South Carolina Citizen Journal

June 30, 2011

Iowa Legislature Looks to Ban Investigative Reporting on Farms

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Environment, Ethics — NotforHire @ 7:52 am

No matter how you feel about organizations such as PETA and Mercy for Animals, it would be a grave mistake to make investigative reporting by any person or organization illegal.

http://www.examiner.com/animal-policy-in-national/bill-banning-undercover-animal-abuse-videos-clears-committee-iowa-senate?fb_comment=31498396

September 24, 2009

State schools hire lobbyists

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economy, Education, Ethics, legislature, South Carolina, Taxes — NotforHire @ 6:48 am

Let’s see, South Carolina tax dollars being spent to pay individuals to lobby for state institutions of higher learning. I can certainly see where federal and state money is getting harder to come by these days, but I also wonder why the board of directors are not stepping up and taking on that role. Isn’t that one of their tasks traditionally? Perhaps instead of spending eighty to a hundred thousand dollars a year on a lobbyist, these institutions should tell their board members to get it in gear, or step aside and make room on the board for people who can get the job done. Why, with the savings, the schools could probably pay for three or four more professors.

August 31, 2009

Gubernatorial Candidates

I have looked at the websites for all of the candidates for our next governor and so far I see no one who wants to lead this state.

What will it take for someone to put their mouth where their money is and tell us what they will do to lead our state? We are nine years into the 21st century, but we pretend like it is 1952.

Someone please step up.

May 24, 2009

Pay Day Lending

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economy, Ethics, legislature, South Carolina — NotforHire @ 8:05 am

Let’s get a few things straight.

The pay day lending industry in our state are bottom feeders. They charge upwards of 400% interest on their loans. They fray the base of our society and make our state weaker.

When I read that they have a strong lobby within our state’s legislature I am sickened. Any politician defending these bottom feeders should be run out of office and out of our state too, as far as I’m concerned.

Loaning money in our state should be capped at 30% above prime, a return any real investor would be more than happy to get. The present plan to unnecessarily expand government by implementing a state run pay day loan tracking database should be scrapped.

March 29, 2009

State debt, Government

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economy, Ethics, legislature, Sanford, South Carolina, Taxes — NotforHire @ 9:12 am

Well, with all the expansion of government spending and cutting of taxes over the last decade in our state, I just assumed that South Carolina had paid off any outstanding debt at the state level.

So imagine my suprise when our governor asks the federal government if we can use 700 million dollars of federal money to pay off state debt.

It is time for the South Carolina legislature and the governor, whoever maybe in office, to get better at managing our states affairs. Much better.

South Carolina citizens demand a lean yet strong state government, aimed at providing excellent services and infrastructure, with a  tax structure that does not overly burden, but that keeps us ahead of the game, meaning paying off our debt(ourselves) and eventually funding our own rainy day, or sovereign fund. Government waste and fraud have to become  things of the past by necessity.

We can neither afford a fat, bloated government loaded with pet projects and other unnecceary spending, nor a weak underfunded central government which is unable to keep its own britches from falling around its ankles. With all the push me-pull you antics going on, what we’ve ended up with is a wasteful, bloated government that still can’t keep its pants up, and that should be unacceptable- to the governor, to the legislature, and to the people.

January 27, 2009

Pay Day Lending Bill

Filed under: Bureaucracy, legislature, South Carolina — NotforHire @ 9:53 am

Well, instead of simply putting a limit on the interest that pay day lenders can charge in our state, Bobby Harrell, Harry Cato and Bill Sandifer are set to increase our state’s bureaucracy by setting up a state run database to track who has loans with the companies, in order to limit customers to one loan at a time. Increasing the size of government to monitor who has a cash advance loan seems, oh, I don’t know, wrong?

One lender based in South Carolina currently charges interest of 391.07% APR for a two week loan, in case you want to know the kind of numbers that are used in the industry. Perhaps capping the rate they charge, with due allowance for the capital risk involved, would be a far simpler solution.

January 22, 2009

State pay for County Treasurers and Auditors

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economy, South Carolina, Taxes — NotforHire @ 8:44 am

I read today that the state has cut a pay supplement for county treasurers and auditors from $19,395 to $13,783 a year. Well, I guess I’m wondering why the state pays any part of salaries for county held offices. Shouldn’t counties pay for their own office’s salaries?

If the state were not paying any supplement, the savings would be $1,268,036, plus any overhead in the management of the program.

January 13, 2009

Sanford and the Unemployment Commission

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Federal, legislature, Sanford, South Carolina, Taxes — NotforHire @ 1:02 pm

Well, I have to hand it to our Governor. It was a joke, saying he would not request the federal money to fund our states unemployment commission, but it looks like he might be successful in getting the four person board eliminated and the director put directly under the executive branch. That’s not bad.

What needs to be looked at though is why the fund was losing money in 2007, and a proper funding formula put in place for the future.

February 5, 2008

Upstate paper wants new water board

The Spartenburg Herald-Journal has called for the creation of a state water board “in order to study the state’s water resources, their current use and future needs.

I’m pretty sure that’s what the hydrology department in the Department of Natural Resources already does for us. Yes, when I read the departments mission statement that is pretty much what I get. Lest there be some doubt, here is the first sentence of their mission statement: “The mission of the Hydrology Section is to provide guidance, counsel, and data to the State government and the general public for the beneficial use, conservation, and management of South Carolina’s water resources.”

Does the Spartenburg Herald-Journal have no concept of what it takes to control the size of our state government? The creation of such a board would unnecessarily increase the size of the state bureaucracy and would no doubt be used as another state sponsored political vehicle, as if we don’t already have enough of those crashing around the corridors in Columbia.

Let the Department of Hydrology do their job and report to the legislature and the Governor, our elected officials, who in turn will develop and implement our statewide water policy.

January 30, 2008

Keep South Carolina Ports for South Carolina

The South Carolina Ports Authority is in the news again. Containers coming through our system dropped 11 percent in 2007. Somehow this drop in cargo should be answered with an expansion of the Charleston port, but no one is explaining why an expansion is a good answer to a drop in demand. Obviously we have capacity to spare at this point. Perhaps we need to update the facilities to attract business, I’m not sure.

There are a couple of things that I am sure of. One is, any call for privatizing the state ports is a bad idea. Sovereign funds have been in the news a lot lately. They’ve been buying up a lot of U.S. banking concerns recently, among other things. This is relevant in a couple of ways.

First, I don’t think we want a Middle Eastern sovereign fund buying up our state’s ports. Or the Germans or the Russians. Oh, maybe the Communist Chinese, I hear they run an excellent port system in Hong Kong.

Second, there is nothing wrong with South Carolina having its own Sovereign fund. A fund that the state, i.e. the citizens of South Carolina own. Right now our ports are probably the crowning jewel of our state’s sovereign fund, one of which I am quite proud of, and I’m not interested in selling it off to any foreign(out of state) concerns.

If the ports need better management, or more legislative help to facilitate improving the infrastructure then I’m all for it. But when you call for the selling off of one of our signature assets to foreign investors whose sole goal is to extract the most amount of profit from our state as possible and take it elsewhere, then I have to say I’m against it.

Keep South Carolina ports for South Carolina.

Older Posts »

The WordPress Classic Theme Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.