You go first

The biggest kid at the swimming pool just made the little kids jump in first because she was too scared to get in the water. And after the little kids did her bidding, she jumped right in the pool like she’d had the courage to be there all along. She wasn’t afraid of the water and she wasn’t afraid to lead them – she thought going into the pool was a good idea all along – she said.

Yep, Governor Nikki Haley just made a decision on Amazon … only after the South Carolina House of Representatives had already rejected Amazon’s sweetheart tax deal. After weeks of stating she would not lead on the issue, she says the SC House voted the way she’d wanted them to all along (though her Commerce Department was pushing for the deal).

There is an oft-quoted political theory that to be successful a politician should “find out which way the people are going, and get in front of them.” A lot of very good politicians have used this practice at various times (for good and ill) to achieve longevity in the public arena. We are, after all, a representative democracy. But, I don’t remember too many instances where successful “leaders” have demanded that others do all the heavy lifting for them.

It will be interesting to see how this actually plays out. Will the SC House’s decision harm future economic development because South Carolina flip-flopped on this deal? Will those 1200+ jobs not be such a big loss in an economy that eventually improves? As importantly, will this be the be the final straw that forces the Legislature to address our broken tax code so that it becomes fairer and more attractive to new economic investment (without having to contort ourselves into these kind of winner/loser deals in the future)?

Answer to question one: it remains to be seen. Answer to question two: it remains to be seen. Answer to question three: very, very, very doubtful.

For now, we can only say, “Goodbye Amazon, and sorry to the people of Lexington County and the Midlands.”

Sometimes Satire Says It Best

What John Stewart calls "the government's one, final, *$#@?!% you," to the 9/11 first responders is decidedly sad and hysterical. It is in two parts below.

"Friends without benefits - Part I"

"Friends without benefits - Part II"

Quote of the Day

I won't post quotes regularly, but I found this one too funny to pass up:

“… as a nation, we pride ourselves on our Twittering. America intends to be the world leader in all things twit-related. Soon, there will be a ninth-grade proficiency test on it, and teachers whose classes perform badly will be fired.”

-Gail Collins, NY Times. Read the entire, very funny column called "Department of Good News," HERE.

Senior Fun Day

Today, (for the eighth year, at least) I was able to spend several hours at "Senior Citizens' Day" at Seawell's on Rosewood Drive. The annual event was started by Bernice Scott and is now continued by her son-in-law, Councilman Kelvin Washington. This year was the biggest crowd yet, as far as we could tell, with more than 800 people in attendance.

I was able to emcee the competition for the best easter bonnet, and there were some doosies - one hat was at least three feet high, and I promise that another contained no fewer than 40 easter eggs, and another was covered in live plants.

Seawell's serves a hot meal while Mrs. Scott and Mr. Washington entertain everyone - but it's not just about the food. There are tons of door prizes and gifts for every attendee all donated by businesses, individuals and community groups who want to help our more "mature" citizens. The seniors all leave with donated items that are essential to their daily life - items of need.

I've also noticed that it has become a reunion for many of the people there, many of whom don't have the opportunity to go to events and get dressed up anymore. For a lot of them, they tell me "Senior Fun Day" is something they look forward to for months.

So, congratulations to all the winners! And, thank you to all of the people who worked so hard to make the day a great success in helping our seniors.

More Amazon

Today, I was able to make a presentation before a Senate Subcommittee that considered changes to Title XII Chapter 59 of the South Carolina Code of Laws. I was the only one who spoke and was questioned, and it only took about five minutes. Our committee that worked on the changes must have done a good job because the re-codification language we submitted was approved by the subcommittee and will now move up to the full Senate Finance Committee.

Before my hearing was able to begin, the Senate Finance committee debated the Amazon tax package for over an hour and a half. The hearing was marked by pained logic by Senators trying to find a way to bring these jobs to South Carolina – I feel their pain, and Governor Haley apparently does, too, since she refuses to take any side on the breaks that will further fracture our already broken tax system.

The continuing refrain from most of the Senators was that the “retail business model has changed” and, I guess that meant that they had to give some businesses breaks that no one else can be entitled to right now.

I want the jobs, and I would have voted “yes” to bring them to the Midlands. But, we should not even be having this debate in the first place.

The problem isn’t that the economy’s business model has changed – change is a constant in a vibrant economy. The problem is that South Carolina’s “tax model” hasn’t changed with the changing business models. And, the people in charge of it (Columbia’s executive and legislative branches) have no interest in changing how our tax system remains completely stagnant and riddled with give-a-ways – creating too many winners and losers. Our government’s leaders have adamantly refused to address this painful labyrinth of tax oxymorons that has become the South Carolina tax code.

We now have this conversation about Amazon’s investment in South Carolina and the unfair tax treatment they will benefit from. The debate we should be having now is for a fairer, lower, and broader sales tax system. Then there wouldn’t be a need for debates on incentives for individual businesses. Instead, we get another debate about which businesses can best lobby for tax breaks at the expense of everyone else.

We need the jobs, but we need tax sanity to make our state economically competitive even more.

Waiting for a serious debate

I don't get to say this often, but God bless Robert Samuelson for his most recent column. He's called everybody out for the shallow public relations war now going on in Washington, DC, over the federal debt. This one is going to take a village to fix, but most in the village still think it is the other guy's problem - Samuelson shows that neither plan works.

Again, I think it is progress that everyone is now in the discussion. And, the PR war is inevitable before we can reach a conclusion.

Watch out for the demogogues and ideologues - it will be the leaders behind the scenes in the middle who will finally move us closer to achieving the financial reforms we need.

Read Samuelson's column titled, "What’s missing from the great budget debate: seriousness." HERE.

All In

Now that President Obama has outlined what he advocates and opposes in efforts to reign in the nation’s runaway deficits, the real discussion begins. After painful months of waiting to see if our leaders would begin to address this mess, now we can debate. As partisan and nasty as it all shapes up to be, this is actually good news.

You can’t have a argument when there is only one side, and you can’t reach an agreement with just one party (or branch of government) participating. Now everyone is on the playing field – they’ve all accepted that our national deficits must be addressed.

I still have a concern that the plans will reduce the deficit (Obama $4 trillion, House Republicans $4.4 trillion) which implies that there still will be deficits, only smaller ones. Not that this development isn’t a positive one, but we need to eliminate deficits and reduce debt.

The national debt stands somewhere around $14 trillion. The debt doubled from $6 trillion to almost $12 trillion from 2001-2009 under President George W. Bush – over a trillion of that was in his final year when the economy disintegrated ($800 billion to banks, billions to Wall Street, $180 billion tax stimulus checks, etc.). Then under President Obama came more bailouts along with falling revenues coupled with increasing spending – more than $2 trillion more.

That means that since the nation was running surpluses in 2001, our national debt has increased 133%, for those keeping score at home. We will have to come to a place where the national debt can be significantly reduced.

Right now it sounds like these folks are talking about cutting up six of their ten credit cards, but still plan to run up the bill on the four they have left.

That is not ideal, and it is not where we ultimately need to end up. But, it is a start. All sides now have proposals with merits and demerits that they will be forced to face in the coming months. Let’s hope that the brawl that is about to erupt will bring us closer to a sane taxing and spending policy – because both must be addressed – to save our great nation.

Obama, to curb deficit, urges cuts and more taxes on the rich – Shear (NY Times)

What Barack Obama said, what he meant – Budoff Brown (Politico)

The Civil War Anniversary

One hundred fifty years ago today the bloodiest and most destructive episode in American history, The Civil War, formally began with the bombardment of Fort Sumter (by many of our Citadel cadet forebears) in Charleston Harbor. Below, the first two articles are about that fateful day, and the third is a more general comment about the conflict from Ken Burns. Finally, there is a link to The History Channel’s site on this anniversary of The Civil War.

The Defenders – Adam Goodheart (NY Times)

Lt. Harleston Brings On the Brick Dust – Ronald Coddington (NY Times)

A Conflict’s Acoustic Shadows – Ken Burns (NY Times)

History Channel Civil War: 150th Anniversary

The Balancing Predicament

Here are some excerpts from a Politico.com article today called: Paul Ryan’s proposal poses a predicament for GOP by Burns and Isenstadt. Read the entire article here.

“They’re hanging the 20 vulnerable members out to dry for the sake of placating the 220 safe members who want to save the world and don’t have any other concerns beyond that,” said an adviser to one first-term House member. “You have a couple dozen members who are going to pay a pretty serious price for this vote if they end up in a tough race.”

Envisioning Democratic ads savaging the GOP over Ryan’s plan, the Republican said: “It’s not just cuts to Medicare. It’s ‘Republicans are ending Medicare as we know it.’ That’s not demagoguery. That is the case. This budget ends Medicare as we know it.” …

In the aftermath of a 2010 campaign fought on economic and fiscal issues, Republican officials say anything that keeps the national debate focused on limiting spending will be good for their party. …

The DCCC put out a list Tuesday of several dozen attack ads the GOP and outside conservative groups ran last year, accusing Democrats of cutting half a trillion dollars out of the program through the Affordable Care Act.

In a memo, the House Democrats’ campaign arm recalled that “Republican candidates, the NRCC and their allies ran millions of dollars in campaign ads arguing that ‘massive cuts to Medicare’ were unacceptable.”

Now, the memo continued: “Republicans actually want to end Medicare as we know it.”

Again, you can read the entire article here.