The joke around town after the Americans for Job Security ad against U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett came out was that the organization was really named, “Americans for Nikki Haley.” Guess it’s not so far-fetched. Per the petulant child, Haley consultant Jon Lerner was involved with the advertisement and Gov. Mark Sanford solicited donations to put it on the air.
That rumbling sound you heard emanating from Columbia on Friday was a collective expression of, “Pfft. No shit.” Nobody except for a reporter for The State would think that an ad like that would be regarding anything else beside the race for governor.
Rep. Nikki Haley has made her time in the House by bullshitting her constituents, who apparently haven’t been paying close enough attention or been getting involved enough to call her on her hypocrisy. Of course, her buds (Will Folks, the S.C. Policy Council, [because his boss heads SCPC] Adam Fogle, the S.C. Club for Growth, &c.) won’t do anything to show what a shit campaign she’s running for governor.
If Haley had decided to bide her time in the House, she probably wouldn’t be caught in so many traps. But, she creates them for herself and then steps into them and acts like nobody will pay attention. That’s too bad, because the House leadership is done with her crap. When you get called out in public by the leadership of your own party, that could be a clue that you don’t know what they hell you’re doing.
Tuesday, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Dan Cooper, decided he had enough and called a spade a spade.
For months I have held my tongue while Rep. Nikki Haley traveled the state touting her “opposition” to taking federal stimulus dollars, but after reading her Feb. 12 guest column in this paper I felt compelled to set the record straight. Here are the facts:
While the majority of state legislators opposed President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan on principle, we realized that if South Carolina did not accept the federal funds then the hard-earned tax dollars of the families we represent would be spent in other places, like New Jersey and California. In other words, we would be paying the price and getting nothing in return.
Rep. Haley knew that. This legislation was thoroughly discussed, and the issues were very clear. On March 9, Rep. Haley joined 107 other legislators voting for an amendment to the budget bill to accept the stimulus money. The very next day, she voted for the budget bill that included the stimulus money. On the third and final reading of the bill, it passed overwhelmingly with a voice vote.
It was only two weeks after she announced her candidacy for governor that Nikki Haley changed her tune on the stimulus. She then began to publicly question everyone else who had joined her on multiple occasions in voting to accept these federal funds. And despite all of her double talk, the truth is Nikki Haley’s rhetoric just doesn’t match her record.
Haley has taken steps in recent years to get in tight with the Sanford cabal. Now that organization is falling apart, she’s up the creek. It should be a lesson to others who sell out for for out-of-state dollars and perceived influence. Put your constituents and your district first — not political pals.
Well, isn’t this interesting. It appears that Rep. Nikki Haley is still hanging on to an unfounded, unproven and to the best of our knowledge, untrue rumor regarding her Web site. Remember when all that happened? It was in those fine times of the mid-Summer, when Columbia feels like the ninth circle of Hell. Our own apartment averaged 80 degrees at night. It was fun.
Yeah, so it was rumored that we were receiving inside information about Haley from Under The Power Lines, which had run Haley’s site before she announced for governor. Actually, no — it wasn’t so much rumored. The Haley campaign just went to their lackey, Will Folks, to put a hit on us and UTPL for something that had absolutely no evidence, except for the fact that the Haley campaign was then, as is now, dead in the water and leaking like a rotten wooden-hulled ship. That was piggy-backed on an earlier post of dubious repute, which led to what happened today.
Haley sent a Facebook message to Nancy Mace, the woman who took over Folks site and had a chance to operate Haley’s site.
Around here, we have a phrase for such nuttery: total fucking bullshit. Really, if there was any, and we mean absolutely any, truth to this allegation, it would have hit the papers and local TV stations months ago. But, it’s not true, ergo there is no evidence, except for a blog post written by Haley’s Internet boy.
Just another example that Haley’s a decidedly second-tier gubernatorial candidate that would have been better served by staying in the House and serving her friends at S.C. Club for Growth, South Carolinians for Responsible Government, the S.C. Policy Council and the last few remainders of the Sanford crowd.
We’ve considered Rep. Nikki Haley’s gubernatorial campaign to be half-baked from the very beginning. She entered the race after the biggest names in the Republican primary were in (or assumed to be in), and after they started raising money. Our sources have indicated to us that her finance operation has been late in getting its shit together, and her grassroots planning has been worse. Then you have the campaign’s political director, Justin Evans, leaving in December before things get interesting. There’s a story there, but nobody’s talking.
Now we’ve got this stimulus business. As the Sanford candidate, Haley’s been trying to toe the rhetorical line on the stimulus bills, bringing it up multiple times in the GOP gubernatorial debate recently. Quoted today in The State from the debate, she said, “I don’t want any Washington bailout money of any kind.” Au contraire. Last year, she voted for the cash. The justification? Her belief in Gov. Mark Sanford’s strange thinking that the state could reject it.
Let’s put this in context. Six years ago, U.S. Sen. John Kerry got raked over the coals for the statement, “I was for it before I was against it.” Haley has one-upped that, by being — by her statements and actions — for and against something at the same time. That is truly deft political dancing. A few pols might have been able to pull that one off, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton come to mind, but those men were geniuses at the art of politics, the type that come around once in a generation.
If what we’ve seen so far is the case, the District 87 representative is not cut of that cloth.
Rep. Nikki Haley has this portion of her gubernatorial Web site that addresses “Truth in Facts.” Every single one of the posts on this part of the blog is sort of a rapid response to her campaign’s negatives. Having to put up a standing response to expected criticisms seem to us to land into the “doth protest too much” column, but her advisers apparently think it’s a good idea.
One of them is about her expensive flight with Gov. Mark Sanford to China. She said at the time that she didn’t know what section of the plane she was placed into, because she didn’t book the tickets. Seriously, though, if you aren’t cognizant of your seating assignment, you’re either skirting the truth or suffering from a memory issue. Also, it must have been really hard to forget all the amenities you’re offered in your choice placement.
Maybe that’s why this happened. In every other post, something is put under “Truth.” Not so for this one.
They took their sweet time, but Dwight Drake and Rep. Nikki Haley finally filed their campaign disclosure reports for the fourth quarter of 2009. Neither did all that well, in comparison to the people they’re running against in the primaries.
DWIGHT DRAKE
Candidate for Governor (D)
Contributions: $210,123.05
Expenditures: $124,752.79
Cash-on-hand: $315,948.07
Significant contributions
Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina, $2,000
Insurance company
Butler Derrick, $500
Former U.S. representative
J.P. Strom Jr., PA, $3,500
Attorney
John Palms, $500
Former president of the University of South Carolina
Jack Swerling, $2,500
Attorney
Boyd Brown, $250
State representative
Albert McAlister, $500
Former S.C. Democratic Party chairman
Significant expenditures
Fundraising Management Group (consulting), $7,500, $8,050.14, $8,717.17
McCorkle Policy Consulting (consulting), $4,000
Webstrong (Web site), $2,500, $7,500, $1,500, $500, $5,000
New Partners Consulting (consulting), $223.90, $813.98, $9,000×2, $923.09
Peter D. Hart Research Associates (consulting), $720.20
NIKKI HALEY
Candidate for Governor (R)
Contributions: $201,192.57
Expenditures: $66,837.13
Cash-on-hand: $406,151.18
Significant contributions
Bill Hewitt,$3,500
Republican activist
Mike Vasovski, $100
Candidate for SC-03
Significant expenditures
J&H Mail Service (mailing service), $1,367.35, $146.47, $131.28, $495.79
Red Sea (consulting), $10,251.70
Well, how about that? Rep. Nikki Haley, dubbed, “Ms. Transparency,” can’t come up with her disclosure report by the deadline. You’d think that a person who’s practically gotten “transparency” tattooed on her forehead would have her finances in line to the point that she could go live with her contributors and expenses by Sunday night/Monday morning. Apparently, it doesn’t look that way.
With Sen. Larry Grooms departing the race, that leaves Haley in last place behind U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster and Lt. Gov. André Bauer (whose disclosure is anticipated to put him in third). Like Grooms, it’s only a matter of time until she’ll have to abandon her ill-considered bid for the state’s highest office. Why she made this run this cycle is beyond us.
After all, for as often as Republicans want to take the sledgehammer to the establishment, in this state the GOP is the establishment. And if you’ve paid attention to the presidential primaries in this state, the voters tend to go with the establishment candidate — as in recently, U.S. Sen. John McCain (2008) and former President George W. Bush (2000). Experience and backing are trusted as the arbiters, more often than not.
If you can’t even live up to your own hype, that doesn’t help any.
Speaking of which, her allies at the S.C. Policy Council finally went live with their “news” site, The Nerve. That organization tubthumps for transparency, as well, but won’t allow the public to view its donors and expenses, unlike the elected officials it criticizes. What a surprise.
Few buzz-phrases have been more popular in Columbia over the past several years than “government restructuring.” The lastest round of prefiles close the book on what legislators will be looking at immediately.
One of Rep. Jimmy Merrill’s plans this session is to get rid of the Commission on Higher Education, splitting its duties between the trustees of individual colleges and handing over grants, scholarships and such to the state treasurer. Whether eliminating one level of bureaucracy will help on the face of it, doing anything to streamline student aid would help.
H. 4227: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-104-63 SO AS TO ABOLISH THE STATE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND TO DEVOLVE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES TO THE INDIVIDUAL COLLEGE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THIS STATE, EXCEPT FOR ITS POWERS AND DUTIES CONCERNING SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRANTS, WHICH MUST BE DEVOLVED TO THE OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER.
Sometimes bills are never brought up in committee, for one reason or another. Usually it involves the most inside of inside baseball among legislators. Rep. Bill Wylie seeks to make sure if a bill has a large number of sponsors, it has to be brought up within a month by the designated committee.
H. 4251: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 4.4 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO COMMITTEES, SO AS TO REQUIRE A BILL HAVING SIXTY-FIVE OR MORE SPONSORS BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS BY THE COMMITTEE TO WHICH IT IS REFERRED AND PROVIDE FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE PRIMARY SPONSOR IF THE BILL IS TABLED OR NOT REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE.
Here we go with the term limits. We’ve yet to see a real benefit to term limits that outweighs the problems. Florida had tons of trouble when it instituted term limits, from a large number of inexperienced legislators who had no institutional memory and didn’t know what they were doing, to convenient redistricting. We have elections for a reason. Rep. Nikki Haley is putting up a bill that will knock out anyone with 12 years of service in the General Assembly, or four terms in the House or two terms in the Senate.
H. 4275: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2012, ANY PERSON WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST FOUR FULL TERMS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST TWELVE YEARS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN EITHER THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE SENATE, IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO PHASE THIS PROVISION IN ON A STAGGERED BASIS BASED ON HOUSE SENIORITY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2012, ANY PERSON WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST TWO FULL TERMS IN THE SENATE OR WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST TWELVE YEARS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE, IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SENATE, AND TO PHASE THIS PROVISION IN ON A STAGGERED BASIS BASED ON SENATE SENIORITY.
Seemingly on the other side of the ledger, we have a proposal from Rep. Lonnie Hosey, who wants to lengthen House terms to four years. That’s been a debate for decades — whether two-year terms make you closer to the electorate or simply more obsessed with elections.
H. 4279: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING IN 2014, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE CHOSEN EVERY FOURTH INSTEAD OF EVERY SECOND YEAR; AND TO AMEND SECTION 8, ARTICLE III, RELATING TO ELECTION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE BE ELECTED EVERY FOURTH INSTEAD OF EVERY SECOND YEAR.
The last round of prefiled bills came out on Tuesday, as the House came up with a solid number of new topics to address, and some that are duplicates of other bills prefiled in the House and Senate. Again, even though the Taxation Realignment Commission will be returning to the General Assembly in March to submit its report on tax reform, there are several bills to tweak South Carolina’s revenue system.
The first is from Rep. Tim Scott, which joins a few bills this term that address exceptions for soldiers on active duty.
H. 4230: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-1140, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEDUCTIONS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TAXABLE INCOME OF INDIVIDUALS FOR PURPOSES OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX ACT, SO AS TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SERVICE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO PHASE IN THIS DEDUCTION OVER FOUR YEARS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-1170, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE RETIREMENT INCOME DEDUCTION, SO AS TO CONFORM THIS DEDUCTION TO THE MILITARY RETIREMENT DEDUCTION ALLOWED BY THIS ACT.
Rep. James Smith goes into a topic which is likely running large under the surface in this economy, which is people having trouble paying their taxes, whereupon they become subject to a lien. This bill would provide some protection for people who are involved in an installment program.
H. 4231: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-54-122, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO TAX LIENS FILED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, EXEMPTIONS FROM THE LIEN, TAX LIEN PRIORITY, NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, AND SUBROGATION OF RIGHTS, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FROM FILING A TAX LIEN TO ENFORCE ANY TAX LIABILITY THE PAYMENT OF WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF AN INSTALLMENT PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TAXPAYER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND WITH WHICH THE TAXPAYER HAS FULLY COMPLIED.
We’ve been a little interested in how people with ambitions for higher office have been handling their legislation. It only stands to reason that the bills filed would be — more than usual — driven by political considerations. This one from Rep. Nikki Haley has one of those bumper-sticker names that takes a little longer to explain. It provides spending caps, and the necessary moves to accomplish that.
H. 4232: A BILL TO ENACT THE “SOUTH CAROLINA TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT” BY AMENDING THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-415 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE LIMIT ON GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATIONS FOR A FISCAL YEAR IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE ESTIMATE AS OF FEBRUARY FIFTEENTH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011, INCREASED ANNUALLY AND CUMULATIVELY BY A PERCENTAGE DETERMINED BY POPULATION INCREASES AND INCREASES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, TO PROVIDE FOR THE LIMITATION TO BE SUSPENDED FOR A FISCAL YEAR FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT UPON A DECLARATION OF FINANCIAL EMERGENCY BY THE GOVERNOR AND UPON A SPECIAL VOTE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND DEFINE THIS SPECIAL VOTE, TO ESTABLISH THE SPENDING LIMIT RESERVE FUND TO WHICH ALL SURPLUS GENERAL FUND REVENUES MUST BE CREDITED AND TO PROVIDE THAT ALL REVENUES IN THE FUND MUST BE REFUNDED TO TAXPAYERS BY MEANS OF TEMPORARY TAX CUTS; BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-75 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE ANNUAL STATE BUDGET TO EMPLOY A ZERO-BASED BUDGET PROCESS IN BOTH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED STATE BUDGET AND IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S CONSIDERATION OF THE STATE BUDGET; AND BY ADDING SECTION 2-7-125 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE MOST RECENT ITERATION OF THE ANNUAL GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL TO BE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY’S WEBSITE AT LEAST THREE STATEWIDE LEGISLATIVE DAYS BEFORE THE LEGISLATIVE DAY THE FINAL VOTE IS TAKEN ON THE BILL.
Hooray, beer! Rep. Jim Harrison is seeking to change the definition of beer for purposes of the licensing tax. There has already been a change for sales and consumption, so this makes the definitions the same.
H. 4233: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-21-1010, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE BEER AND WINE LICENSE TAX, SO AS TO CONFORM THE DEFINITION OF “BEER” FOR PURPOSES OF THIS LICENSE TAX TO THE REVISED DEFINITION FOR “BEER” PROVIDED BY LAW FOR THE REGULATION OF BEER AND WINE SALES AND CONSUMPTION.
It’s no surprise that college has become more necessary and more expensive as the years go on. As such, a college education has slipped further out of the grasp of kids who don’t exactly come from wealthy families. Rep. Anton Gunn is putting forward legislation to increase the amount of refundable income tax credits for four-year and two-year college tuition.
H. 4249: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-6-3385, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO REFUNDABLE STATE INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX CREDITS FOR TUITION PAYMENTS, SO AS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT FOR TUITION TO FOUR-YEAR INSTITUTIONS TO ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT FOR TUITION TO TWO-YEAR INSTITUTIONS TO SIX HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS.
What the hell is going on with the campaign of Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster? His spokesman Rob Godfrey (a guy we actually think is an OK dude) ran some smack on U.S. Rep Gresham Barrett and Lt. Gov. André Bauer, which may have been a mistake. The most absurd bit is, “McMaster’s spokesman, equated the McMaster campaign’s plan not to use opposition research to running ‘a positive campaign.’” Eyes rolling SO HARD.
Gosh almighty, McMaster’s consultants have an in house blogger, for chrissakes. Oh, like Wheels Fogle isn’t going to be doing, and hasn’t already been doing, oppo on Barrett, Bauer, Haley and Grooms?
Somebody please tell the McMaster campaign to quit spewing ridiculous bullshit. It’s getting old.
