternal” can do wonders for a child’s “self-esteem.”

Let us remember during this holy and happy season that “Nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house.” Let us joyfully reclaim our culture, return to the roots of our nation’s founding, proclaim the good news, and celebrate the life-changing, world-changing event when “God became man and dwelt among us” as the Light of the World.

My family and I wish you and all your loved ones a happy, joyous and blessed Christmas. May God richly bless you and yours this Christmas and throughout the New Year!

THE PRIMARY PROBLEM WITH PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCES

The presidential election that has been underway for over a year, and will continue for nearly another year, has raised many important issues and generated needed discussion about problems confronting our country. However, it has also made clear to many Americans that our system of choosing party nominees and electing Presidents is itself a problem that needs fixing.

Our presidential elections have become far too long, too expensive, too divisive, and they divert attention, time and money from problems on which our political leaders, and all Americans, should focus and work together. They have also become the near-exclusive domain for the wealthiest or most prominent Americans with ambitions to hold the highest office in the land.

Within the lifetime of many adults today, candidates for President did not even announce their candidacies until the spring of the presidential election year. We used to have a primary system that started out slowly, with primaries in small states like New Hampshire, West Virginia and South Carolina, where good, unknown political leaders without enormous amounts of cash, could hire a bus, travel from town to town, and become known.

This sorting-out process in the smaller states allowed merit to be recognized and little-known candidates of merit to become known, thus broadening the field beyond the very wealthy and the more prominent leaders from the largest states. The primary season, having begun in March in small states, culminated in June in large states like New York and California.

Unfortunately, this sensible system has now been destroyed by large states competing against smaller ones to be among the first to hold primaries. Instead of a slow, testing process that moved from state to state, “super primaries” requiring hundreds of millions of dollars are now held in January and February of the presidential election year.

But today many recognize that the party nominees will be determined within the one month gap between “Iowa caucus day” on January 3rd and “super primary day” on February 5th when voters in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Utah will go to the polls to choose their party’s nominee.

With one-half of every four year election cycle being consumed as it is with highly partisan, national political activity there is an enormous spill-over effect on the Congress, with the parties and their leaders framing issues for the sake of partisan advantage instead of focusing on the best interests of the nation as a whole. This situation has produced a demise of statesmanship.

While most Americans probably would not want to see national elections carried out with strict spending limits within a six week period, as they are in Great Britain, our current system needs to be fixed, and most of our political leaders know it. Even while the current system is enriching political consultants, advertising firms, and the broadcast media, it is creating revulsion, cynicism, or apathy among the general public. I am reminded of a television personality who said, “I never vote; it only encourages them!”

Once our 2008 presidential election is finally over, our next President, senior leaders in Congress, and party leaders should promptly convene a bipartisan commission to advise political parties and office holders on how to restore a sane political process that ensures a level playing field, giving preference to character over cash and policies over partisan gamesmanship.

In these perilous times, there are too many threats facing our nation for us to spend half our time fighting partisan battles that only divide and weaken our nation in the eyes of the world. There may be at least two sides to every issue, but in confronting Islamic jihad and the terrorism that seeks to destroy us, Americans cannot afford to be less than one nation, under God.

ANOTHER DAY OF INFAMY?

Many of our political leaders who supported amnesty for illegal aliens and a “path to citizenship” for law breakers were shocked by the enormous, collective, “no” they received from the American people this year. Concerned that they have been on the wrong side of what most Americans regard as the nation’s greatest threat, many have attempted to make amends by suddenly talking tough about securing the border and enforcing our laws.

New legislation in the Congress now gives us the opportunity to address the immigration crisis with tough new tools. It also gives the tough talkers the opportunity to show the voters that they “got the message.”

Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC) has introduced the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, H.R. 4088. The House bill already has 122 cosponsors, including South Carolina Representatives Gresham Barrett and Bob Inglis. The Senate version, S. 2368, is identical and was introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR), but thus far has only one cosponsor, Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

The legislation, which already has bipartisan support but little apparent support from South Carolina’s delegation, does those things that our Congressional leaders say they support. Specifically, it:

• Increases the number of Border Patrol agents by 8,000 over five years.
  
  
• Employs the newest technology available, including satellite communication and aerial surveillance.
  
  
• Expands and mandates the use of E-verify, a free program administered by the Department of Homeland Security that enables employers to confirm the legal status of their workers and job applicants. The bill will phase in all employers over four years.
  
  
• Allows for information-sharing between the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to close all loopholes and ensure that no illegal aliens are eligible for Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.
  
  
• Expands the detention capacity and resources for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  
  
• Increases the number of Federal District Court Judges so as to expedite deportation hearings for lawbreakers.
  

We have all heard the tough, new rhetoric about border security and about enforcing immigration laws, but only two members of South Carolina’s Congressional delegation have yet signed on to this legislation that has the bipartisan support of 124 of their colleagues.

The problems and expenses created by our undefended southern border, and the opportunity it offers terrorists, cannot go unaddressed any longer. Sixty-six years ago today on December 7, 1941, our nation suffered the first attack on its own territory. Our President directed that all measures be taken for our defense and assured the republic that “we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.”

It is time that our leaders remember those words and recognize the damage being done to us through a passive attack by tens of millions of scofflaws. The American people are just as willing to address today’s prolonged national attack as they were following that sudden “Day of Infamy” in 1941.

The Joys and Perils of Christmas

Christmas is a time of year when we joyously celebrate the birth of Jesus the Christ and God’s giving of His son for us, and many people respond by giving gifts to loved ones, friends, and even to total strangers in need. It is always good that we extend acts of love and charity to others, and to do so seems especially appropriate this time of year.

Unfortunately, some merchants view the extraordinary goodwill and generosity shown by Christmas shoppers as an extraordinary opportunity to take advantage of their goodwill and generosity. In that regard, shoppers need to be aware of certain perils, namely in buying gifts cards and using credit cards, and should shop accordingly.

Gift cards can seem like a very practical way to ensure that those to whom we give get the perfect gift. Last year, U.S. sales of gift cards exceeded $80 billion. Unfortunately, consumers lose nearly $8 billion annually through such cards either by misplacing or forgetting to redeem them, through various hidden fees, or through expiration dates imposed by the merchant. It’s a point worth making that the legal tender used to buy a gift card has no expiration date.

It’s very important for both the giver and the receiver of gift cards to read and remember the fine print. Terms and conditions that accompany these cards can substantially decrease their face value. This fine print may include:

· a fee to be paid upon purchase of the card;

· a fee to be paid if the card is lost or stolen (and even then the lost card’s bar code and the receipt provided the gift-giver may be required before a replacement will be given);

· a monthly maintenance fee to be charged on inactive cards;

· a fee to be charged simply to check a card’s remaining balance;

· a restriction to limit the period of time that a card is valid.

Many retailers realize that a significant percentage of gift cards will be lost, forgotten and never used, or if partially used, a small balance may go unclaimed. Very few gift cards allow the recipient to redeem the card for cash, even if after a purchase there is only a small balance remaining on the card.

Both the giver and receiver of gift cards should learn about any expiration dates that apply and any fees that may be assessed against the cards. Furthermore, the gift card, a copy of its bar code, and the receipt for its purchase should all be kept in a safe place. But in the end, most losses could be avoided if those who get gift cards use them sooner rather than later.

A second peril for Christmas shoppers exists with using credit cards issued by merchants. Major retailers will frequently ask if you’d like to put your purchase on your store credit card, and if you don’t have one they’ll offer you the opportunity to apply for one on the spot. These offers often include a generous discount for the purchase if it is made with either your existing or a newly applied-for card. Retailers know they will make far more as your creditor than they could ever make by simply selling you merchandise. Some retailers even sell merchandise at a loss knowing that the real profits are made in their lending of money.

Offers for “no payments until next June” or “interest-free payments for six months” are designed to encourage you to carry unpaid balances on your account. Buyer beware. These offers all come with hefty, hidden price tags. One financial advisor illustrates the point with the following example:

The average credit card balance these days is pushing $8,000 and the typical interest rate is about 18 percent, with many folks paying even more. Doing the simple math, an 18 percent interest rate on an $8,000 balance is $1,440 a year.

If you need more convincing, what if rather than paying $1,440 a year to the credit card company, you invested $1,440 every year for the next 20 years and you earned an average return of 8% a year. In 20 years, you’d have accumulated a nest egg of $71,169!

That should make us all think twice when we’re offered credit or we’re tempted to reach for a credit card to make a purchase.

The Christmas season should be a holy and joyous time marked by generosity. It’s a time for giving. But we should be careful that as we give gifts, we give them with our heads as well as with our hearts.

A Politically Correct Thanksgiving?

As we prepare to celebrate Thanksgiving, it can be valuable to consider the roots of this uniquely American holiday because too often its history and meaning is ignored or distorted in our secular age. Some schools are even using textbooks that suggest that the first Thanksgiving feast was about nothing more than expressing thanks to Squanto and some of the Indians, instead of thanking God.

The pilgrims were English Puritans, poor farmers who were struggling to practice their “separatist” religion in their homeland in the face of government harassment and religious persecution. In 1608 they emigrated from England to Amsterdam, and a year later, they moved to Leiden, Holland, where they remained for 12 years. However, they eventually became concerned about the corrupting influences their children faced in that country and, spurred by economic difficulties, they negotiated with the London Company for passage and the right to settle in Virginia, which was the northern part of the company’s jurisdiction.

Eventually, fewer than half of their members agreed to leave Leiden. As part of their agreement with the London merchants financing the voyage, they would travel with a larger group of other passengers. The Mayflower began its historic journey on September 16, 1620, with 102 passengers, including 37 from the Leiden congregation.

The voyage took 65 days, during which two passengers died. A baby was born at sea, and another was born while the ship lay at anchor off the Massachusetts coast. Conditions in the dark, crowded ship were appalling. Most of the passengers were seasick almost from the beginning, there was little to eat, they suffered from bleeding gums, infection, bites from vermin, hunger, rotting food, and they were not able to bathe for the more than two month passage.

When at anchor it became obvious that they would not reach the land in Virginia for which they had contracted, there were threats of mutiny. To ward off the threat and establish a basis of government in an unsettled region, they drew up the Mayflower Compact. This legal framework, based on biblical principles, provided for just and equal laws for believers as well as for non-believers; significantly, it also called for a common store of goods with each person, providing an equal share of ownership and use.

In that first harsh winter more than half the suffering settlers died from cold and starvation, and for some years after settlement the community still failed to flourish. In his history of the Mayflower Company, Governor Bradford indicated that the inherent problem was the collectivist system established by the Mayflower Compact. He wrote:

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years -- that by taking away property, and bringing community into common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing -- as if they were wiser than God. For this community [so far as it was] was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense … that was thought injustice.”

Bradford, recognizing the power of incentive, wisely remedied the problem by assigning each family their own plot of land to work and manage as they wished, thus turning loose for the first time on the American continent the powerful engine of free enterprise. Bradford wrote that his privatization reforms “had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.”

The resulting bounty allowed the settlers to trade and exchange goods with the Indians. It even allowed them to pay off their debts to the London merchants ahead of schedule.

Thus, when the practices of the settlers accorded with the laws of human nature, which laws their leaders recognized were authored by our Creator, the people prospered and were moved to give thanks to the Author of life and natural law.

As we study the lives of these first settlers and the history of their enormous struggle, the spiritual roots of our country are unmistakable and clear. When our textbooks and government schools distort that history or deny the powerful spiritual roots of our nation’s founding, we need to insist, with the same strength of conviction shown by those courageous settlers, that their story be told fully and truthfully. When socialist proposals are put forth for “comprehensive health care” and other collectivist ideas, our children need to know that these ideas were tried and have failed not only in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but right here in America nearly four hundred years ago.

Since those first, difficult days our country has been richly blessed like no other on the face of the Earth. As we gather with our families and contemplate the extraordinary blessings of freedom and bounty we enjoy as Americans, let us resolve, like those first settlers who risked all for their faith, to thank God from whom all blessings flow.

In this spirit, my family and I wish you and yours a very happy and most blessed Thanksgiving. Let us all especially pray for the families and the safety of our troops overseas, remembering also to thank God for their success.

A Dangerous Mix of Money and Power

We’ve all heard politicians and candidates talking about the “ordinary” people they’ve recently run into, and telling teary-eyed stories to show that they feel our pain and really care about us little guys.

This week I heard a radio segment focusing on a personal story recently used by a presidential candidate in her campaign rhetoric while traveling around Iowa. The reporter following her campaign described how this Senator stopped at a local sandwich shop for lunch with her entourage. The Senator settled onto a stool at the counter, ate a sandwich, chatted with her waitress, and then was on her way. According to the reporter, this experience gave the presidential candidate “perfect fodder for her next few stump speeches.”

To be sure, it was glorious fodder. She talked about the working mom she had just met who is raising two boys, working two jobs at minimum wage, struggling to make ends meet, and how, when she becomes President, ordinary people like her waitress will have it much better. It must have all sounded so heartfelt coming from a famous candidate, and no doubt crowds were touched by this sort of profound compassion and concern for their less fortunate neighbors.

The reporter decided to return to the diner to get more background on the one whose life had gotten drawn into a famous candidate’s stump speech, thus becoming part the 2008 presidential election. Yes, it turns out that the waitress indeed has had a difficult life. She has often worked two and three jobs to support her boys. In addition to her job in the sandwich shop she also works at a nursing home to pay her own school loans and make ends meet.

The diner indeed had provided lunch for the candidate and her campaign entourage, but this poor waitress, who was the subject of the campaign rhetoric, insisted that she was not even left a tip for her services. Not five cents for the struggling mom by whom the candidate was so moved.

This story reminds me of an issue that came before the state Budget and Control Board last week. At its meeting, the Board approved major salary increases -- nearly 20 percent increases for some -- for a very small group of agency heads, despite no performance review for the raises, despite some of them being on the job for only a few months, and despite none of them asking for raises. The three most generous raises in the group were for $20,000, $23,000, and almost $36,000!

Governor Sanford and I voted against those hefty increases, particularly since state government is heading into what could be a $220 million deficit next year. Yet the three other members of the Board disagreed with our position, overrode our votes, and approved the raises.

Now these three are serious gentlemen of comfortable means who I assume have been successful in business. I simply can’t imagine they would ever grant an employee of theirs, who had been on the job only a few months, or who had not been given increased responsibilities, a 20% pay raise. But many elected officials think differently of spending taxpayers’ money than spending their own, and spending it generously. For some, politics is about power, and many have grown accustomed to letting the hard-working citizens of South Carolina buy that power for them.

Like the Senator who wouldn’t leave her own spare change for a working mother who had served her, too many of our politicians see taxpayers as merely useful props. Some will talk with great compassion about their concern for the poor. They’ll conceive great governmental programs to improve life for middle class families whose votes they covet. But it will be the very people they say they want to help -- the struggling mom raising two boys alone and waiting tables or the self-reliant middle class mom and dad who want to rear their children as their parents reared them -- who will ultimately pay the tab for the generous big government, big spending schemes of the politicians.

Someone once said that “giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” In the interest of protecting our financial safety, perhaps it’s time to insist upon more restrictive driving rules for those to whom we’ve given money and power.

It’s Wrong… Patently Wrong!

Even before many of our rights were codified in the U.S. Constitution, the right of an inventor to own all rights to the creations of his own genius was constitutionally protected. The patent system crafted by our founding fathers has been so successful that it has enabled America to produce more inventions than all the rest of the world’s nations combined.

Unlike many countries, America’s patent system has guarded intellectual property by protecting the confidential contents of a patent application until a patent was granted, or by returning an application to the inventor with his secrets intact, so that he could make modifications and possibly resubmit an application.

Unfortunately, foreign interests, multinational corporations, and American “globalists” who believe that people, products, and information ought to be able to cross national borders unfettered are attempting to “harmonize” America’s patent system with systems that exist elsewhere in the world. Based upon globalist ideology, a “Patent Reform Act” has already been passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and is under consideration in the Senate.

For the sake of “harmonizing” the American patent system with systems of foreign nations, foreign interests and multinational corporations are aggressively pressuring Congress to make these changes. After all, they are aware that the so called “reforms” would give them access to the research and development done by small inventors and businesses that account for 40% of America’s innovation, and would free them from having to pay for their inventions.

The proposal would change the rules for filing patents and would give property rights to the “first to file” rather than the first to invent. Obviously, large foreign interests are far better positioned than are most of our own small businesses and individual inventors to hire teams of powerful lobbyists and lawyers in Washington, D.C. to help them gain rights to an American invention they didn’t devise, simply by rushing to submit paperwork before it is submitted by the actual American inventor.

The proposal would require the U.S. Patent Office to open its files and publish all inventions 18 months after the date of application, even though the current application process for an American inventor takes much longer to successfully complete. This would mean that before American ideas and inventions are protected with a patent, confidential information would be published so that any country can pirate American ideas and inventions and put them into production.

The Patent Reform Act would also limit damages that can be awarded for patent infringement and outright theft. Again, the small American company or individual would be at a severe disadvantage in attempting to win just compensation from an unscrupulous multinational corporation or foreign nation.

Finally, the proposal would hurt our most creative and productive citizens while it would help those who pay no taxes in the United States and who have no loyalty whatsoever to our country. It would also reward and assist those countries that already are pirating the intellectual property of American citizens, manufacturing products based on ideas they have stolen from us, and selling those products back to us.

The American government should be working in the best interests of America’s small businesses that create new jobs and account for most of our productivity rather than penalizing them with the Patent Reform Act. If America’s inventors are not protected from foreign nations and multinational corporations, America will lose the foundation for its prosperity with innovation moving overseas just as manufacturing has done.

Because of the rapid changes that have come with the digital age, there indeed might be some updating and improvements needed to our patent system. But given that America still leads the world in technology and innovation, it seems odd that our lawmakers would feel the need to throw out our patent system and pattern it instead on the systems of far less creative countries. Perhaps we should remind our Senators of an old adage: “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.” To do that would be patently wrong.