Civil, issue-oriented discourse needed on important issues

There’s a battle of sorts going on in Columbia between those trying to rein in spending, impose greater accountability, and pull back the curtains of government so that decisions are made in full public view… and those who don’t think these changes are needed.

Those who know me generally put me in the former category -- a fiscal conservative committed to the cause of better government, increased transparency, and more careful spending. But while remaining true to my conservative principles, I consciously try to show respect for those whose views and opinions are different from mine.

Unfortunately, in this environment what should be civil debate on important issues all too often descends into “attack politics” -- vilifying those with opposing views in order to win. Name-calling has become accepted practice for many.

One example on the national stage is the automobile bailout, where some in Congress are sniping and finger-pointing just because many others -- due to their deep-seated concerns about writing blank checks to Detroit -- opposed plans to bail out the Big 3 automakers. When everyone in Washington should be devoting their energy to moving the country past the current economic crisis, leaders of one party instead have been churning press releases blasting the other party, and a prominent leader in the majority party attempted to paint all those who voted against the bail out plan as “un-American.”

There’s no shortage of such behavior here in the Palmetto State, where for several years Governor Sanford and those aligned with him have tried to change the business-as-usual culture in Columbia. In the interest of openness, let me state that I wholeheartedly support the vast majority of Gov. Sanford’s proposed reforms. Like him, I strongly believe that changing the way we do things in Columbia is a key to truly moving our state forward. But Gov. Sanford and other reformers represent changes that many in Columbia neither seek nor wish to accept, and the debate hasn’t always been constructive.

The legislature will convene in January with South Carolina facing one of the biggest challenges of a generation – the current economic crisis. With state leaders grappling with new and more difficult problems, we’d do well to lay aside the “heroes-versus-villains” mentality, the attitude that it’s OK to tear down another for holding an opposing political philosophy.

At the local level, the men and women who engage in civic debate -- whether over a municipal tax increase, a zoning matter, or a school bond issue -- should be respected, even when they express views counter to our own. At a time when most folks go about their daily lives and simply read about developments in the newspaper, we should applaud any who take the time to become involved in the community to guide its future.

In South Carolina, an honest conversation about where we’re headed as a state, and how we get there, is a good thing. We should be able to have such a conversation without ever resorting to attacks. Those of us in positions of public trust have a particular obligation to set the right example by conducting our debates in a manner befitting those we serve. Let’s commit to finding success on high roads, not low ones, and let’s win hearts and minds with the power of our ideas, not the volume of our voices.

Time for a hard look at the way we spend

It’s hard to find a bright spot in the current national recession. But if there is a silver lining, perhaps it will be in a new approach to the way state government spends.

On Dec. 11, the state Budget & Control Board voted to reduce spending for the current fiscal year. The mandatory cuts came after the state’s economists calculated that the amount the state would collect in revenue would fall far short of the amount the state was set to spend. This most recent budget reduction – a 7 percent cut – was the third decrease since the fiscal year began in July.

Our budget crisis was not caused only by declining revenues, but by too much spending as well. When times are good, state government simply spends too much of what it take in. We seem to spend everything we take in, rather than just what we need to fund government.

It was as a result of this practice that, when the economy soured, we became unable to support state government at the size we had grown it. Thus, we were forced to cut – requiring employee furloughs and layoffs.

Our current fiscal straits underscore the need for more thoughtful spending practices. The current budget predicament should teach us the perils of spending every dime we take in, as if the good times will last forever. That’s no way to manage a state. We must set priorities, focus on the primary functions of government, direct resources where they are genuinely needed, and pare back frills.

Simply put, it’s time to reform the way we spend taxpayers' money.

Over the past several years, Gov. Sanford has worked to draw attention to state spending practices he accurately sees as unhealthy. His answer is to cap spending by indexing spending growth to inflation and population growth, which would keep government from growing at a faster pace than the underlying economy. Others would be wise to accept his advice.

A new year and a new legislative session are approaching, and with them comes an opportunity for new beginnings – for a new chapter in the history of state government. Common sense demands we use this golden opportunity to change the way we spend.

Government transparency gaining steam...

Those who know me know how increased government transparency is something I feel strongly about. That's why I have been working hard as Comptroller General to do my part to shine a light on state spending... so the taxpayers have access to as much information as possible about how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent.

Fortunately, the government transparency movement appears to be picking up steam. Every day, the drum beat grows louder. Increasingly, daily newspapers are using their opinion pages to advance the idea that the best government is the government conducted in the open -- in full view of the citizenry.

Below are two such editorials from the Charleston Post & Courier and the Myrtle Beach Sun News. It is certainly refreshing to witness newspaper editorial writers using their "bully pulpit" to advance the important cause of open government.

New chance for roll-call solution
From the Post & Courier (Saturday, December 13, 2008)

A reform plan for roll-call voting by the state Legislature gets another chance with a bill prefiled by Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler this week.
The Senate shouldn't settle for something substantially less, as did the House of Representatives.
The Gaffney Republican's bill reflects the changes sought in the House by Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington. It would require South Carolina's important legislative business to be submitted to a roll-call vote — as it is in the large majority of states.
The need for greater accountability was revealed by the S.C. Policy Council, whose analysis found that only 8 percent of House votes and 2 percent of Senate votes were recorded.
The Policy Council also found that South Carolina had the weakest requirements
in the nation for roll-call voting by the Legislature.
The House response was to approve a rules change that includes some mprovements, but far less than envisioned in the bill by Rep. Haley. The public support of more accountability is reflected in the bipartisan support for her bill. So far, 30 representatives have signed on to the bill.
Rep. Haley's bill, incidentally, has also been pre-filed for introduction to the House when the session opens. So the House will have another opportunity to consider her reform plan.
Sen. Peeler's bill has garnered broad support in the Senate, with 20 co-sponsors.
Sen. Peeler contends that the lack of accountability has resulted in irresponsible
spending by the state, and is partly to blame for the state government's current
fiscal problems.
"Transparency is clearly needed in South Carolina," Sen. Peeler said in a statement. "More roll-call votes will shine a bright light on the General Assembly, holding us accountable for the tax dollars we spend."
Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell supports more roll-call voting, but says the plan needs to be crafted as a rule change to avoid Senate gridlock. "We're trying to make sure that everything that is substantive and controversial gets a recorded vote," he said.
Presumably, those parliamentary concerns can be addressed during the debate.
The primary objective should be to provide more roll-call voting by senators who clearly haven't been on the record. If that requires some adjustments in the way the
Senate does business, then senators should be willing to make the necessary changes. Roll-call voting is essential to legislative accountability. It provides a record showing citizens how their legislators voted. It informs the electorate as voters go the polls.
The shortcomings in accountability have been revealed, and a remedy should be applied by the Legislature. A cure, not a bandage, is needed.

Let Us See the Truth
From the Myrtle Beach Sun News (Friday, Dec. 12)

Good for S.C. Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, and the doughty and of Senate Republicans who believe that the long era of secrecy in S.C. lawmaking ust end. Local Sens. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, and Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, re among senators backing Peeler's bill to let ordinary South Carolinians in on how he General Assembly handles their tax money. Under present Senate rules and recently evised House rules, legislators too easily can obscure money-handling decisions and ositions with which their constituents may disagree.
The Senate Republicans' Spending Accountability Act would amend state law to equire roll-call recording of senators' and representatives' votes on: Each section of appropriations bills on second reading; Floor votes adopting House-Senate conference-committee and free conference-committee reports (most final budget decisions have their beginnings in these reports); Second reading of all bills and joint resolutions; Concurrence votes on Senate amendments to House bills, and on House amendments to Senate bills; Third (and final) readings of bills and joint resolutions amended after second readings. We can almost hear readers' eyes glazing over at all this legislative inside baseball. The S.C. representatives who last week approved House "reforms" that would allow many financial dealings to remain secret are counting on them to react that way. Too
many legislators like it when we see the inside stuff as boring.
The House rules changes require recorded member votes only on bills to raise or reduce taxes, to increase budgets by more than $10,000, to adopt the final version of the state budget, to reapportion the General Assembly or U.S. House districts,
to raise legislative pay and to amend ethics rules. That sounds like transparency but really isn't.
House rules, as amended, do not require roll-call votes on the measures itemized in the Peeler bill - even though the inspiration for his bill came from a House member, S.C. Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington. The House refused to consider her accountability bill. And Speaker Bobby Harrell subsequently stripped Haley and another transparency reformer, S.C. Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Irmo, of their committee assignments. The two got punished, in short, for daring to suggest that House members should show their constituents how they handle public money.
Why should readers care that S.C. legislators, when stacked against their counterparts in other states, are among the least accountable legislators in the nation? For the answer, one need only look at how poorly the current-year state budget, which has imploded by more than a billion dollars, has worked out.
How did that happen when it was clear at the beginning of the year that the S.C. economy was headed for a bad place?
Who is to blame for this fiasco? There's no way to tell because the official record of the 2008 legislative session does not speak to the dozens upon dozens of procedural votes made during budget construction in the General Assembly.
Peeler says that if the House refuses to engage on his bill, he'll work to incorporate its provisions into Senate rules. The hope must be, however, that Harrell and his cohorts recognize the weakness of their rules "reforms" and unite with the Senate to make legislative transparency a matter of law.

My thoughts on the Budget & Control Board's 7 percent state budget cut on Dec. 11

A budget cut now is better than a budget cut next February... and February is the soonest legislative leaders say they would be able to deal with our current budget crisis. That's why I insisted that the Budget and Control Board needed to step forward to cut state spending.

Cutting today allows greater flexibility for each agency, while later cuts would require much more drastic action to keep government afloat.

State government is bleeding financially, and we needed to act immediately to stop the blood loss.

But let's honestly admit that our budget crisis is more a problem of our spending too much than collecting too little. Economic growth over the last few years has given us a false hope that good times will last forever. So state government has increased spending beyond levels we can keep up. Now that revenues are falling, we’re unable to support government at the size we’ve grown it.

A new year and a new legislative session are around the corner and with them comes an opportunity for needed change in state government budgeting. State leaders would do well to recognize this unique opportunity to rethink our approach to spending. We must exercise greater fiscal discipline by living within our means and resisting the urge to spend every dime that comes in as if good times will last forever.

If there’s a silver lining somewhere in this current economic crisis, it’s that these challenges will force us to use greater fiscal discipline as we move ahead.

Reduced tax revenue -- and what it means for S.C.

Year-to-date, corporate income tax revenues are down more than 57 percent from last year.

Net Corporate Income Tax collections for July - November of this year are $30.6 million compared to $71.4 million for the same period last year -- a difference of $40.8 million. Also down on a year-to-date basis are individual income tax collections (down nearly 3 percent) and sales tax collections (down nearly 11 percent). The Board of Economic Advisors is expected to discuss declining revenues at its meeting Wednesday.

These sobering numbers and the declining revenue projections already provided by the Board of Economic Advisors further illustrate the need for a complete top-to-bottom assessment of how we spend public dollars.

With the legislature set to return in a few short weeks, the economic crisis presents us an excellent opportunity to change how we spend public money. It no longer works to spend money as fast as it comes in, acting as if good times will last forever. Nor should the state continue to grow government faster than we can pay for it. The mess we’re in today proves that we need to change.

S.C. Budget Update

The state Budget and Control Board will meet Thursday, Dec. 11 to decide on a course of action for dealing with falling tax revenues.
That meeting will following Wednesday's meeting of the Board of Economic Advisors.

Urge local governments to put spending online

Increased transparency needed to restore faith in government

Providing increased government transparency -- giving people more and better information on how government spends our money and how elected officials make decisions that affect all of us -- is a cause dear to my heart.

Too many decisions are made behind closed doors, diluting accountability of our elected officials and eroding public confidence in government itself. When elected officials make decisions in secret and without a record of their votes, they sometimes pass things they never would approve in full view of the public.

Earlier this year, I worked with Governor Sanford to create an easy-to-use spending transparency Web site. It contains detailed spending information for more than 80 state agencies, giving the public more access than ever to information about how state government spends their hard-earned tax dollars.

This Web site, which is available through my office’s site (http://www.cg.sc.gov/), is serving as a national model for other states attempting their own transparency initiatives. Several states have contacted me hoping to duplicate our open-government ideas.

Today, the Comptroller General's Office is working to help bring increased transparency to local governments -- towns, cities, counties, special purpose districts, and school districts. We’re reaching out to work with local governments to put their spending data online, even offering to host the information on our own Web site.

Any transparency movement, however, is likely to meet resistance from those who prefer that the public not know exactly how their money is spent and who see increased transparency as an intrusion on their authority and into their exclusive domain. Excuses vary: Some say it’s too costly to put the information online. Others say there’s not enough public interest. Still others question the motives of any citizen interested in looking at spending by local governments. I disagree with all these weak arguments. They’re nonsense!

Government absolutely needs to provide this information with no excuses. Call it an on-line check register. People want and deserve to know how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent, and people can be trusted with this information. In this information age, it’s easy and inexpensive to do.

It’s unbelievable that anyone could oppose this kind of initiative with a straight face or a clear conscience. But this has to be done. I hope that local governments all over South Carolina will do so voluntarily. If they refuse, I’ll try again this year to get support from the Legislature to compel local governments to make this useful information conveniently available to the public at no cost. What could be more convenient to the public than providing this information on the Internet?

But before asking the Legislature to pass another law, I’m turning to the public for help. I’m asking people to make their voices loudly heard and contact officials of their own town or city, their county, and their school district. People need to insist to them that local governments post their spending on-line. If local officials haven’t yet heard about my offer to put their spending detail in one centralized location on my office’s Web site, tell them about it.

I’ll soon be holding workshops around the state to help any local governments interested in working with me on this. Look up phone numbers. Call your mayor, your representatives on City and County Council, and your school board representatives. Tell them that, as a voter, you feel transparency is the best policy. While it won’t cure all that ails our state, equipping citizens with the knowledge gained by better access to how their money is spent would hold our elected officials more accountable and would better safeguard the public trust.

In other words, this is a common sense matter of good government.

Tough times mean we must dig deeper to help those less fortunate

We usually see a strong upswing in charitable giving during the Thanksgiving and Christmas season. It’s not that those needing assistance are fewer during other parts of the year; instead it’s that the spirit of this season often moves people to give a little more.

But the current economic downturn has resulted in less giving than normal from people and businesses bracing for tough times. There are simply fewer donors, and those who donate are giving less.

At the same time, charities are seeing a major surge in requests for help, and many food pantries are struggling to stock their shelves. Harvest Hope Food Bank, a charity that distributes food to South Carolina families facing hard times, reports experiencing as much as a 50 percent surge in demand in some regions.

The combination of fewer donations and greater need means many more people face the prospect of a Thanksgiving and Christmas season that includes hunger. That’s not something we should be willing to let happen. It’s our responsibility – as people of faith and as human beings created in the image of God – to help our neighbors. There are four meaningful ways we can all make a difference.

-- Perhaps most importantly, we can donate money to a worthwhile charity that serves the poor, such as Harvest Hope Food Bank, Oliver Gospel Mission, or the Salvation Army.

-- If we can’t contribute financially, we can lend a hand. Volunteering your time and effort frees up money that charities can then use to buy food and other supplies.

-- We can search our home cupboards for surplus non-perishable food items to donate, such as canned goods, pasta, crackers, rice, oatmeal, powdered milk and peanut butter. There’s also a need for diapers and personal hygiene items such as soap and toothpaste.

-- We can hold a canned food drive at our office, church, school or recreation center. We can find other groups to do the same, and compete to see who can collect the most. My office recently had such a competition with the offices of the State Agriculture Commissioner and the State Treasurer. It was a fun and productive way to support a worthy cause – in our case Harvest Hope Food Bank.

Yes, times seem tough all around. But while many of us may be feeling pinched right now, remember that there are many people in far less fortunate circumstances. If we stop to reflect, we’ll probably realize there are many, many blessings for which we should be thankful.

In these hard times, those of us who have enough and more to meet our own needs should prayerfully consider sharing our material blessings with those not as fortunate as we are. If we can, let’s dig a little deeper. But if we can’t give monetarily, let’s look for ways to volunteer our time at least once during this special season.

Four keys to a brighter future for South Carolina

Another election has come and gone, and those fortunate enough to have been chosen by their neighbors for public service now must devote their election-year energy into governing during difficult times.

Even in the best of times, the challenges facing South Carolina are unique. For too long we've languished at the bottom in education, healthcare, and personal income. These days, we also face an economic crisis and serious budget troubles largely of our own making.

It's obviously time for some major changes. We can no longer afford politics as usual, or business as usual. To my mind, there are four major reforms that are needed if we're to truly move South Carolina forward.

First, we must increase transparency. There's a long overdue move afoot to draw back the curtains of state government so that more decisions are made in full view of the citizens who are impacted by those decisions. One such measure, the 2009 Spending Accountability Act, would require more legislative votes to be recorded on the record rather than to pass legislation by group voice vote. This would deter lawmakers from casting votes which are not necessarily in thepublics' best interests and allow voters to make better-informed decisions in the voting booth.

Also, I recently worked with Gov. Sanford to create the state's first spending transparency Web site. This site is linked to my office's Office Web site (www.cg.sc.gov) and contains detailed spending information for more than 80 state agencies. Like the recorded-vote legislation, this is an important step toward telling citizens how their money is spent, and holding those in charge of our purse-strings more accountable.

Second, must show more fiscal restraint. Government spending is growing too fast – way too fast. There's too much unnecessary spending -- such as state grants for festivals and other "pork" projects which should not be the function of state government. For conservatives in particular, we should return to our core principles of limited spending and less government.

One common sense proposal by Gov. Mark Sanford would limit increases in government spending to increases in the inflation rate plus the rate our population increases, which would prevent the growth of government from outpacing our ability to pay for it. Lawmakers would do well to give the Governor's plan careful consideration or to come forward with another effective plan to accomplish the same purpose.

Third, it's time to restructure government, so that it operates more efficiently and puts our tax dollars to their best possible use. The current system, designed in the 19th century, is outdated and unwieldy. It gives the Governor control of less than half the executive branch, which dilutes accountability.

A good first step toward restructuring would be to dissolve the five-member Budget & Control Board, the powerful central agency in charge of the state's finances and landlord functions, which usurps much of the power that rightfully belongs to the state's Chief Executive. One common-sense proposal would replace the Budget & Control Board with a Department of Administration, one accountable solely to the Governor.

Fourth and finally, some soul-searching is in order. We need to examine anew our philosophy about public service. It's time to put aside the petty partisanship and individual self-serving ways that keep us from reaching our potential, and put government back to work for the people.

While remaining true to principle and standing for what we believe is right, we must also recognize our need to work with good people who hold other viewpoints when it's in the best interest of South Carolina.

No doubt some of these proposed reforms will be met with cynicism. Frankly, there's a battle going on in Columbia between those who want to reform government and those who are content with the status quo. But if we're to truly move our state forward -- out of last place and toward a brighter future -- we must change the way our government operates and start doing what's best for the taxpayers.

A Watershed Time for State Government

When you're spending other people's hard-earned money, it's just common courtesy to let them know how it's spent.

That's not a principle always embraced by government. Too often, tax dollars are spent under a shroud of secrecy, and decisions which affect your family are made out of public view.

Fortunately, this is a watershed time for South Carolina government. There's a growing movement afoot to improve and reform government, and chief among the reforms is increased transparency.

Earlier this year, I implemented a transparency Web site with Governor Sanford which allows anyone with Internet access to view spending data on state agencies. It’s linked to the Comptroller General’s Web site -- www.cg.sc.gov/ -- and contains detailed yearly and monthly spending information for 80-plus state agencies. The premise is that state agencies are far more accountable when their spending is done in the open, and the taxpayers should have as many tools as possible to find out how their money is spent.

Aside from allowing taxpayers to see how their hard-earned dollars are used, it should serve as a reminder to public officials that their spending will be seen, and therefore they should act responsibly with your tax dollars. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant.

Several weeks ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers announced they’re renewing a push to have more legislative votes recorded for the public to see. There are too many “voice votes” on important issues, they rightly contend, and so they’re now leading a charge to have more votes cast on the record, in full view of the citizenry.

Like the spending-transparency Web site, this would be a tremendous step toward a more open, accountable government. Elected representatives who truly vote in their constituents' best interests should welcome this change.Empowering ordinary citizens with the access to how money is spent and how their representatives vote will help safeguard the public trust, hold those in charge of our purse strings accountable and allow people to make better-informed decisions in the voting booth. At a time when many believe there is a real crisis of leadership and trust in our country, these common-sense reforms are more important than ever.

Ultimately, an informed citizenry is the watchdog that ensures sound governance.

In an election year, "change" and "accountability" become political buzz-words, so it is encouraging to know there's a serious challenge to the "business-as-usual" mindset which is pervasive in Columbia. Other good-government reforms which will likely see vigorous debate during the upcoming session include restructuring state government so that it operates more efficiently, and capping the growth in state spending so that overzealous government doesn’t outpace our ability to pay for it.

But if we are to truly change the ways of Columbia, we must first change the way we view the role of government: We serve the people, and they have a right to know how we spend public money and how we arrive at decisions that impact them.

Good government can flourish best in full view of the public.

Voting is a Sacred Right and Solemn Responsibility

In recent weeks there have been shocking stories about highly organized efforts to fraudulently register voters. Thousands of duplicate registrations have been reported along with the registrations of dead people, ineligible people, and even nonexistent people. Fraudulent votes have already been cast on behalf of the mentally impaired and the dead. In some states, political leaders have led aggressive efforts to register soon-to-be-released prisoners, while finding technical grounds to disqualify absentee ballots from our personnel in the armed services. These efforts are sinister, often criminal, and those involved should be prosecuted.

This reported fraud being carried out throughout the nation not only demonstrates a contempt for our country and its Constitution, it is an attempt to diminish and even take away the sacred right that you and I have to determine those who will represent us at the local, state and federal levels of government. In a nation of, by and for the people, those who carry out such activities are as much a threat to our nation as any enemy combatant.

Of course we hear in many quarters that all of this activity is simply to ensure that everyone votes. But what is the benefit to society in having everyone vote? In San Francisco, illegal aliens have been given the right to vote in municipal elections. A Boston Alderman has proposed that legal, non-citizens should be permitted to vote in that city’s elections. And some free Western nations actually compel everyone to go to the polls. But our founders did not create an absolute democracy where the emotions and whims of the mob rule. Instead they created a republic where certain things, such as one’s right to life, liberty, and property, and even the right not to vote, can never be taken away by majority vote.

There are many people we encounter every day who have no interest in government, politics, and the domestic and foreign affairs of our country. No doubt many of them are good people who love their families and contribute to their communities. But should they be rounded up and delivered to the polls to make decisions about issues that effect all the rest of us and on which they have little if any interest or knowledge?

No eligible citizen should be denied his or her right to cast a vote. But when illegal aliens who don’t speak English, and who know nothing of our history, Constitution, laws and culture, are encouraged to vote, is our country made better or is it made worse?

At the beginning of our national life, only 20% of adult males cast ballots. No one suggests that we should return to such a limited franchise, but those informed voters did manage to elect such monumental historical figures as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams.

Efforts to ensure that anyone with a driver’s license becomes a registered voter, or to permit phone-in votes as one Colorado organization advocates, cheapen and demean our political process and potentially turn what should be a high privilege and solemn responsibility into a common task.

Those who devote themselves to ensuring that ballot boxes are jam-packed with as many legal, as well as illegal, votes as possible would do our nation a far greater service if they directed their energies to ensuring that our citizens are truly prepared to knowledgeably exercise their responsibility as voters.

As President Kennedy stated: "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all."

Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Figure

Mark Twain’s observation that "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" is an important thought to keep in mind when looking at government statistics, opinion polls, and so many of the surveys and studies that are presented daily to the American public. Indeed, many in government and in business and advocacy groups have learned that the way information is calculated, the phrasing of a question in a poll, or the methods used to structure a so called “scientific survey” can dramatically influence the results.

One area where reported statistics frequently misrepresent reality is in the host of ways school districts and states calculate graduation rates. It does little good to compare one district with another, or one state with other states, because they may all use different ways to calculate the percentage of students who actually graduate.

Thirty-three states use the “Leaver Rate” which divides the number of students who received standard high school diplomas by the combined number of students who dropped out, who graduated with a standard diploma, and who graduated with other completion credentials.

Only ten states do what many people of common sense would do, which is to compare the number who enter the ninth grade with the number of those who graduate with a diploma four years later.

The other states use an array of meaningless calculations, such as basing published graduation rates on the percentage of high school seniors, counted in the fall of their senior year, who graduate in the spring. Of course, this method conveniently ignores the fact that many high school students drop out during their sophomore and junior years.

Perhaps most leading and dangerous to our democracy are the flood of polls, all purporting to “scientifically measure” what Americans think. Thirteen different polls currently measuring support for the two major Presidential candidates show one candidate leading by nine different percentages, ranging from a lead of 2% to 14%.

Whatever the latest news-making survey, poll, report, or study might show, it’s always a good idea to look behind the curtain to determine who is sponsoring the project, to consider what their motives might be, and how they may be attempting to influence public opinion. It’s my “unscientific opinion” that nine times out of ten, somebody has an agenda!

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

President Reagan and the Triumph of the Conservative Movement

In 1947, the liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. proclaimed: "There seems no inherent obstacle to the gradual advance of socialism in the United States through a series of New Deals." There is no doubt that champions of big, activist government dominated the first half of the twentieth century. But historians like Schlesinger are better at looking back than predicting the future. The pendulum had indeed swung far to the left but, imperceptibly at first, it had begun to turn by the century’s midpoint.

In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was so accepting of New Deal principles that both parties sought to make this celebrated war hero their nominee. When he ultimately decided to seek the Republican nomination, he easily beat a conservative challenge from the highly respected Senator Robert Taft. Nevertheless, the relatively serene Eisenhower years were a time when conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, and Milton Friedman were laying the intellectual foundation for a new conservative movement that would be built with the timbers of a renewed commitment to small government, individual liberty, faith, family, and economic opportunity.

The Kennedy-Johnson years were a triumph of big government liberalism with greatly expanded roles for the federal government. The so called “war on poverty” began with $3 billion and spawned numerous new agencies such as the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Jobs Corps, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Model Cities Program, Upward Bound, and many others. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Higher Education Act of 1965, and the National Teachers Corps marked a new and constitutionally questionable role for the federal government in education. Medicare and Medicaid were established, along with the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. There were greatly expanded roles for the federal government in public broadcasting, consumer protection, environmental protection, transportation, and civil rights, with scores of new departments and agencies serving various targeted constituencies.

Finally, many in America, later known as “the silent majority,” had had enough. In 1964, they flocked to the candidacy of libertarian Barry Goldwater. But a nation so recently rocked by the Kennedy assassination was in no mood for a second change in Presidents in little more than a year. Goldwater strategist John Sears observed, however, that Goldwater “changed the rhetoric of politics” by challenging the principles of the New Deal, “something no Democrat or Republican before him had dared to do.”

Although Goldwater lost in a landslide, his bold philosophies inspired a new grassroots conservative movement that produced the entry of thousands of young people in American politics and policymaking. Goldwater’s campaign also spawned a new political star, Ronald Reagan, whose clarity of principle and persuasive speaking captured attention when, late in the campaign, Reagan delivered a speech entitled “A Time for Choosing.” That speech contains the essence of Ronald Reagan – a hopeful, optimistic vision of a better, free and prosperous America, where the foundational principles of our republic and its founding fathers guide America’s ship of state to its “rendezvous with destiny.” The memory of that powerful speech helped him two years later to defeat the incumbent Governor of California by one million votes.

In the fourteen years between Ronald Reagan’s election as Governor of California and as President of the United States, there was little philosophically that separated Democrat and Republican presidents. Federal spending continued to grow at record rates, inflation was frequently out of control, and a Republican president went so far as to impose wage and price controls. By the end of the Carter administration, with unrelenting inflation, soaring interest rates, fuel shortages, and the humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis, Americans were finally ready to break with the political culture of nearly a half century.

President Reagan acted quickly and boldly to cut income taxes 25%. He reduced the top income tax rate from 70% to 50% and indexed all rates to blunt inflation’s hidden impact on those rates. These measures resulted in 60 straight months of growth, the longest uninterrupted period of expansion since government began keeping statistics in 1854. There were 15 million new jobs created and just under $20 trillion worth of goods and services. Policies belittled then and now as “Reaganomics” fired America’s economic engine in ways unseen before or since, and led to the defeat without even firing a shot of one of the most dangerous regimes the world has known.

Great as America’s economic renewal was under President Reagan, his buoyant, optimistic belief in the power of freedom, individual initiative, America’s Constitution, free-market principles, and the idea that America’s greatest days lay ahead, provided spiritual renewal to an America beaten down by twenty years of political assassinations, scandals, advancing socialism, inflation, war and defeat.

The name Ronald Reagan has become the gold standard for conservatives -- his name still is invoked in every debate -- and yet the great movement that he ultimately led to victory now seems fractured and leaderless compared to the conservative movement that emerged as a result of his efforts.

In the past decade, the size of the federal government has exploded, our economy is in extreme distress, and the federal budget deficit has soared to record levels. Yet many in their desperation look for still more government to solve problems that all too often are the result of already too much government.

It has been said that Franklin D. Roosevelt turned to government to solve the problems of the people, while President Reagan turned to the people to solve the problems of government. Perhaps that is the key to what it really means to be a conservative -- an abiding belief in the dignity and power of free individuals, unshackled from government interference to create lives for themselves, their families, and their communities.

Concluding his first Inaugural Address, President Reagan told the story of Martin Treptow who gave his life for our country in the First World War. The President concluded by saying:

“The crisis we are facing today does not require of us the kind of sacrifice that Martin Treptow and so many thousands of others were called upon to make. It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.”

Reagan’s words were so true then. They are so true still.


(This is the fifth and concluding installment in a series on What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?”)

Trust Capitalism and Let It Work

In recent weeks I’ve been reflecting on what it means to be a conservative. Given the extraordinary economic events of the last couple of weeks, I want to comment on our current economic crisis before concluding my series on conservatism.

The current economic crisis is complex and many people and institutions both in Washington and on Wall Street have a role and bear some level of responsibility for it. Many attribute the crisis to the quasi-governmental agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Others attribute the crisis to the intervention of the Federal Reserve and the market distortions it may have created with artificially low interest rates. Still others blame the crisis on Wall Street greed and the extraordinary pay, bonuses, and severance packages realized by corporate CEO’s even while the institutions they headed were failing.

Whatever flaws and abuses exist in our economic system, what most observers agree upon is that this economic emergency has been precipitated by an extreme softening of housing markets in many parts of the country. And at the deep root of this problem is overzealous government interfering in credit markets by requiring lending institutions to abandon sound lending practices to advance a political agenda. Leading the list of government culprits are members of Congress.

In the 1970’s Congress enacted the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) with the intent of requiring financial institutions to expand credit to a wider marketing base rather than to just credit-worthy customers. The lofty goal was to provide more affordable housing and promote more home ownership among low-income families. But the effect and scope of this act was fairly limited until 1995, at which time the Clinton Administration promoted new regulations requiring even more aggressive marketing of mortgage loans among low-income groups, imposing quotas, and mandating stiff penalties for banks that failed to offer “no money down” mortgages, floating rates, and loans made to people with no credit history or even bad credit history.

Federal law required banks to set aside prudent lending practices. Financial institutions began making profits in the expanded mortgage origination process, and they knew that even if borrowers defaulted the government would bail them out for defaulted loans they held. And so our most financially vulnerable citizens were encouraged to buy homes and take on debt they could scarcely afford. With growing pools of money being made available for home mortgages, home prices grew faster than inflation, ultimately creating a huge bubble waiting to burst.

Eventually, interest rates began to rise thus creating a crisis for those borrowers who had been enticed by adjustable rate mortgages. As monthly mortgage payments were dramatically rising, so too were gasoline prices. Many borrowers stopped paying, the once overheated housing market became a glut of foreclosed properties, lenders stopped lending, housing prices declined, and the bubble finally burst.

A national crisis -- threatening the very foundations of our nation, the stability of the dollar, and the economic well-being of future generations -- has been caused by a Congress willing to disregard the laws of human nature, prudent business practices, and free market principles all for the sake of a political agenda and the political benefits that come with promising something for nothing.

The free market is one of the most highly efficient and productive forces on the face of the earth. It intuitively understands that businesses that show poor judgment in their business practices deserve to fold, while stronger, well-run businesses gain market share and expand their profit margins for their owners.

Freed from government interference, the marketplace functions precisely as it should. Investors who made mistakes in this market should be held responsible, and those who managed to navigate all the distortions imposed by Washington should be rewarded. The last thing we need is for government to play an even larger role, to prop up institutions that should be allowed to fail, and to use massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to further interfere with the marketplace. Should we really trust the very members of Congress who created the mess and failed to see the crisis coming with the task of fixing their mess?

When we free our markets of government controls, manipulation, and political considerations to pursue what free markets do best, which is to create wealth and jobs, our nation will be stronger. A so called “bailout plan” that saddles every American with thousands of dollars of debt, that artificially props up failed institutions, and that actually penalizes risk-taking and success will make our economy smaller and weaker, and only postpones a day of eventual reckoning that will likely include even more serious economic troubles.

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

The Emergence of "Progressivism"

The “Progressive Era” in American history conjures up for many people memories of Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting efforts, the enactment of child-labor laws, and reforms to ensure food and workplace safety. Yet along with reforms like those, which most Americans supported, was a vastly expanded role for government and a loss of individual liberties. In his best-selling book, "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning," author and columnist Jonah Goldberg has described excessive and unconstitutional measures taken by the Wilson Administration. Using the emergency of wartime, the Wilson Administration fired the opening salvo in a campaign that is still being waged for large, powerful and centralized government.

Many influential “progressive” thinkers in that era of American history saw World War I as an opportunity for fundamental political change. The human suffering and economic destruction caused by the Great War in Europe and the world-wide economic crisis that became known as the Great Depression would soon sweep away most eighteenth and nineteenth century notions about the sovereignty of the individual and a government that is of, by, and for the people. Seizing the opportunity provided by the Great Depression, the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt quickly made permanent, and dramatically built upon, the big-government excesses of the Wilson years.

Among American progressives it became not only acceptable but fashionable to admire what Lenin was imposing in Russia and Mussolini’s Fascists were experimenting with in Italy. Here at home, the great number of new government agencies and programs advanced by the Roosevelt Administration intruded into every aspect of American life and commerce. We ask today how 100,000 Japanese-Americans could have been forcibly housed by our government in internment camps during World War II. President Gerald Ford answered that question best with his observation that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”

Government at all levels continued to grow throughout the twentieth century in the United States, and at mid-century there was little that fundamentally separated our two major political parties. Indeed, some critics ridiculed the Republican Party by accusing it of promising “less of the same.”

The flame of classical liberalism, which was the foundation of modern-day conservatism, had been bestowed across the ages through the five historic cities chronicled earlier in this series. Yet while seriously jeopardized in the twentieth century by the advancing winds of progressivism, the flickering flame was not completely extinguished. At mid-twentieth century, progressivism or modern-day liberalism was at its peak, but the tide was turning.

Senator Robert Taft made an unsuccessful attempt in 1952 to challenge the big-government orthodoxy of the Republican Party and return it to the ideals of limited government respecting freedom and individual rights. National Review Magazine, which catered to the philosophies of many influential conservatives, was launched by young William F. Buckley, a resident of Camden, SC. And a former Democrat and union official named Ronald Reagan began giving speeches about the important need to restore Constitutional government in the United States. Indeed, the tide was turning.

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

Conservatives Treasure the Tried and True

In reflecting on conservatism, also referred to as classical liberalism, some historians have commented that the American Revolution is one of history’s only revolutions to actually succeed, while revolutions in France and later in Russia were catastrophic, resulting in murder and tyranny. Edmund Burke, who had championed revolutionary America’s cause in the British Parliament, understood the difference and in his most famous work, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790), strongly opposed that revolution even before its murderous Reign of Terror began. The difference between the two revolutions for Burke goes to the heart of what it means to be a conservative.

Burke revered history as well as those institutions that have been tested through the crucible of time. For Burke, the American Revolution was fought not to impose a new order of untried ideas, but to secure rights that had evolved over centuries, from those individual rights provided by the Magna Carta in 1215 to the breaking of the absolute power of the monarchy accomplished through Great Britain’s “Glorious Revolution of 1688.”

Burke was not opposed to change, but he venerated natural change that evolved through time and human experience. The French Revolution, on the other hand, sought through bloodshed and legal decrees to suddenly impose new rights and a new social order that had never before been known in France. The results of radical change in France, like those imposed later by the Bolsheviks in Russia, were disastrous.

In our own country, the nineteenth century was filled with the classical liberalism that was championed and handed on by America’s founders. But in the twentieth century powerful movements in America and throughout the world rejected classical liberalism and began to assert the rights of the collective over those of the individual.

Communists set the collective at war with the rights of the individual; Nazis set the needs of race and nation against individual rights; and fascists and the architects of the welfare state set the material needs of society in conflict with the rights of individuals. Reversing the idea of our founders, they asserted the idea that individuals should serve the state, rather than the state existing at the pleasure of individuals to protect their rights.

It is no accident that those who would overturn the social order and radically change our nation today downplay the teaching of history, ignore giant historical figures, and even distort its lessons. We see references to the efforts of “dead, white men” in attempts to eliminate our religious roots, and to distort the story of America’s discovery and the role of our founding fathers.

By imposing on people ideas that were radical, untried, and alien to human experience, humanity experienced during the twentieth century a century of despotism, depression and war, with approximately 265 million people killed by their own governments. Many believe that the carnage exceeds all previous centuries combined. This barbarous history, so recently experienced, makes clear that Burke was a wise champion for older truths. Indeed, many of these older truths were from the Bible, the world’s greatest chronicle of individual salvation history. It is quite natural then that so many champions of today's conservative movement obtain their world view in transcendent Scriptural truths that have withstood repeated tests from generation to generation.

Perhaps no figure more embodied the spirit of Burke and conservative respect for the tried and true than South Carolina’s own “cast iron man,” John C. Calhoun. He spoke to his time and ours when he warned that “It is harder to preserve than to obtain liberty.”

What Does It Mean To Be A "Conservative?"

Freedom’s Deep Roots in the Hearts and Minds of Man

Irishman Edmund Burke, an 18th century contemporary of America’s founding fathers and an eloquent champion of their cause and ideals, is generally regarded as the philosophical founder of modern conservative thought. However, the roots for what we regard as American conservatism far predates the 18th century. In fact, one American writer on this subject traces its development through five historic cities – Jerusalem, Athens, Rome, London and Philadelphia.

In this long view of history, ideas about the nature and rights of man were molded in Jerusalem with the Old Testament view of a “purposeful moral existence under God.” These ideas were expanded in ancient Athens with the philosophy and insights of Plato, Socrates and Aristotle; they were nurtured in ancient Rome with the Empire’s adherence to universal law intertwined with the Christian understanding of man’s fallen nature and his hope for redemption, brought to Rome by the Apostle Paul. These ideas were then greatly advanced by the development of the parliamentary system in London and the concept of common law, which finally led to the miracle of Philadelphia.

In Philadelphia our founding fathers not only drafted the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, but in doing so created a national government that balanced the conflicting demands of freedom and order and established a remarkably new and effective model for government. This model was a federalism with powers that were so carefully enumerated, separated and restrained, that it would be a true instrument of the people, protecting their rights and drawing its own legitimacy and powers only from the consent of the governed.

Prior to the miracle of Philadelphia, it was commonly believed that rights were granted by the sovereign. However, in the writings of the 17th century British philosopher John Locke, whose influence on Thomas Jefferson is so clearly seen in the Declaration of Independence, people have rights by virtue of having been created in God’s image. Believing that these God-given rights do not flow from governments, Philadelphia turned the world upside down by declaring that government has only those rights that the people choose to give it.

Locke wrote that legitimate governments are instituted for the purpose of protecting rights. The founders understood that for government to serve this noble purpose, people must be free to form governments and to dissolve them, and that the only legitimate purpose for any government is to protect the rights of the people, which America’s Bill of Rights proclaimed to be “inalienable.”

At the foundation of this “classical liberal” view of rights is the idea that one is free to pursue one’s own life, liberty and happiness as long as in doing so one does not violate the right of others to do the same. In this view, there is no obligation to ensure the best interest of others - nor is there a requirement to be selfish. Instead, each person is free to act in his own behalf, but always respecting the right of others to do the same.

The classical liberals and our founding fathers made no distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties. In fact, one can argue that the right to property and to wealth, both of which are economic liberties, is a necessary protection to such rights as the freedom to speak and to worship, both of which are civil liberties.

The respect for man’s full rights, both civil and economic, endured through the nineteenth century, making America both a beacon of freedom and an industrial powerhouse the likes of which had never before been seen on the face of the earth. Sadly that respect for God-given, inalienable, civil and economic rights would be attacked from within our own borders during the twentieth century.

(This is the second installment in a series of reflections on “What Does It Mean to Be A Conservative?”)

What Does It Mean To Be a “Conservative?”

For a half century before the election of President Ronald Reagan, it was politically acceptable throughout much of America to describe oneself as a “liberal” or a “progressive.” Since the election of President Reagan in 1980, it is increasingly difficult to find a self-admitted “liberal,” but politicians of all stripes and philosophies are happy to call themselves conservatives.

Within the Republican Party there are “economic conservatives,” “social conservatives,” “religious conservatives,” “fiscal conservatives,” “neoconservatives,” “paleoconservatives,” and given the enormous growth of government in the past decade here in South Carolina and at the federal level where most Republicans consider themselves conservatives, it appears there are even “big government conservatives,” or as they prefer to call themselves, “compassionate conservatives.” Indeed, both of our political parties contain a mixing of political philosophies, and this mixing can even be found within single candidates and elected officials.

To make matters even more confusing, the terminology we use for describing the major political philosophies has evolved to the point that what we regard as conservative today is really classical liberalism, which was the philosophy of Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence. It is the philosophy that permeates our founding documents and strongly shaped American thought and history until fairly recently.

Many Americans are frustrated by the inconsistencies, contradictions, and compromises that are all too typical of so many holding offices today. Accordingly, in the coming weeks this blog will attempt to objectively address the history of the conservative movement, its major thinkers and political practitioners, its major philosophical foundations and ideas, and how those ideas translate into policy today.

I am convinced that the ideas upon which our nation was founded account for the freedom and prosperity that we have enjoyed for much of our history and that when we depart from those principles our economy suffers and the social fabric of our nation begins to fray. I am also convinced that only when we understand the great principles, formed through centuries of experience, secured through much bloodshed, and upon which our nation was founded, can we ensure the survival of our great republic, which is, in the words of President Reagan, “the last best hope of men on earth.”

The subject I will tackle in coming weeks is large, but it is an exercise that I believe is important to our state and nation. As always, I hope you will share your thoughts and join the discussion.

Constitutional Amendment: A Trojan Horse?

The solution for South Carolina’s low SAT test scores and its high dropout rates has been much debated. Now a well-meaning group of citizens are suggesting that our state constitution might be holding us back. That constitution mandates a “minimally adequate” education for all students.

There are those who believe that if we change our constitutional mandate for education, our education problems will be solved. Accordingly, an effort is underway to amend our constitution to replace its current mandate for “minimally adequate” to “high quality education, allowing each student to reach his highest potential.”

Who among us could oppose such a noble intent? Certainly, all of us want every student to reach his or her highest potential. And South Carolina for many years has backed up its commitment to its youth with educational spending that places us among the most generous states, particularly as a percentage of per capita income.

Our education leaders often remind us that South Carolina’s education standards are among the highest in the nation. Thus, one might wonder why the wording of a centuries old constitution should matter. If our constitution has not prevented us from establishing some of the highest standards in the nation, it certainly would not prevent us from meeting those same standards.

Those behind this effort to change our state constitution know that if they can change the wording of the constitution, they can circumvent our State Legislature and file suit, as they have done in 45 other states, to get our State Court System to mandate large increases in education spending. In effect, this approach would mandate large increases in taxes as well.

The educational establishment is right in setting high standards for student performance. But reasonable people would be justified in asking whether that establishment has made “minimally adequate” use of the generous resources already provided by the taxpayers of our state. When we require that our education system focus our education tax dollars on teachers in the classrooms, instead of on large administrative bureaucracies, we then will truly begin to offer a high quality education where each student will be allowed to reach his or her highest potential.

Jesse Helms - True to His Convictions

Winston Churchill once remarked: “You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” Senator Jesse Helms, who passed away on July 4th, built a career on standing for principle against sometimes fierce personal opposition.

The personality trait uniting most politicians is a consuming desire to be liked. Over time, this trait leads many people to take the path of least resistance, or to take positions that are likely to please as many of one’s base as possible regardless of larger consequences. In politics, the “go along to get along” approach can win friendships and the approval of the media, but it doesn’t always serve the larger interests of one’s constituents and the nation.

Jesse Helms was guided by the North Star of what he viewed as right and true. He would as readily challenge Presidents of his own party as he would those of the opposition. One journalist in his home state of North Carolina aptly said of him: “He was not a consensus builder. He didn’t want everybody to vote for him. He just wanted enough.”

As the senator himself put it, “I didn’t come to Washington to be a yes man for any President, Democrat or Republican.” And through a thirty year career that included chairmanships of the Senate Agriculture Committee and later the Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms became one of the most reviled politicians in America for defending his sincere principles. He relished the title of “Senator No,” given to him by his detractors, and kept a big rubber “NO” stamp on his Senate desk.

In 1975, Helms helped arrange a visit to the United States by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Both Secretary Kissinger and President Ford refused to meet with Solzhenitsyn for fear of offending the leaders of the Soviet Union. Kissinger even forbade State Department employees from attending a major speech Solzhenitsyn delivered in our nation’s capitol. Senator Helms skewered them both for “cowering timidly for fear of offending Communists.”

Over the years Senator Helms voted “no” on higher taxes and on bills designed to increase the size of government. With 60% growth in the size of the federal government during the past eight years, his lone and principled voice is sorely missed.

He voted “no” to seriously flawed international treaties that he felt would undermine American sovereignty and the rights of individual Americans. He voted “no” on foreign aid to third world thugs. He voted “no” on many objectionable nominations for government and diplomatic posts. He voted “no” on taxpayer funded abortions including those in military hospitals. He voted “no” when the National Endowment for the Arts was funding blasphemous, homo-erotic art.

He opposed efforts to limit the Constitutional right to bear arms. He opposed unfair quotas and set-asides. He mobilized hundreds of thousands of citizens in opposing compulsory unionism. And he did all that, and much more, while maintaining a reputation as one of the Senate’s most courtly and gentlemanly members. Madeleine Albright once described Helms as "the kindest, most infuriating, politest, most aggravating and nicest politician I had to deal with in the United States Senate.”

Jesse Helms knew that the greatest service he could render to his country was to be true to his convictions, regardless of how unpopular they may be, and to say “no” when the mob was surging in the wrong direction. For his faithfulness and courage, all Americans are indebted to Jesse Helms. He was a remarkable and unique public servant.

Wishing You a Safe, Blessed, and Happy Fourth of July!

The Fourth of July is the great summer holiday when families come together to enjoy cook-outs, patriotic music, fireworks, and all that has traditionally accompanied our nation’s birthday celebration.

Communities throughout South Carolina will sponsor an array of parades, festivals, and concerts, many culminating with extraordinary firework displays. These great events will be part of the best memories our children will carry through their lives. That is why I would like to suggest that among all the happy events of the day, families pause to realize that this day also represents the extraordinary faith, courage, and dedication of our nation’s founding fathers.

One good way to discern the character of perhaps our most noted founding father is to consider George Washington’s “Earnest Prayer.” The great General, facing military retirement at the close of the Revolutionary War, was in Newburgh, New York on June 14, 1783, when he released a “Circular Letter Addressed to the Governors of all the States on the Disbanding Army.” General Washington wrote in his letter:

“I now make it my earnest prayer that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection; that He would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow-citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for brethren who have served in the field; and finally that He would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.”

In these times, no less than in Washington’s time, our nation needs such a spirit of service and dedication. And none should question that it especially needs his “earnest prayer.”

We wish you and yours a safe, blessed, and happy Fourth of July!

The Battle for Freedom Continues

This week the Supreme Court rendered two extremely important decisions in support of the Constitution, freedom, and the individual liberties of every American.

Virtually all of the media attention has been focused on the Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upholds the individual right of Americans to own guns in the District of Columbia. Since Washington, D.C. is federal territory, many of those who oppose the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms continue to argue that the Second Amendment simply allows for state militias to possess guns, and they strive to keep and expand state and municipal prohibitions against individual gun ownership. But these state and local laws will now be challenged in light of the new ruling that makes clear that our Constitution and Bill of Rights not only mean what they say, but apply to every American.

In finding the Washington, D.C. gun ban in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, Justice Scalia eloquently affirmed what our founding fathers understood when saying that certain rights are inherent, natural, and from God, not government, and when he explains how the rights affirmed by the founding fathers have their roots deep in ancient British legal history. These natural, God-given rights include the right to defend oneself and one’s family, to safeguard one’s home and property, even to defend one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against a tyrannical government.

For a great many Americans, what the Supreme Court has done in this landmark case is to affirm what most of us simply regard as “right thinking” or common sense. Yet the Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter was determined by a razor thin vote of 5 to 4.

The national attention that focused on this Second Amendment ruling has eclipsed another Court decision rendered the same day, but one that is at least as important in that it re-asserts our First Amendment right to free speech. The McCain-Feingold law has been seen by many as an “incumbent protection act” in that it restricts the quantity, content, and timing of political speech during federal elections. One provision, known as the “millionaires’ amendment,” had attempted to subdue wealthy, self-financing candidates by letting their opponents receive triple the standard campaign contribution limit of $2,300 per donor. This provision effectively had limited what one candidate could spend, thereby limiting that candidate’s speech, since it costs money to get one’s message to the voters. Also, by “leveling the playing field” in this way, the law provided an advantage to incumbents who typically are much better known than are their challengers.

This week the Court also determined by a 5 to 4 vote that this provision of the McCain-Feingold law is unconstitutional, thereby upholding the right of a candidate to spend his own money for campaign speech.

While we can be thankful that the Supreme Court has aligned itself on the side of liberties contained in our Bill of Rights, the closeness of these votes reminds us of how very fragile those liberties are.

When we hear legislators boast about how much legislation they have sponsored and passed, we need to remember that every law, whether it is promulgated by local, state, or federal governments, limits someone’s freedom. The challenge is in knowing when to make the trade-off.

There was a time in the nineteenth century when many seriously argued that our Congress was no longer necessary since our nation had all the law it needed. With the threats posed by international terrorism, by a public that increasingly thinks government should solve all problems, and by a government that seeks to manage everything from the nation’s economy to planetary temperatures, our liberties come under constant assault.

The noble battles for liberty fought at Bunker Hill, Ticonderoga, Valley Forge, Charleston, Camden, and Eutaw Springs continue today in both political parties, in our state legislatures, in Congress, and as we have seen this week, in the United States Supreme Court. The fight is never ending.

Free Markets, Not Government, Are the Answer

Americans in every part of our nation are acutely aware that something is causing steep increases in the price of gasoline. At approximately $4 per gallon and continuing its upward climb, some estimate that the price of gasoline could double in the foreseeable future. Such prices not only will create havoc with family budgets, they will stagger our nation’s economy.

We have been given many reasons for the price increases and many solutions to resolve the crisis that these increases have created. But when Congressional Democrats recently called for the federal government to nationalize the refineries, I was reminded of President Reagan’s first inaugural address in which he said:

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."

That is as true of our “present crisis” as it was of the enormous challenges faced by our fortieth President.

For four decades, presidents and Congress have yielded to environmental extremists who have opposed virtually every opportunity to move “we the people” closer to energy self-sufficiency. They have opposed hydropower because of perceived threats to the natural habitat of fish even though hydropower has been used to produce electricity since before the invention of the light bulb, it is nearly free, there are no waste products, and it does not pollute the water or the air. They have opposed nuclear energy even though it provides safe, clean, and inexpensive power to much of the world. They have opposed drilling for oil on western federally-owned lands, in the arctic wasteland, and offshore and in the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States, even while China and Cuba are preparing to drill for oil in those same waters off America’s coast. They have even opposed erecting wind turbines off our coasts that convert kinetic energy in the wind into electricity, because turbines might block the view for boaters and for those with waterfront property. Political leadership should be made of sterner stuff.

Beginning in 1982, Congress began limiting offshore drilling through the appropriations process for the Department of the Interior. In 1990, the elder President Bush issued an executive order restricting new offshore exploration and drilling. In 1998, President Clinton extended these regulations through 2012, and until this past week, our current President has done nothing to relax them. Now, at crisis stage, he indicates that he will support legislation opening the Outer Continental Shelf for exploration and drilling.

Since the 1970’s, American presidents have encouraged the American people to conserve, put on sweaters, and turn down thermostats, with the understanding that the law of supply and demand would keep affordable the inexpensive oil we were importing from the Middle East. Unfortunately, in the intervening years the same governmental leaders that have overseen our energy crisis have presided over the export of America’s manufacturing industries to other countries. As a result, we are no longer the world’s foremost consumer of foreign oil. In fact, there are far more tankers crowding China’s ports than there are in our own, fueling China’s rapidly increasing manufacturing industries. While we might hope that driving less and conserving more will bring down oil prices, hordes of foreign consumers are hungry for our share and more, thus driving up prices.

As a result of America’s energy crisis, both political parties and their candidates will likely be trying to sell us complex energy plans on how government can get us out of this mess that government got us into. As President Reagan wisely understood, comprehensive government plans are not the solution to the crisis we confront; government plans likely are the problem.

The solution to our energy crisis is not nationalization of oil refineries. That is the way of Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, and China. The answer in the United States is for our government to step aside and rescind its Executive Orders, statutes, and volumes of rules and regulations that have all but ruined America’s robust economic engine of exploration, research, development, and production.

America has the same capability it has always had to lead the world in developing new sources of bioenergy from plant matter and animal waste. It can harness geothermal energy from deep within the earth, and the sun’s energy can be more efficiently used for heat and electricity. Hydrogen can be cleanly produced from renewable sources. Tidal forces, when harnessed, offer enormous potential power. And while all of these new technologies are being developed or expanded, we have sufficient deposits of oil and coal in the United States to provide for all of our energy needs for many future decades.

Congress is very good at producing a lot of hot air, but it will not produce a single barrel of oil or one iota of the new energy technologies we need. The seemingly insurmountable problems confronting America’s families and our economy will be more likely to be addressed when voters recognize that their own government, not Middle Eastern sheiks, is causing our energy crisis. Private industry, freed of government shackles, is more than capable of providing America with the safe, clean, reliable, and low cost power our nation needs.