Saturday, April 30, 2011
S.C. Dems elect Dick Harpootlian to move forward
Or so it seems.
Look, in being honest with you, I don't think giving $15,000 to S.C. Republicans helps us. That policy ought to change. Matter of fact, we Dems need all the money we can get. We also need to recruit/field candidates so we are competitive in all state races. If not, then support those who share our ideals the most in third parties.
For example, we all know Rob Groce is a dedicated Democrat. He's no Ben Frasier. Now, if we are going to set the policy of donating outright to Republicans, why not donate to true Democrats - even if they are on a third-party ticket. The Working Families Party is one I support - and a majority of people would support it, too if we worked together more often than not. Ask Randy Maata.
Enough. The Party has selected its chairman for four years. I congratulate him. In this state, it is very important for Dems to work together and end any past feuds and displeasure. This state cannot see Dems lose again. We must take grasp of the energy out there and reform our Party on it. There has to be a better approach to electing Democratic candidates besides scratching backs. Because if you already haven't figured out, Republicans stick together more so than Dems. And if you really think one Republican is going to sell out the other and not catch heat for it, you got another thing coming.
I urge for a complete overhaul of the Party. One that brings us all to the table and doesn't rate our importance based on how liberal we are. We also need to listen and enact ideas once thought of as unheard of. If I remember correctly, we aren't really winners in this state.
Our Dems state government, I feel, has been bastardized. People aren't energized enough locally to get behind them. The Party should commit resources to fight for the Dems we have and compete in areas we have not.
Here's to Dick. You have a damn tough fight, my friend.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Forget unions, Nikki Haley would rather 'intimidate' South Carolina's workers
Here, I'll share it with you.
In October 2009, Boeing, long one of the best corporations in America, made an announcement that changed the economic outlook of South Carolina forever: The company's second line of 787 Dreamliners would be produced in North Charleston.
In November 2008, this happened:
Striking members of the Machinists (IAM) will begin returning to work as early as today after members ratified a new four-year contract with the Boeing Co. by an almost 3-1 margin. The new agreement covers 27,000 IAM members at Boeing facilities in Washington, Oregon, Kansas and California, and ends a strike that began on Sept. 6. Let's see what they struck for...
Union officials had gone over the contract offer with a fine-tooth comb. A document on the medical-plan deficiencies listed details such as no increase in coverage for prescription lenses, and a reduction in dental coverage from three annual cleanings to two. Machinists particularly upset with the contract offer included relatively new hires, who are low on the company wage ladder. The proposed contract would give them smaller percentage increases than more senior workers. Scott Shampine, an electrician on the 737 line in Renton hired 18 months ago, said he has gross pay with overtime of about $36,000.
Boeing has since poured billions of dollars into a new, state-of-the art facility in South Carolina's picturesque Low Country along the Atlantic coast. It has created thousands of good jobs and joined the long tradition of distinguished and employee-friendly corporations that have found a home, and a partner, in the Palmetto State.
These jobs created are nonunion. They are in fact just what Boeing bought - jobs that can be removed at the drop of a dime if cheaper labor becomes available. Plus, the tax incentives given to Boeing have to be paid on the backs of others. Us. South Carolinians will make up the difference in what Boeing does not pay and if not, you'll see further depletion of governmental services in this state. Why? Because there will be no way to fund them.
This a win-win for South Carolina, for Boeing, and for the global clients who will see Dreamliners rolling off the North Charleston line at the rate of 10 a month, starting with the first one next year. But, as is often the case, a win for people and businesses is a loss for the labor unions, which rely on coercion, bullying and undue political influence to stay afloat.
A win-win, you say. Boeing not paying taxes comparable to others is a win for who exactly? Plus, Haley praises a tax escape artist - something she may know a lot about. For Haley to paint unions as the cause for all this state's problems shows how blind she is. Coercion? Bullying?
South Carolina is a right-to-work state, and we're proud that within our borders workers cannot be required to join a labor union as a condition of employment. We don't need unions playing middlemen between our companies and our employees. We don't want them forcefully inserted into our promising business climate. And we will not stand for them intimidating South Carolinians.
Nikki Haley talks about our state as a prison. Like someone is intruding. It's that "state's rights" thing again. Don't be alarmed. It's all in her handed-down playbook. Haley's state has a right to work less. Yeah, we don't need unions trying to keep jobs from being reduced to just service-oriented, tourist supported with no health care benefits or job security. Forcefully inserted? Promising business climate? Nikki, you've been dealing with high unemployment in a state with single-digit union membership. You think maybe the tax break giveaways and the direct disregard of maintaining proper funding for services couldn't have anything to do with your dilemmas? You can't even sell the state's ports to the White House for dredge funds to get them operational enough to bring in jobs and sustain the ones we have. Oh... Wait a minute.
ArcelorMittal - Georgetown didn't donate to you. It doesn't sponsor anything for you. No political kickbacks. But I know a company who has.
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Some of South Carolina's largest manufacturers and energy companies gave more than $250,000 for Gov. Nikki Haley's inaugural events, with Boeing Inc., Duke Energy, Progress Energy and SCANA Corp. among those donating $25,000 each. ... Boeing won big economic development incentives in 2009 as the company decided to expand manufacturing operations in South Carolina. Haley has said she'll make keeping the facility union-free a priority - a position that has resulted in a lawsuit from the International Association of Machinists.
Haley isn't worried about Obama's "silence" as she writes. She knows it's called an investigation. But when you have a company spend millions in your state and thousands on you, then you chirp like the biggest bird around.
And Obama doesn't owe you anything, Nikki. You and your Republican Party owe us in this state 100 times more than ever.
Oh, and how about stop bullying the workers of this state by push and producing all kinds of legislation to limit any voice or choice before it actually becomes a whisper. Then we'll see how "anti-union" people are here when given the facts.
ITC Findings on Chinese Extruded Aluminum Please USW
PITTSBURGH – The United Steelworkers (USW) today said that the union is happy with a Thursday decision by the International Trade Commission to support countervailing and anti-dumping duties on most aluminum extrusions from China.
“Our members and employers deserve a fair shake in the global marketplace,” said USW International President Leo W. Gerard. “Leveling the playing field with duties on illegally dumped and subsidized foreign goods is a step in the right direction.”
Gerard explained that so-called “free” trade is a myth and added that global fair trade will require the cooperation of all the governments and corporations involved.
The USW, along with its partners in the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee, argued that Chinese extrusions are being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and the ITC has cleared the way for antidumping duties of 32.79% to 33.28% and countervailing duties of 8.02% to 374.15% for subsidized goods.
Having determined that Chinese aluminum extrusions have injured domestic producers, the U.S. Department of Commerce can now impose duties beginning as early as next month for a minimum term of five years.
The USW is the largest industrial union in North America, representing more than 850,000 members in aluminum and a wide variety of industries and services.
“Our members and employers deserve a fair shake in the global marketplace,” said USW International President Leo W. Gerard. “Leveling the playing field with duties on illegally dumped and subsidized foreign goods is a step in the right direction.”
Gerard explained that so-called “free” trade is a myth and added that global fair trade will require the cooperation of all the governments and corporations involved.
The USW, along with its partners in the Aluminum Extrusions Fair Trade Committee, argued that Chinese extrusions are being sold in the U.S. at less than fair value and the ITC has cleared the way for antidumping duties of 32.79% to 33.28% and countervailing duties of 8.02% to 374.15% for subsidized goods.
Having determined that Chinese aluminum extrusions have injured domestic producers, the U.S. Department of Commerce can now impose duties beginning as early as next month for a minimum term of five years.
The USW is the largest industrial union in North America, representing more than 850,000 members in aluminum and a wide variety of industries and services.
Eastvold: Two facts on which this (Dem state chair) election hinges
Fellow Delegates:
I beg your indulgence at receiving yet one more election-related e-mail. I will have four children in tow tonight, and doubt that I will be able to talk to everyone.
Having attended Wednesday night's candidate forum, I have to admit that I came away more impressed with Mr. Harpootlian than was evident in my blog post endorsing candidates earlier in the week (http://blog.eastvold.net/?p=
(1) The South Carolina Democratic Party is a homogeneous party.
(2) South Carolina is a blue, or at least a heavily purple, state in terms of national party ID.
Taking these in order:
(1) Our party is diverse. This is one of our greatest strengths. Yet when Republicans cynically attempt to use race to divide the party (think Alvin Greene, Ben Frasier, and especially Tim Scott), it also poses serious challenges that could drive people away from the party (or simply make them stay home in disgust).
To that end, my own preference would be to switch the Chair and 1st Vice Chair races, and let Mssrs. Noble and Harpootlian fight it out for the position of a deeply involved 1st Vice Chair while leaving the top spot for Jaime Harrison, who is currently running unopposed for 1st Vice Chair. Failing such a development, I think the racial situation within the party requires a Chair who can be a little slower with his trigger finger, a little more cautious with his words, and with a stronger reputation for being able to listen to points of view in the party. Of the two, Mr. Noble has the stronger track record of the two in this respect.
(2) We came closer than any southern state other than Florida to winning our governor's race. Vincent Sheheen was a great candidate and ran a solid campaign. However, it would be deceiving ourselves to imagine that Gov. Haley's deficiencies as a candidate did not figure heavily into the race. To win against a competitive Republican opponent, it is not simply enough to throw out red meat for the base. (South Carolina's record in presidential races (which, given the decline of local media in the face of nationally syndicated networks, is probably as good of an indicator as any) is quite clear in this respect.) We have to persuade independents and incredulous Republicans that we have the clearest vision and the most promising plan for the state's future. Driving up Republican negatives may bring down an occasional incumbent, but is an unsustainable strategy over the long term when the Republican bench is so much deeper than ours. We will never win a permanent Democratic majority in South Carolina by beating the Republicans at schoolyard brawls and "yo' mama" jokes. To win, we need to solidify our reputation for being who we actually are: the party of ideas, the party of the little people, and the party whose "family values" involve caring about actual families' real needs.
As the Democratic base, we enjoy having red meat thrown to us, and Mr. Harpootlian is unmatched in his skills at doing just that. But it takes much more than that to win--especially here in South Carolina. If we choose our candidates for chair based on their ability to make us feel good, I worry that we will end up as a support group consoling ourselves for our electoral defeats by taking cheap shots at the GOP majority while the state crumbles around our ears.
Thus, whether the matchup occurs in the race for Chair or 1st Vice-Chair, I will be casting my vote for Phil Noble and encourage you to do the same. I look forward to seeing you this weekend.
Jonathan Eastvold, Ph.D.
Dorchester County
I beg your indulgence at receiving yet one more election-related e-mail. I will have four children in tow tonight, and doubt that I will be able to talk to everyone.
Having attended Wednesday night's candidate forum, I have to admit that I came away more impressed with Mr. Harpootlian than was evident in my blog post endorsing candidates earlier in the week (http://blog.eastvold.net/?p=
(1) The South Carolina Democratic Party is a homogeneous party.
(2) South Carolina is a blue, or at least a heavily purple, state in terms of national party ID.
Taking these in order:
(1) Our party is diverse. This is one of our greatest strengths. Yet when Republicans cynically attempt to use race to divide the party (think Alvin Greene, Ben Frasier, and especially Tim Scott), it also poses serious challenges that could drive people away from the party (or simply make them stay home in disgust).
To that end, my own preference would be to switch the Chair and 1st Vice Chair races, and let Mssrs. Noble and Harpootlian fight it out for the position of a deeply involved 1st Vice Chair while leaving the top spot for Jaime Harrison, who is currently running unopposed for 1st Vice Chair. Failing such a development, I think the racial situation within the party requires a Chair who can be a little slower with his trigger finger, a little more cautious with his words, and with a stronger reputation for being able to listen to points of view in the party. Of the two, Mr. Noble has the stronger track record of the two in this respect.
(2) We came closer than any southern state other than Florida to winning our governor's race. Vincent Sheheen was a great candidate and ran a solid campaign. However, it would be deceiving ourselves to imagine that Gov. Haley's deficiencies as a candidate did not figure heavily into the race. To win against a competitive Republican opponent, it is not simply enough to throw out red meat for the base. (South Carolina's record in presidential races (which, given the decline of local media in the face of nationally syndicated networks, is probably as good of an indicator as any) is quite clear in this respect.) We have to persuade independents and incredulous Republicans that we have the clearest vision and the most promising plan for the state's future. Driving up Republican negatives may bring down an occasional incumbent, but is an unsustainable strategy over the long term when the Republican bench is so much deeper than ours. We will never win a permanent Democratic majority in South Carolina by beating the Republicans at schoolyard brawls and "yo' mama" jokes. To win, we need to solidify our reputation for being who we actually are: the party of ideas, the party of the little people, and the party whose "family values" involve caring about actual families' real needs.
As the Democratic base, we enjoy having red meat thrown to us, and Mr. Harpootlian is unmatched in his skills at doing just that. But it takes much more than that to win--especially here in South Carolina. If we choose our candidates for chair based on their ability to make us feel good, I worry that we will end up as a support group consoling ourselves for our electoral defeats by taking cheap shots at the GOP majority while the state crumbles around our ears.
Thus, whether the matchup occurs in the race for Chair or 1st Vice-Chair, I will be casting my vote for Phil Noble and encourage you to do the same. I look forward to seeing you this weekend.
Jonathan Eastvold, Ph.D.
Dorchester County
Dangerous Spending Caps Proposed: Deja Vu All Over Again!
Proposed “global spending caps” that would severely limit federal spending for decades are reminiscent of state-level fights a decade ago over the “Taxpayer Bill of Rights? (TABOR).”
Under TABOR, state-wide referenda established state-wide budget ceilings and very high thresholds for exceeding the limits. They effectively nullified election results by tying the hands of state elected officials and reducing services across the board. As a result, voters and elected officials were held hostage by simplistic formulas perpetrated by their predecessors – when new, unanticipated need emerged, they couldn’t respond!
Today, this pattern threatens to repeat at the federal level. Some in Congress are proposing overall caps on federal spending that would tie Congress’ hands for decades. These caps would force the largest cuts in federal spending in modern history – for education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other critical programs. Future Congresses would be unable to provide needed funding in case of emerging needs or changing priorities.
Take Action Today: Tell Congress that slashing programs that serve children, elderly, and working families is not the answer to our nation’s fiscal problems. Urge them to oppose global spending caps.
Under TABOR, state-wide referenda established state-wide budget ceilings and very high thresholds for exceeding the limits. They effectively nullified election results by tying the hands of state elected officials and reducing services across the board. As a result, voters and elected officials were held hostage by simplistic formulas perpetrated by their predecessors – when new, unanticipated need emerged, they couldn’t respond!
Today, this pattern threatens to repeat at the federal level. Some in Congress are proposing overall caps on federal spending that would tie Congress’ hands for decades. These caps would force the largest cuts in federal spending in modern history – for education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other critical programs. Future Congresses would be unable to provide needed funding in case of emerging needs or changing priorities.
Take Action Today: Tell Congress that slashing programs that serve children, elderly, and working families is not the answer to our nation’s fiscal problems. Urge them to oppose global spending caps.
Ken Campbell: Big Decision Tomorrow
Tomorrow at the SCDP Democratic Convention, you'll have a big decision to make regarding the future of our party in South Carolina. It is a decision that will determine whether South Carolina can finally join the ranks of other formerly "non-competitive" political states and begin electing Democrats once again. And with all groups, whether public, private, or political -- the organization follows the leader.
Who are you planning to support?
I was elected Chairman of the Oconee County Democratic Party at the end of 2004 -- at a time when we suffered a crushing defeat to George W. Bush. Electing a Democratic President -- and growing a political organization seemed like an impossible task. With the advice and counsel of progressive leaders like Phil Noble, we put plans in place to activate the grassroots of our party. We opened a prominent headquarters - began an aggressive fundraising plan -- and committed to the future with a finely tuned strategic plan. The results were amazing. Just four years later, election day 2008 was a night and day change from our defeat in 2004. Almost 200 active volunteers were on the ground and working for the Obama machine -- and most of those folks were NEW to our party.
But today isn't about celebrating yesterday's victories - it's about SECURING TOMORROW'S!!
In this activist's opinion, reaching the top begins with PHIL NOBLE leading the charge. Over the last 7 years, Phil has become my "go-to guy" for advice on political matters. When Oconee County was struggling to raise the $25,000+ we needed to keep our prominent headquarters open -- I called Phil. He helped us raise thousands of dollars from donors around the state.
When I needed prominent speakers to come up and talk to our monthly breakfast group -- I called Phil. He not only found me speakers, but he made the 3.5 hour drive from Charleston to visit.
When we needed advice on what kind of fundraising to do locally -- I called Phil. He shared what he knew to be effective and we put those plans in place.
I could ramble on with dozens of "I CALLED PHIL" examples.... but you get the point.
Most importantly, Phil was willing to help our small county party -- on the opposite end of the state -- at a time when he was not an officer in the state party! Imagine what level of leadership Phil could offer if he was our LEADER?? I am so excited to think of the possibilities.
Enjoy the convention tomorrow. Enjoy the fellowship with other democrats. And do me a favor: ELECT PHIL NOBLE PARTY CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow's victory starts with Phil... I believe it to my core.
Ken Campbell
Former Chairman, Oconee Democratic Party
Who are you planning to support?
I was elected Chairman of the Oconee County Democratic Party at the end of 2004 -- at a time when we suffered a crushing defeat to George W. Bush. Electing a Democratic President -- and growing a political organization seemed like an impossible task. With the advice and counsel of progressive leaders like Phil Noble, we put plans in place to activate the grassroots of our party. We opened a prominent headquarters - began an aggressive fundraising plan -- and committed to the future with a finely tuned strategic plan. The results were amazing. Just four years later, election day 2008 was a night and day change from our defeat in 2004. Almost 200 active volunteers were on the ground and working for the Obama machine -- and most of those folks were NEW to our party.
But today isn't about celebrating yesterday's victories - it's about SECURING TOMORROW'S!!
In this activist's opinion, reaching the top begins with PHIL NOBLE leading the charge. Over the last 7 years, Phil has become my "go-to guy" for advice on political matters. When Oconee County was struggling to raise the $25,000+ we needed to keep our prominent headquarters open -- I called Phil. He helped us raise thousands of dollars from donors around the state.
When I needed prominent speakers to come up and talk to our monthly breakfast group -- I called Phil. He not only found me speakers, but he made the 3.5 hour drive from Charleston to visit.
When we needed advice on what kind of fundraising to do locally -- I called Phil. He shared what he knew to be effective and we put those plans in place.
I could ramble on with dozens of "I CALLED PHIL" examples.... but you get the point.
Most importantly, Phil was willing to help our small county party -- on the opposite end of the state -- at a time when he was not an officer in the state party! Imagine what level of leadership Phil could offer if he was our LEADER?? I am so excited to think of the possibilities.
Enjoy the convention tomorrow. Enjoy the fellowship with other democrats. And do me a favor: ELECT PHIL NOBLE PARTY CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow's victory starts with Phil... I believe it to my core.
Ken Campbell
Former Chairman, Oconee Democratic Party
Ra Shad Gaines for SCDP Third Vice Chair
(I personally support D.C. Swinton for this position, but encourage delegates to make their own minds up.)
Greetings! I write you briefly today to remind you that tomorrow, you have an opportunity to change the course of action and apathy towards the involvement of young people with democratic politics across the state of South Carolina .
I will first thank the supporters whom have called or written and asked me to address the mudslinging that has begun in the race for Third Vice Chair at me. My official response to the mudslinging is, NO RESPONSE.
Thank you for your time and remember, W.A.R. Wins!!! You may view my complete platform below my signature. This concept below is simply the beginning of redefining and developing the role of young people in our party politics.
Respectfully,
RaShad Gaines
Candidate, Third Vice Chair - SCDP PLATFORM
 |
| VP BIDEN during the 2008 Presidential Primary |
WAR WINS...Working - Active- Running
- Simple: 46 Counties = 46 Mobilized, Engaged, and Energized Chapters of the Young Democrats
- ReInaugurate the 3RD VICE CHAIRS RETREAT - providing a forum to train county 3rd Vice Chairs on how to effectively do their job and mobilize their counties
- Revist the relationship with the South Carolina Federation of College Democrats and the High School Democrats
- Create a bonafide network for Young Professionals
- Lobby for resources from the State Party to aid County Parties as they actively pursue the youth vote as well as strategically target the demographics of all of the extensions of the party across the state
- Lobby for the creation of a seat for the President of the SC Young Democrats on the SCDP Executive Council and Committee
- Work towards HARD GOALS for all SCDP delegations to include young people (state convention, national convention, DNC affairs, and all other acts of business)
- Create a mechanism for the recruitment, training, and engagement of individuals who desire to be Elected Officials
Phil Noble: A 'Fight for the Soul' of Our Democratic Party
Charleston's Post and Courier said it best – the race for Chairman of the SC Democratic Party is a fight for the soul of our party…and the future of our Party.
Last night there was a forum in North Charleston and it provided a crystal clear contrast of what this fight is all about between Phil Noble and Dick Harpootlian.
Dick simply did not tell the truth. Here is the official State Election Commission record of his time as Chairman from 1998 – 2002:
In 2002, when Harpootlian left office, we had LOST:
This is a fight between the future and the past; between the grassroots activist and the Columbia insiders; between change and reform, and mudslinging and personal attacks…between winning and losing.
And they are getting desperate. In the last few days, my opponent has been sending out big money to county parties whose officers are leaning in my favor. There have been intimidating messages delivered by his supporters to ours, and there are lots of quiet deals being made and favors being promised behind the scenes.
It’s the worst of the old politics of the past - and I expect worse to come.
So, now its up to you. The future of the SC Democratic Party is in your hands. What do you want our party to be? Saturday is your chance to choose – to resist the pressure and intimidation that wants us to go back to the same losing past – and instead vote for a party that you will be proud of, a party of bold ideas and reform.
And most of all, a party that will win again and lead our state into a better future.
I know you will make the right choice
Thanks,
Phil
Please visit us on the web at PhilNoble.com
Last night there was a forum in North Charleston and it provided a crystal clear contrast of what this fight is all about between Phil Noble and Dick Harpootlian.
Why Phil?
Why not Dick?
At the forum, Mr. Harpootlian said the principal reason to vote for him was his prior winning record, saying that when he was Party Chair:Harpootlian: "We won. I have won. I know how to do it."
Dick simply did not tell the truth. Here is the official State Election Commission record of his time as Chairman from 1998 – 2002:
Harpootlian's Overall Election Results:
Democrats lost 25 of 38 -- 66% -- of all statewide and federal elections
In 2002, when Harpootlian left office, we had LOST:
- the Governor
- 1 US Senate seat
- 7 of 9 of the Constitutional offices
- 4 State House seats
- 3 State Senate seats and control of the State Senate (first time since 1878)
Noble on the Importance of the Race
This is a fight between the future and the past; between the grassroots activist and the Columbia insiders; between change and reform, and mudslinging and personal attacks…between winning and losing.
And they are getting desperate. In the last few days, my opponent has been sending out big money to county parties whose officers are leaning in my favor. There have been intimidating messages delivered by his supporters to ours, and there are lots of quiet deals being made and favors being promised behind the scenes.
It’s the worst of the old politics of the past - and I expect worse to come.
It’s YOUR Choice.
So, now its up to you. The future of the SC Democratic Party is in your hands. What do you want our party to be? Saturday is your chance to choose – to resist the pressure and intimidation that wants us to go back to the same losing past – and instead vote for a party that you will be proud of, a party of bold ideas and reform.
And most of all, a party that will win again and lead our state into a better future.
I know you will make the right choice
Thanks,
Phil
Please visit us on the web at PhilNoble.com
Thursday, April 28, 2011
THE INVISIBLE HAND: A CASE STUDY IN STRIPPING AWAY ELECTION RIGHTS
by Bev Harris - Black Box Voting
As Colorado election officials battle the public over right to examine ballots, new questions on public right to authenticate ballots have surfaced in New Hampshire, where the powerful First-In-The-Nation presidential primary will take place in 2012. If New Hampshire is to have its thumb on the scale in presidential politics, election transparency needs to be an absolute requirement. In a bizarre chain of events, nontransparency was entered surreptitiously into a New Hampshire statute in 2003.
NEW HAMPSHIRE IS GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN
Ballots are an open record under Colorado law though clerks are fighting the public on this. Marilyn Marks, supported by Black Box Voting, is litigating over wrongful denial of public right to inspect Colorado ballots. This is currently in the Colo. Supreme Court now (Looking good so far ... more on that below).
In Wisconsin where a hot political recount is taking place, the public can opt to examine ballots with or without a recount. In Michigan, the public can even take pictures of ballots. In Florida, a consortium of news organizations examined ALL the ballots from the 2000 presidential election. In California, two counties (Humboldt and Yolo) make photocopies of all the ballots available to the public for examination.
But in 2003, New Hampshire ballots were ever-so-quietly EXCLUDED from public right to know. How could this happen?
THE INVESTIGATION INTO NEW HAMPSHIRE'S REMOVAL OF BALLOTS FROM RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW
Black Box Voting director Bev Harris, board member Nancy Tobi, and an extraordinary New Hampshire citizen named Deborah Sumner conducted an investigation this month into New Hampshire's action to exempt ballots from its Right-to-Know law. What we found was shocking.
From: Deborah Sumner
Subject: The mystery of why ballots are exempted from NH Right to Know Law
"Still trying to track down more info on why ballots were exempted from NH right to know law. It seems to me, if there was any discussion, it was removed from the official record or took place behind closed doors."
Sumner learned that in 2003 the New Hampshire State Senate sneaked an extraneous amendment into an unrelated bill, HB 627, pertaining to defining domicile to comply with a Help America Vote requirement.
In other words, in a bill about residency requirements for voter registration, suddenly, magically, and out of thin air, an amendment appeared to exclude ballots from New Hampshire right to know law.
"No evidence the amendment had a public hearing," Sumner writes. "Original bill did in the House."
TO PASS A LAW IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Both the New Hampshire House and Senate must pass the bill, and it must be identical in form.
In the case of 2003 House Bill 627, the house passed a bill which had nothing to do with excluding ballots from public right to know.
The senate got the bill, went into committee, had a hearing and obtained a detailed opinion from the attorney general, all pertaining to a bill that had NO LANGUAGE WHATSOEVER about removing ballots from public oversight.
TIMELINE FOR THE MYSTERY AMENDMENT
I traveled to New Hampshire and examined the file on this bill, requesting all notes, minutes, committee actions and testimony. Here is the curious timeline:
MARCH 2003: The House Elections Committee had a hearing and invited several officials to discuss the bill, which had NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
MARCH 2003: The House passed the bill, which included NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
APRIL 30, 2003: The Senate Internal Affairs Committee had a hearing on HB 627. At this time there was NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
APRIL 30, 2003: Bud Fitch from the Attorney General's office provided a legal analysis on the bill which contained NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
MAY 9, 2003: Suddenly, magically, and with no notes, testimony, hearing, legal analysis, or any visible explanation or discussion, an amendment appeared in the Senate bill to exclude ballots from right to know. This amendment was passed by the Senate.
JUNE 2003: The House saw what the Senate did to the bill. They REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE the version of the bill containing an exclusion of ballots from right to know law.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE CANNOT AGREE?
JUNE 2003: When the House refuses to concur with the Senate, a "Committee of Conference" is called to see if they can get together on the language. The Committee of Conference REMOVED the offending language about excluding ballots from public right to know.
JUNE 24, 2003: The bill, with the offensive language removed, was then passed by both House and Senate.
SO HOW WERE PUBLIC RIGHTS ULTIMATELY VIOLATED?
JUNE 30, 2003 a murky little amendment posing as a "technical amendment" was passed. This amendment is both improperly vague in its wording and illegal in its implementation.
TECHNICALITIES ONLY: THE "ENROLLED BILLS" COMMITTEE"
After both houses pass a bill, it is sent to the "Enrolled Bills Committee" which checks the bill for typos, spelling errors, and other minor problems. The Enrolled Bills Committee has no right to alter content in a passed bill. But they did.
The Enrolled Bills Committee added several paragraphs to the bill, then hid them with an opaque phrase. They incorporated content that had been explicitly removed in the version passed by House and Senate, hiding the changed content behind one vague and illicit sentence: "restore original language."
This language was weirdly vague. What "original language"? The "original language" in the house bill (WITHOUT the rights-stripping amendment); or the amended language from the Senate bill (WITH the rights-stripping amendment)?
WHO WAS THE INVISIBLE HAND?
Here's what I found:
- All notes and minutes from the Senate committee pertaining to creation of the right-stripping amendment are now absent from the file on HB 627 at the archives.
- All notes and minutes from the joint "Committee of Conference" are absent from the file.
- A note in the Senate Journal indicates that one senator, Sylvia Larsen, was removed midstream from the Committee of Conference, replaced with Senator Flanders who was formerly State Treasurer, reputedly a very tight-lipped guy. One would surmise that Larsen refused to play ball with the boys.
Even after booting out Larsen they could not reach concurrence with the House.
- No notes exist in the file from the Enrolled Bills Committee.
- No notes exist from the Office of Legislative Services (the research arm for the Enrolled Bills Committee).
- The file contains not a whisper about the ballot exclusion from the Secretary of State or the attorney general's office.
- In fact, all notes, minutes, research, testimony, or records of any kind which reference the offending amendment are missing from the file, and it is never mentioned in discussion on either the House or Senate floor.
All we can find was that on June 30 after the technical check for spelling and punctuation, exclusion of ballots from right to know arose like a wraith to appear in a bill which had already been passed by both houses without the exclusion.
JUNE 30, 2003: One obtuse line, "revert to original language" was put into a technical amendment and passed by house and senate.
WHO WAS ON THE ENROLLED BILLS COMMITTEE?
Senators Eaton, Green, Clegg, D'Allesandro and Larsen. Though there are no notes from this committee, not even the customary form indicating who approved and disapproved of the final form, a minimum of three of the above-mentioned senators were clearly complicit.
It was a ballsy move. It seems unlikely they would have inserted this change in content, violating protocol for the Enrolled Bills Committee, without encouragement from an invisible hand.
- The Office of Legislative Services coordinates with the Enrolled Bills Committee. I called them to inquire how this happened. They told me they cannot make changes in content, and limit themselves to suggesting spelling or punctuation changes along with a review to make sure the language doesn't violate existing law.
The Enrolled Bills Committee would have known that Sec. State Bill Gardner and Asst. A.G. Bud Fitch would sign off on it before sending the bill to the governor.
Bud Fitch has since left the attorney general's office to take a position with former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (now a U.S. Senator). Bill Gardner and/or his key operations guy, David Scanlan, will run the 2012 New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
While removing ballots from public right to know might make it easier to control a presidential primary, it certainly doesn't offer transparency and it violates the public right to self-government, the very cornerstone of both the New Hampshire and the US Constitution. And it goes against trend: Our right to examine ballots is receiving more attention, and more formal recognition:
AN UPBEAT WORD ON THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT CASE
Will appeals court free Aspen ballots?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/
By Vincent Carroll
As I pointed out in my Saturday column
http://www.denverpost.com/
But maybe that highly convenient reading of the law - convenient for city and county clerks, that is - is on its last legs. At least that's the sense I got at a hearing Monday at the state court of appeals involving a case pitting Aspen against an unsuccessful mayoral candidate who is seeking to view digital copies of ballots from the 2009 election.
Marilyn Marks' bid for the digital images was rejected by a district court, but the three-judge appeals panel appeared somewhat more sympathetic to her goal - as it should be.
Judge Arthur P. Roy seemed most skeptical of arguments that providing the images to Marks might somehow compromise ballot secrecy. And he was not reassured when the special counsel for Aspen, James True, suggested that an election judge who accidentally left a chocolate smudge on a voter's ballot might later recognize that ballot if it became a public document and thus discover the voter's choices.
Honestly. This far-fetched hypothetical was offered with a straight face as an argument for barring even carefully regulated public access to ballots.
True's other main argument was that voters who wrote in a candidate might be identified - not only by their handwriting but also, in a small community, by the pattern of their votes. Yet both of these possibilities of a secrecy breach are almost as highly speculative as the chocolate smudge. Are these really the best arguments available for opponents of transparency?
Voted ballots are anonymous by law. And it's high time that Colorado courts told the clerks that they should stopping saying otherwise.
As Colorado election officials battle the public over right to examine ballots, new questions on public right to authenticate ballots have surfaced in New Hampshire, where the powerful First-In-The-Nation presidential primary will take place in 2012. If New Hampshire is to have its thumb on the scale in presidential politics, election transparency needs to be an absolute requirement. In a bizarre chain of events, nontransparency was entered surreptitiously into a New Hampshire statute in 2003.
NEW HAMPSHIRE IS GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN
Ballots are an open record under Colorado law though clerks are fighting the public on this. Marilyn Marks, supported by Black Box Voting, is litigating over wrongful denial of public right to inspect Colorado ballots. This is currently in the Colo. Supreme Court now (Looking good so far ... more on that below).
In Wisconsin where a hot political recount is taking place, the public can opt to examine ballots with or without a recount. In Michigan, the public can even take pictures of ballots. In Florida, a consortium of news organizations examined ALL the ballots from the 2000 presidential election. In California, two counties (Humboldt and Yolo) make photocopies of all the ballots available to the public for examination.
But in 2003, New Hampshire ballots were ever-so-quietly EXCLUDED from public right to know. How could this happen?
THE INVESTIGATION INTO NEW HAMPSHIRE'S REMOVAL OF BALLOTS FROM RIGHT-TO-KNOW LAW
Black Box Voting director Bev Harris, board member Nancy Tobi, and an extraordinary New Hampshire citizen named Deborah Sumner conducted an investigation this month into New Hampshire's action to exempt ballots from its Right-to-Know law. What we found was shocking.
From: Deborah Sumner
Subject: The mystery of why ballots are exempted from NH Right to Know Law
"Still trying to track down more info on why ballots were exempted from NH right to know law. It seems to me, if there was any discussion, it was removed from the official record or took place behind closed doors."
Sumner learned that in 2003 the New Hampshire State Senate sneaked an extraneous amendment into an unrelated bill, HB 627, pertaining to defining domicile to comply with a Help America Vote requirement.
In other words, in a bill about residency requirements for voter registration, suddenly, magically, and out of thin air, an amendment appeared to exclude ballots from New Hampshire right to know law.
"No evidence the amendment had a public hearing," Sumner writes. "Original bill did in the House."
TO PASS A LAW IN NEW HAMPSHIRE:
Both the New Hampshire House and Senate must pass the bill, and it must be identical in form.
In the case of 2003 House Bill 627, the house passed a bill which had nothing to do with excluding ballots from public right to know.
The senate got the bill, went into committee, had a hearing and obtained a detailed opinion from the attorney general, all pertaining to a bill that had NO LANGUAGE WHATSOEVER about removing ballots from public oversight.
TIMELINE FOR THE MYSTERY AMENDMENT
I traveled to New Hampshire and examined the file on this bill, requesting all notes, minutes, committee actions and testimony. Here is the curious timeline:
MARCH 2003: The House Elections Committee had a hearing and invited several officials to discuss the bill, which had NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
MARCH 2003: The House passed the bill, which included NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
APRIL 30, 2003: The Senate Internal Affairs Committee had a hearing on HB 627. At this time there was NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
APRIL 30, 2003: Bud Fitch from the Attorney General's office provided a legal analysis on the bill which contained NO LANGUAGE about excluding ballots from right to know law.
MAY 9, 2003: Suddenly, magically, and with no notes, testimony, hearing, legal analysis, or any visible explanation or discussion, an amendment appeared in the Senate bill to exclude ballots from right to know. This amendment was passed by the Senate.
JUNE 2003: The House saw what the Senate did to the bill. They REFUSED TO AUTHORIZE the version of the bill containing an exclusion of ballots from right to know law.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE HOUSE AND SENATE CANNOT AGREE?
JUNE 2003: When the House refuses to concur with the Senate, a "Committee of Conference" is called to see if they can get together on the language. The Committee of Conference REMOVED the offending language about excluding ballots from public right to know.
JUNE 24, 2003: The bill, with the offensive language removed, was then passed by both House and Senate.
SO HOW WERE PUBLIC RIGHTS ULTIMATELY VIOLATED?
JUNE 30, 2003 a murky little amendment posing as a "technical amendment" was passed. This amendment is both improperly vague in its wording and illegal in its implementation.
TECHNICALITIES ONLY: THE "ENROLLED BILLS" COMMITTEE"
After both houses pass a bill, it is sent to the "Enrolled Bills Committee" which checks the bill for typos, spelling errors, and other minor problems. The Enrolled Bills Committee has no right to alter content in a passed bill. But they did.
The Enrolled Bills Committee added several paragraphs to the bill, then hid them with an opaque phrase. They incorporated content that had been explicitly removed in the version passed by House and Senate, hiding the changed content behind one vague and illicit sentence: "restore original language."
This language was weirdly vague. What "original language"? The "original language" in the house bill (WITHOUT the rights-stripping amendment); or the amended language from the Senate bill (WITH the rights-stripping amendment)?
WHO WAS THE INVISIBLE HAND?
Here's what I found:
- All notes and minutes from the Senate committee pertaining to creation of the right-stripping amendment are now absent from the file on HB 627 at the archives.
- All notes and minutes from the joint "Committee of Conference" are absent from the file.
- A note in the Senate Journal indicates that one senator, Sylvia Larsen, was removed midstream from the Committee of Conference, replaced with Senator Flanders who was formerly State Treasurer, reputedly a very tight-lipped guy. One would surmise that Larsen refused to play ball with the boys.
Even after booting out Larsen they could not reach concurrence with the House.
- No notes exist in the file from the Enrolled Bills Committee.
- No notes exist from the Office of Legislative Services (the research arm for the Enrolled Bills Committee).
- The file contains not a whisper about the ballot exclusion from the Secretary of State or the attorney general's office.
- In fact, all notes, minutes, research, testimony, or records of any kind which reference the offending amendment are missing from the file, and it is never mentioned in discussion on either the House or Senate floor.
All we can find was that on June 30 after the technical check for spelling and punctuation, exclusion of ballots from right to know arose like a wraith to appear in a bill which had already been passed by both houses without the exclusion.
JUNE 30, 2003: One obtuse line, "revert to original language" was put into a technical amendment and passed by house and senate.
WHO WAS ON THE ENROLLED BILLS COMMITTEE?
Senators Eaton, Green, Clegg, D'Allesandro and Larsen. Though there are no notes from this committee, not even the customary form indicating who approved and disapproved of the final form, a minimum of three of the above-mentioned senators were clearly complicit.
It was a ballsy move. It seems unlikely they would have inserted this change in content, violating protocol for the Enrolled Bills Committee, without encouragement from an invisible hand.
- The Office of Legislative Services coordinates with the Enrolled Bills Committee. I called them to inquire how this happened. They told me they cannot make changes in content, and limit themselves to suggesting spelling or punctuation changes along with a review to make sure the language doesn't violate existing law.
The Enrolled Bills Committee would have known that Sec. State Bill Gardner and Asst. A.G. Bud Fitch would sign off on it before sending the bill to the governor.
Bud Fitch has since left the attorney general's office to take a position with former Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (now a U.S. Senator). Bill Gardner and/or his key operations guy, David Scanlan, will run the 2012 New Hampshire first-in-the-nation presidential primary.
While removing ballots from public right to know might make it easier to control a presidential primary, it certainly doesn't offer transparency and it violates the public right to self-government, the very cornerstone of both the New Hampshire and the US Constitution. And it goes against trend: Our right to examine ballots is receiving more attention, and more formal recognition:
AN UPBEAT WORD ON THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT CASE
Will appeals court free Aspen ballots?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/
By Vincent Carroll
As I pointed out in my Saturday column
http://www.denverpost.com/
But maybe that highly convenient reading of the law - convenient for city and county clerks, that is - is on its last legs. At least that's the sense I got at a hearing Monday at the state court of appeals involving a case pitting Aspen against an unsuccessful mayoral candidate who is seeking to view digital copies of ballots from the 2009 election.
Marilyn Marks' bid for the digital images was rejected by a district court, but the three-judge appeals panel appeared somewhat more sympathetic to her goal - as it should be.
Judge Arthur P. Roy seemed most skeptical of arguments that providing the images to Marks might somehow compromise ballot secrecy. And he was not reassured when the special counsel for Aspen, James True, suggested that an election judge who accidentally left a chocolate smudge on a voter's ballot might later recognize that ballot if it became a public document and thus discover the voter's choices.
Honestly. This far-fetched hypothetical was offered with a straight face as an argument for barring even carefully regulated public access to ballots.
True's other main argument was that voters who wrote in a candidate might be identified - not only by their handwriting but also, in a small community, by the pattern of their votes. Yet both of these possibilities of a secrecy breach are almost as highly speculative as the chocolate smudge. Are these really the best arguments available for opponents of transparency?
Voted ballots are anonymous by law. And it's high time that Colorado courts told the clerks that they should stopping saying otherwise.
Carl Anderson, Kevin Ryan vote to not sell out South Carolina or its people
Kudos to Representatives Carl Anderson and Kevin Ryan for voting against a tax deal to allow Amazon even more tax incentives to locate here. They both did the state and its people a great service by saying to other companies we're not going to be discounted to thrift-store prices to bring you here.
But some people think this was wrong to do. We should just let Amazon come right on in because they keep yelling and screaming that one thousand number at us. So what? Those jobs are not secure. Amazon has even proven this by yanking a center out of Texas because the government came calling on past due taxes. Hmm...
I suppose people really don't understand the impact of giving away your sources of government revenue on programs people living here depend on. You'd think the major talk of cutting public education and Medicaid would start tying people into the root causes of the problems.
Well, some at the state capital can't hide the truth anymore. They have given away too much. And there's a great report detailing that, too.
Mike Fanning
There's plenty out there to look at to see what corporate tax breaks do to a state.
But there was something else that caught my eye. Something the Republicans know about and continually talk about all the time. Oh, what is it... Wait, I got it!
Capitalism. You know, free markets? I am a firm believer in fair markets because Republicans tend to just let companies do as they please. But something didn't go so right with Amazon. I wonder why?
Let's all read what caught my eye.
Industries seeking preferential treatment dominate the political process because voter-taxpayers have very little incentive to be well informed about the costs associated with these tax incentive programs and to create any means of organized opposition. The jobs ‘created’ at a new plant are easily visible to the state or local community; they will not see the jobs that are lost elsewhere in the economy due to the higher tax burdens imposed on other businesses and consumers. Nor do they see the scarce resources being allocated away from productive ventures that could produce real output and growth being spent instead on lobbying government officials to obtain these favors. In addition, taxpayers may be unable to see that their future tax bills will be higher in order to amortize and service the public debt issued to finance the subsidies diverted toward the owners of politically influential private companies (Hicks and Shughart 2007).
But there is also something else. Something real good. So good, Republicans really don't talk about it.
Over this 14 year period state spending for incentives has increased from over $32 million in 1994 to over $250 million in 2007 almost an 8 fold increase. Most notably in 1999 and 2000 spending increased by large percentage changes, more than doubling the spending from each of the previous years, 101 and 118 percent, respectively. While no statistically significant correlation appears to exist between spending on economic incentives and employment, it is interesting to note that in the years following these large increases in spending the percentage change in employment is negative. Thus, while spending in South Carolina on economic incentives increased substantially over a 13-year period, employment and personal income did not. Despite the assurances of policy makers that incentives would create jobs and higher income levels, neither has kept pace with the spending.
I know, I know. Democratic governor. Jim Hodges. 1999. 2000. But let's look at something, shall we?
Let's look at what 1999 had to offer. I wonder whether or not Amazon saw this? If so, did they just spit on it?
Tax Inc 99
You're right. 1999. I got it. But you all get the idea. If what we were and are doing needs to be revamped, why go even lower to appease a company while hurting the ones who live here further? If we are going to give up so much, why not treat it like sports and get them to sign multi-year deals keeping their business, money and manufacturing in the state?
Again, thanks to Carl and Kevin for not selling out South Carolina or its people.
BONUS: Here's 2009's South Carolina Tax Incentives for Economic Development
Tax Incentives 2009
Beaufort Co.Democratic Party Executive Comm. and County Chair Blaine Lotz Endorse Phil Noble for SCDP Chair
Dear Fellow Democrats,
The Beaufort County Democratic Party Executive Committee voted unanimously to endorse Phil Noble as its choice for Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Noble, from Charleston, is a businessman, political consultant, and president of the SC New Democrats, a progressive group founded by former SC Governor Dick Riley. I subsequently spoke with Phil and expressed my views on a number of issues of importance to all South Carolinians --- Democrats and Republicans. After a good discussion, I told Phil that I was also personally endorsing him for SCDP chair.
Beaufort County's Democratic leadership believes that Phil Noble offers us the best opportunity to start electing qualified Democratic candidates in our state and to prepare for the task ahead to help re-elect President Obama in 2012. We need to start over with a clean slate --- the old ways of doing business in the SCDP have not worked. How many people one knows in Washington and the number of snappy one-liners one can deliver on potential Republican presidential candidates will not win elections in South Carolina. While money is important in campaigns, voters will win elections. Beware of ongoing pressure on uncommitted delegates.
Phil Noble will work to rebuild our Party from the grassroots. Like Lee Walter Jenkins, the outstanding chair of the Marion County Democratic Party, Phil will pay attention to South Carolina's rural counties and others whose value has been marginalized in the past. In essence, we need to start over as Democrats in South Carolina. I will vote at the SC Democratic Convention in Columbia on April 30 to elect Phil Noble as our new SCDP Chair. My fellow members of the BCDP executive committee and I urge all Delegates to consider supporting Phil.
Sincerely,
Blaine Lotz, Chair
Beaufort County Democratic Party
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Why I Am Supporting Phil Noble for South Carolina Democratic Party Chair, How About You?
The following is one in a series of personal endorsements of Phil Noble for Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. These are the unedited thoughts of Democratic Party activist and candidates who have reached the common belief that Phil is the best choice to lead the S.C. Democratic Party into the 2012 election cycle. Add your voice to the growing chorus by sending your thoughts on why you are supporting Phil at johngpainter@gmail.com.
The Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party must be an individual who meets a number of specific criteria to be successful. These include :
(1) organizing an effective ground game that results in an election day "GET OUT THE VOTE" (GOTV) effort which motivates our base supporters,
(2) be an individual who is viewed as a credible spokesperson by both the media and thoughtful independent voters. This is crucial given that there are no statewide elected Democrats the next Chair will be the public "face" of the Party and must be capable of handling a unique level of scrutiny,
(3) securing vital resources by successfully fund raising : not only tapping past sources but also prospecting new potential donors to establish a consistent flow of capital that assures Democrats can compete with Republicans in the public arena,
(4) someone whose public stature will help with the recruitment of serious Democratic candidates,
(5) serving as an individual who can bring the divergent elements of the State Democratic Party together so that we are working towards the common goal of winning election, from the Court House to the State House, thus acknowledging that success with the first will lead to the latter,
(6) one who understands both the positive and negative aspects of our Party"s history. They must have the wisdom to realize the difference and continue building on the positive accomplishments while working to reform the negatives that have lead to failure in the past,
(7) a willingness to serve as the "point person" in the on going challenge of holding the Republicans accountable for their failed policies and ethical lapses. Unfortunately one party government will breed abuse and challenging the inevitable excess must be persuasive if it is to be effective.
The individual chosen must be capable of multi-tasking in order to do the job required of our next Chair. It is not enough to be proficient in one or two aspects of this role. Fortunately for South Carolina Democrats there is a candidate offering who clearly meets these high standards. Phil Noble is an individual who has spent most of his adult life involved in the political process beginning as a young 9 year old supporter of John F. Kennedy. As a political consultant he has successfully supported Democratic candidates for over 20 years having been named International Consultant of the Year by the American Association of Political Consultants. In 2008 he became an early supporter of President Obama serving on his South Carolina Statewide Steering Committee. Phil has demonstrated an understanding of the political pulse in South Carolina, having recently authored a five point plan that if implemented offers a plan for placing Democrats in a competitive position in our state. It indicates he understands that reaching a level of parity in South Carolina will not happen over night but will be the result of duplicating what has worked and reforming where we have fallen short in the past. Anyone who has read one of his letters realizes he is a thoughtful individual who is willing to reach outside the confines of the traditional "political box" to achieve results. In the course of his career he has founded two award winning non-profit organizations in South Carolina including one which works to assist providing students computer access. The fact that his work has been published in newspapers across the state serves as an indication of his ability to command the respect of the media while providing a platform for reaching thinking South Carolinians. In the past he has called members of both political establishments to task when necessary. His is not the "in your face style" which true believers, such as my self love, but which risks being viewed as too partisan by the independent swing voter. Instead he will provide a reasoned critique of the issues before our state, not hesitating to identify Republican failures and misguided policies when justified. A method that will appeal to the rational mind regardless of political persuasion by not only calling out Republican hypocrisy but offering Democratic solutions.
Upon assuming leadership of "The S.C. New Democrats ", an organization founded by Supt. of Education Richard Riley, he became the heir of a political philosophy that understands winning elections involves first gaining the trust of the people, then challenging them to pursue public policy goals that they come to understand will improve the quality of their lives. It's a winning formula which was successfully implemented by then Gov. Riley when he fought to secure a penny sales tax increase for education. Pursuing a sound policy that was also a winning political issue helped established Dick Riley as the "Education Governor" not only in South Carolina, but across the nation. If there is any doubt read Bill Clinton's thoughts in his autobiography concerning his decision to place Riley at the head of the Education Department. I reread it recently and it reminded of a time when S.C. was not the laughing stock of the nation as a result of Republican abuse. Riley is the only Democratic Governor of South Carolina to implement policies that had the voters ratifying his decisions at the ballot box with a second term in office. His actions established him as the most successful Democratic leader in South Carolina over the last half century. Something that should not go unnoticed as Democrats begin the process of reversing recent statewide electoral trends. Phil offers that kind of bold leadership to the State Democratic Party and in the process will widen the net of potential supporters and candidates willing to seek office under a revitalized Democratic Party banner. Phil Noble's history indicates an ability to satisfy these qualifications which leads me to support his candidacy for Chair of the State Democratic Party. I would also encourage my friends and fellow Delegates to join me in working for his election as Chair at the State Convention on April 30th.
johngpainter@hotmail.com
========================================================
(1) organizing an effective ground game that results in an election day "GET OUT THE VOTE" (GOTV) effort which motivates our base supporters,
(2) be an individual who is viewed as a credible spokesperson by both the media and thoughtful independent voters. This is crucial given that there are no statewide elected Democrats the next Chair will be the public "face" of the Party and must be capable of handling a unique level of scrutiny,
(3) securing vital resources by successfully fund raising : not only tapping past sources but also prospecting new potential donors to establish a consistent flow of capital that assures Democrats can compete with Republicans in the public arena,
(4) someone whose public stature will help with the recruitment of serious Democratic candidates,
(5) serving as an individual who can bring the divergent elements of the State Democratic Party together so that we are working towards the common goal of winning election, from the Court House to the State House, thus acknowledging that success with the first will lead to the latter,
(6) one who understands both the positive and negative aspects of our Party"s history. They must have the wisdom to realize the difference and continue building on the positive accomplishments while working to reform the negatives that have lead to failure in the past,
(7) a willingness to serve as the "point person" in the on going challenge of holding the Republicans accountable for their failed policies and ethical lapses. Unfortunately one party government will breed abuse and challenging the inevitable excess must be persuasive if it is to be effective.
The individual chosen must be capable of multi-tasking in order to do the job required of our next Chair. It is not enough to be proficient in one or two aspects of this role. Fortunately for South Carolina Democrats there is a candidate offering who clearly meets these high standards. Phil Noble is an individual who has spent most of his adult life involved in the political process beginning as a young 9 year old supporter of John F. Kennedy. As a political consultant he has successfully supported Democratic candidates for over 20 years having been named International Consultant of the Year by the American Association of Political Consultants. In 2008 he became an early supporter of President Obama serving on his South Carolina Statewide Steering Committee. Phil has demonstrated an understanding of the political pulse in South Carolina, having recently authored a five point plan that if implemented offers a plan for placing Democrats in a competitive position in our state. It indicates he understands that reaching a level of parity in South Carolina will not happen over night but will be the result of duplicating what has worked and reforming where we have fallen short in the past. Anyone who has read one of his letters realizes he is a thoughtful individual who is willing to reach outside the confines of the traditional "political box" to achieve results. In the course of his career he has founded two award winning non-profit organizations in South Carolina including one which works to assist providing students computer access. The fact that his work has been published in newspapers across the state serves as an indication of his ability to command the respect of the media while providing a platform for reaching thinking South Carolinians. In the past he has called members of both political establishments to task when necessary. His is not the "in your face style" which true believers, such as my self love, but which risks being viewed as too partisan by the independent swing voter. Instead he will provide a reasoned critique of the issues before our state, not hesitating to identify Republican failures and misguided policies when justified. A method that will appeal to the rational mind regardless of political persuasion by not only calling out Republican hypocrisy but offering Democratic solutions.
Upon assuming leadership of "The S.C. New Democrats ", an organization founded by Supt. of Education Richard Riley, he became the heir of a political philosophy that understands winning elections involves first gaining the trust of the people, then challenging them to pursue public policy goals that they come to understand will improve the quality of their lives. It's a winning formula which was successfully implemented by then Gov. Riley when he fought to secure a penny sales tax increase for education. Pursuing a sound policy that was also a winning political issue helped established Dick Riley as the "Education Governor" not only in South Carolina, but across the nation. If there is any doubt read Bill Clinton's thoughts in his autobiography concerning his decision to place Riley at the head of the Education Department. I reread it recently and it reminded of a time when S.C. was not the laughing stock of the nation as a result of Republican abuse. Riley is the only Democratic Governor of South Carolina to implement policies that had the voters ratifying his decisions at the ballot box with a second term in office. His actions established him as the most successful Democratic leader in South Carolina over the last half century. Something that should not go unnoticed as Democrats begin the process of reversing recent statewide electoral trends. Phil offers that kind of bold leadership to the State Democratic Party and in the process will widen the net of potential supporters and candidates willing to seek office under a revitalized Democratic Party banner. Phil Noble's history indicates an ability to satisfy these qualifications which leads me to support his candidacy for Chair of the State Democratic Party. I would also encourage my friends and fellow Delegates to join me in working for his election as Chair at the State Convention on April 30th.
johngpainter@hotmail.com
Noble Pledge: On Day 1, I will set up a Reform Commission
Several important party reform measures were put before the Democratic Party's Rules Committee meeting in Columbia on Monday and there was a major break though with a new Convention rule about voting with paper ballots for party officers.
"Yesterday was an important first step in reforming our party and preventing the kind of voter intimidation and strong arm tactics that have happened in past conventions," said Phil Noble, a candidate for Chairman of the Party Chair.
For the first time in recent history, the vote for party officers will be only with paper ballots - to ensure fairness and avoid the intimidation that has often happened in the past. In the past, delegates complained they felt pressured to vote with party insiders when votes were taken by raising hands or counting those who were standing. Others questioned whether it was even possible to get a correct count on crucial votes by having the presiding officer simply "eyeball" delegates coming and going on the floor.
With the new rule, now delegates will mark their ballot in secret as oppose to the past when delegates voted in a 'standing vote' and were often subject to great pressure and intimidation by party bosses that wanted to rig the voting. The vote in favor of the reform was nearly unanimous.
A second proposal was circulated to establish a special reform commission to look at ways to make party procedures more democratic and transparent, and its leadership more accountable. Led by Blaine Lotz, Chairman of the Beaufort County Party, and a Noble supporter, the proposal called for the creation of a truly independent commission that would look into all areas of party operation and develop far reaching proposal for reform. The proposal generated a lot of enthusiasm among the supporters of party reform and the plan for a reform commission will be presented to the new party chair once they are selected.
"This is exactly what we need as a party," said Noble. "For too long we have had the same people using old and outdated ideas... and we have lost. This reform commission will be a big first step to our becoming a winning party again.
Last night we did something new for South Carolina Democrats. We held a Telephone Town Hall meeting - it was like a big conference call - with over 250 folks. It was really fun, Phil talked a few minutes at first but most of the time was spend with questions about what we need to do to reform the party to win.
Today, the party insiders in Columbia run our party the way they want and don't listen to people on the grass roots level. This Telephone Town Hall meeting is a good way to connect people all across the state and share ideas.
After the call, Noble said that he would use this new technology on a regular basis to stay in touch.
"Yesterday was an important first step in reforming our party and preventing the kind of voter intimidation and strong arm tactics that have happened in past conventions," said Phil Noble, a candidate for Chairman of the Party Chair.
Paper Ballots to Prevent Intimidation"This is a very important milestone in opening up our party with honest reform and it's a huge blow for the Columbia insiders who have run our party and run it into the ground."
For the first time in recent history, the vote for party officers will be only with paper ballots - to ensure fairness and avoid the intimidation that has often happened in the past. In the past, delegates complained they felt pressured to vote with party insiders when votes were taken by raising hands or counting those who were standing. Others questioned whether it was even possible to get a correct count on crucial votes by having the presiding officer simply "eyeball" delegates coming and going on the floor.With the new rule, now delegates will mark their ballot in secret as oppose to the past when delegates voted in a 'standing vote' and were often subject to great pressure and intimidation by party bosses that wanted to rig the voting. The vote in favor of the reform was nearly unanimous.
Party Reform Commission"The vote was a great indicator of what will happen in the vote for Chair of the party. The forces of reform that I represent have carried the day by a large margin
- change is on the way."
A second proposal was circulated to establish a special reform commission to look at ways to make party procedures more democratic and transparent, and its leadership more accountable. Led by Blaine Lotz, Chairman of the Beaufort County Party, and a Noble supporter, the proposal called for the creation of a truly independent commission that would look into all areas of party operation and develop far reaching proposal for reform. The proposal generated a lot of enthusiasm among the supporters of party reform and the plan for a reform commission will be presented to the new party chair once they are selected.
"This is exactly what we need as a party," said Noble. "For too long we have had the same people using old and outdated ideas... and we have lost. This reform commission will be a big first step to our becoming a winning party again.
Telephone Town Hall meeting"On Day 1, I will set up a Reform Commission to begin to make the changes we need to become a winning party again."
Last night we did something new for South Carolina Democrats. We held a Telephone Town Hall meeting - it was like a big conference call - with over 250 folks. It was really fun, Phil talked a few minutes at first but most of the time was spend with questions about what we need to do to reform the party to win.Today, the party insiders in Columbia run our party the way they want and don't listen to people on the grass roots level. This Telephone Town Hall meeting is a good way to connect people all across the state and share ideas.
After the call, Noble said that he would use this new technology on a regular basis to stay in touch.
"As chairman we will have these calls at least once a month so I can better stay in touch with folk on the grassroots. It's a great new technology."
Why are some S.C. citizens kissing Amazon's ass?
I am glad this state shut down Amazon's ridiculous bid to get a tax break deal to locate here. Quit kissing their ass.
Are you all that desperate to have a job? One that doesn't provide any security to begin with? One that could be yanked from you because Amazon doesn't get its way? WAH!
I wish people would look past their hand and focus in deep on what the true costs to this state would be if Republicans would have caved to what Amazon wanted. As if what we already have to offer isn't good enough.
Hell, let's just discount this state to thrift-store prices and pretty much give away our labor force without any protections at all. Better yet, let all the small businesses who pay taxes take up the slack for a billion dollar company.
Let me share with you some ramblings from across our country in regards to Amazon.
Tennessee:
Amazon sales and investment
More Tennessee:
Texas:
More Texas:
South Carolinians need not fall for the pretty, shiny Amazon knocking at our door. All things that look nice are not so.
Fulfillment centers are located in the following cities, often near airports. These centers also provide warehousing and order-fulfillment for third-party sellers:[40]
For once, Republicans stood up and showed they cared about the paycheck they receive from taxpayers and the government they stand for. So, kudos to them. We should already be good enough for Amazon. If not, then go somewhere else.
Are you all that desperate to have a job? One that doesn't provide any security to begin with? One that could be yanked from you because Amazon doesn't get its way? WAH!
I wish people would look past their hand and focus in deep on what the true costs to this state would be if Republicans would have caved to what Amazon wanted. As if what we already have to offer isn't good enough.
Hell, let's just discount this state to thrift-store prices and pretty much give away our labor force without any protections at all. Better yet, let all the small businesses who pay taxes take up the slack for a billion dollar company.
Let me share with you some ramblings from across our country in regards to Amazon.
Tennessee:
Amazon sales and investment
- 18.7 billion: Amazon North American sales in 2010, up 39 percent from 2009
- $270 million: Estimated Amazon sales in Tennessee in 2010
- $91 million: Value of Amazon distribution center being built in Chattanooga
- $48.1 million: Value of Amazon distribution center being built in Bradley County
- 1,476: Number of full-time jobs at new Amazon centers in Southeast Tennessee
- $47.2 million: Projected full-time payroll for new Amazon facilities
- $35 million: Projected annual Amazon sales tax losses in Tennessee in 2012
- $6.6 million: One-time job tax credit applied against half of franchise and excise taxes
- $4 million: Value of 80 acres given to Amazon by city and county this year.
- $720,000: City of Chattanooga property tax break in 2012
- $435,000: Hamilton County property tax break in 2012.
- $70,000: Bradley County property tax break in 2012
More Tennessee:
To persuade Amazon.com Inc. to build a distribution hub in Tennessee, state and local officials offered a package of economic incentives that included free land, job-training assistance and more than $12 million in property-tax breaks.
It was a run-of-the-mill package for an out-of-state company promising to create some 1,400 jobs at two new warehouses by the end of 2011.
But Amazon sought more from the Volunteer State. Amazon policy chief Fred Kiga made a case for why the Seattle-based company should not have to collect sales tax from Tennessee customers once the warehouses are up and running.
At stake was Amazon’s ability to continue offering Tennessee customers everything from books to bikes without making them pay sales tax – a significant price advantage over the local brick-and-mortar stores.
Texas:
As a result of an ongoing tax dispute with Texas, Amazon.com has decided to take its ball and go home.
The online retailer said Thursday that it would shutter its Irving distribution facility April 12 and cancel plans to hire as many as 1,000 additional workers rather than pay Texas what the state says is owed in uncollected sales tax.
Texas wants $269 million from Seattle-based Amazon in past-due sales tax. It sent the bill to the company last October.
More Texas:
So, is Amazon’s tax-free status unfair? Of course it is. As Mazerov points out, Amazon has physical operations in 17 states in which the company and its employees enjoy the fruits of local taxes—police and fire protection, roads, hospitals, and other infrastructure that make its operations possible. Yet Amazon skirts tax collection in most of these places through clever legal tricks. For instance, it has incorporated its warehouses and Web site as separate legal entities in order to argue that it doesn’t really have a presence in Nevada, Texas, and other states.
South Carolinians need not fall for the pretty, shiny Amazon knocking at our door. All things that look nice are not so.
Fulfillment centers are located in the following cities, often near airports. These centers also provide warehousing and order-fulfillment for third-party sellers:[40]
- North America:
- USA: Phoenix and Goodyear, AZ; New Castle, DE; Whitestown and Plainfield, IN; Coffeyville, KS; Campbellsville, Hebron (near Cincinnati), Lexington and Louisville, KY; Fernley and North Las Vegas, NV; Nashua, NH; Carlisle, Hazleton, Allentown, Lewisberry, PA; Chattanooga, TN; Sterling, VA; and Bellevue, WA.[41]
- These U.S. distribution centers have been closed: Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Red Rock, Nevada; Chambersburg, Pennsylvania; Munster, Indiana; McDonough, Georgia.[42][43]
For once, Republicans stood up and showed they cared about the paycheck they receive from taxpayers and the government they stand for. So, kudos to them. We should already be good enough for Amazon. If not, then go somewhere else.
D.C. Swinton: Time for a Real Movement!
Dear South Carolina Democrats:
My name is D.C. Swinton and I am running for the office of 3rd Vice Chair in the South Carolina Democratic Party. I am a 22 year old graduate of Winthrop University with a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. Greenville is my home and I have always had a deep interest in improving the lives of all South Carolinians. That desire has been the primary factor in fueling my actions, especially in the political arena.
While still in college at Winthrop University, I decided to run for State House Representative of District 24 against a Republican incumbent, Bruce Bannister. Throughout 2010, I ran my first political campaign, utilizing the power of social networking appeal to young voters, going door-to-door, and calling as many voters as possible. I accomplished all this despite an extremely limited budget. Throughout the campaign, I made many contacts with members of the Democratic Party. In November, I was defeated by Representative Bannister but picked up 25% of the vote showing that my message resonated even in a Republican-leaning district.
From my experiences with my candidacy, I discovered how desperate a call there is for young leadership. Young Democratic candidates in all parts of the state must be encouraged to run for office because they are the next leaders of South Carolina. We must invest our resources into their futures. I also wish to push for more allocation of funds at the local level, in the realization that these Democratic candidates will be running for higher offices. More qualified candidates in the pool will be beneficial for Democratic chances of taking back the state house and Senate, one race at a time. I hope these initiatives will make sure that fewer Republican incumbents run unopposed in upcoming elections.
I pledge to work hard to make sure that Party leadership at both the state, county, and local level is held accountable to the people of this state. To ensure the future success of this party, everyone has to be on board and ready to row the Democratic Party ship. The Republican Party in this state is certainly well organized and packs a strong punch in elections. However, they can be defeated with a shared Democratic commitment towards winning every election.
I would like to conclude by thanking all the volunteers, candidates, party leadership, and Democratic voters who took part in the 2010 election cycle. Without your assistance, none of my efforts would have been possible. I look forward to serving as your 3rd Vice Chairman in the future.
If you have any questions or comments about my candidacy for this position, please email me at dcswinton.campaign@gmail.
Look forward to seeing you at the Convention on April 30th.
Sincerely,
D.C. Swinton
Jamaal Craig: Let's Move Forward with Phil
Fellow Democrats:
I am Jamaal Craig, a Labor and Community Activist and also a former Third Vice-Chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party (02-04). I wanted to take a moment to share some information about an important opportunity we have before us. After suffering devastating defeats during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, the South Carolina Democratic Party finds itself at a major crossroads, having lost an influential Congressional Seat, all state wide offices, and additional seats in the general assembly. I believe it is time for us to take a serious look at how we do things and more importantly take a serious look at doing things differently.
I have carefully looked at what each of the three candidates vying for Chairman have to offer and it is a no brainer that Phil Noble clearly stands out above the rest. I have heard people say over the past few weeks that “we need someone who can raise money and attack the Republicans” Phil can do both those things, but those are only two things among a long list of things that we have to do. The first thing we must do is bring Democrats together and Phil has the right vision to do that for our party, he also has a plan to help us realize that vision. No longer can we have a few people in Columbia running a party that doesn’t reflect or represent the attitudes, personalities, and opinions from across the whole state.
On Saturday, April 30th we all have an opportunity to turn things around and move our party in a different direction, a direction that will provide Democrats the ability to work to improve the conditions of everyday people in our great state. The clear choice to help South Carolina Democrats move in the right direction is Phil Noble and I urge you all to join me in supporting Phil for Chair!
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The State of Preschool 2010
by W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., Dale J. Epstein, Ph.D., Megan E. Carolan, Jen Fitzgerald, Debra J. Ackerman, Ph.D., Allison H. Friedman, Ed.M.
The 2010 State Preschool Yearbook is the eighth in a series of annual reports profiling state-funded prekindergarten programs in the United States. This latest Yearbook presents data on state-funded prekindergarten during the 2009-2010 school year. The first report in this series focused on programs for the 2001-2002 school year and established a baseline against which we may now measure progress over nine years. Tracking these trends is essential, since changes in states' policies on preschool education will influence how successfully America's next generation will compete in the knowledge economy.
Sign and Share Organizational Letter Opposing Structural Changes and Budget Cuts to SNAP
Please sign your organization onto this letter and send it to other organizations on your e-mail list.
We are writing to express in the strongest possible terms our opposition to structural changes and budget cuts proposed for FY 2012 and beyond that would weaken the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP,” or food stamps).
For four decades SNAP has enjoyed strong bipartisan support and has been a fundamental bulwark for the poorest and hungriest people in our nation. Deemed “a government reform that worked” by the National Journal, the program serves as the nation’s first line of defense against hunger. If it is weakened, many millions of seniors, people with disabilities, children, struggling parents – working and unemployed – and others will suffer. If it is weakened, the nation will see more hunger and poverty, worse health and educational outcomes, and higher health costs. If SNAP is weakened, the nation as a whole will be weaker – morally, economically and fiscally.
SNAP has extraordinary strengths:
•It reduces hunger and food insecurity by providing very low-income people desperately needed, targeted assistance to purchase food through an effective and efficient electronic benefit transfer system.
•When the national economy or a regional, state or area economy is in trouble, the program is among the most effective government responses. It reacts quickly and robustly to economic problems. This has been seen most clearly and dramatically in the 2008-2011 period, when millions of people became newly unemployed or underemployed. The program responded quickly to provide desperately needed help in the downturn.
•There is the same responsiveness when disasters strike, as occurred in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Disaster SNAP responded quickly and effectively to meet the increased need in Gulf Coast states.
•Because SNAP benefits are so urgently needed by families, they are spent quickly—97 percent of benefits are redeemed by the end of the month of issuance—thereby bolstering local economies. Estimates issued by Moody’s Analytics and others of the economic growth impact of SNAP during a recession range from $1.73 to $1.79 per $1 of SNAP benefits.
•SNAP is targeted to go to the neediest people in our country. 93 percent of benefits go to households with incomes below the poverty line. This includes millions of working poor families.
•It reaches key vulnerable populations – one-third of SNAP participants are in households that include senior citizens or people with disabilities; three-quarters of participants are in families with children.
•SNAP lifted 4.6 million Americans above the poverty line in 2009, including 2.1 million children and 200,000 seniors. SNAP is as effective as the Earned Income Tax Credit in lifting families above the poverty line, and far more effective than any other program in lifting families out of deep poverty.
•It relieves pressure on overwhelmed food banks, pantries, religious congregations and other emergency food providers across the country. They recognize SNAP as the cornerstone of national, state and local anti-hunger efforts, and are the first to note their inability to meet added demand that would come from weakening SNAP.
The House has passed a budget plan that would convert SNAP into a “block grant” program and cut its funding by $127 billion in the 2012-2021 period. We strongly oppose this and related proposals that would result in fundamental changes to the structure of SNAP or in slashing its funding – such as “global” spending caps and other budget mechanisms that would artificially limit spending, cap eligibility, create waiting lists, and/or sharply reduce benefits.
If enacted, such proposals would harm millions of vulnerable Americans. They would throw millions of people out of the program or reduce already inadequate benefit levels to a point that many families would run out of food as soon as halfway through the month.
Such proposals would also harm the food industry, American agriculture, and food retailers. They would cost jobs. They would weaken SNAP’s effectiveness by eliminating performance standards that have produced high levels of program integrity and that require states to respond quickly to hungry families’ need. They would roll back a generation of progress in this nation against very deep hunger. They would destroy a bipartisan compact that for two generations has developed and sustained a strong and effective national nutrition safety net. They would reduce nutritional quality for poor families even while our nation struggles with problems of obesity and resulting health costs.
At a time when our nation, despite its economic problems, remains the wealthiest on earth, fundamentally weakening SNAP in such ways is unacceptable. Congress and the President have many better choices to address budget problems, including ensuring a balanced approach that considers revenues in addition to spending and that focuses spending reductions on programs and policies that are lower priority or less effective, instead of weakening programs like SNAP that have proven to be both desperately needed and highly effective. Our nation’s nutrition safety net must remain strong so it can continue to aid those in need.
We call on you to oppose any proposals that would weaken SNAP’s structure or cut its funding. We urge you instead to speak out in Congress and to your constituents about the problems of hunger, poverty and poor nutrition in our country, the need to address them, the importance of SNAP and other federal nutrition programs in doing so, and the injustice and damage that weakening SNAP would cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Support I-73
