FEEDBACK

12/20: Good on the yo-yo factor

To the editor:

Very good commentary (12/19, Commentary) on the "yo-yo" factor of state policy. CONSISTENCY is important, especially in the basic and essential functions of state government. Could the same concept apply to the management of the state's public service authorities, including Santee Cooper and the SPA, (he asked rhetorically)?

-- Name withheld upon request, Summerville, S.C.

12/20: Shifting priorities commentary rings true

This so true (12/19, Commentary). As a retired government worker I can testify to what these ups and downs do to literally paralyze an agency. When a downsizing occurs, employees turn their total attention to "who's next" since the firings are based on seniority. I was one of those who stayed during a downsizing and waited for two years for the agency to recover some sense of forward motion!

Unless you've been in bureaucracy, you have no idea what these ups and downs do to morale, and overall effectiveness of an agency.

-- Dwight Fee, Murrells Inlet

12/3: Filibuster actually promotes gridlock

To the editor:

I disagree with your recent commentary (Commentary, 11/28) that the filibuster encourages compromise. Lately it's used to intentionally gridlock the Senate so some bill, usually not the one under consideration but one further down the line, won't be voted on before the session expires. I'm all for reasoned discourse, but this is ridiculous.

I agree with you that the legislature, particularly the Senate, has done remarkable little since Sanford was elected. My guess is they don't like him and fear fundamental reform. They see him as an outsider with wild ideas who never served in the State Legislature. I see him as an outsider with good ideals uncorrupted by service in the State Legislature.

The Senate needs to get out of his way and help him accomplish real reform. If they don't, voters won' t think he's a failure; they'll think the Senators are obstructionists!

-- Shell Suber, Columbia, S.C.

12/1: Districts should get bus contracts

To the editor:

I read recently that our state government is considering privatization of school bus services in an attempt to improve the budget. Based on their past record regarding the awarding of contracts for various services and products to contributors, cronies and even themselves, I would hate to see the sort of contract that might result following such legislative action.

As ours is the only state which assumes full responsibility for these vehicles and their upkeep, and they are acknowledged to often be outdated and sometimes dangerous, perhaps that itself is a clue that something does need to be changed, however. I would suggest that granting our state's school districts the autonomy from legislative interference in their budgets and daily operation found elsewhere, a workable equal funding plan based on enrollment and then the giving of bus responsibility to the districts would be a better proposal to consider.

-- Jon R. Heckerman, Garden City Beach

11/30: Private education should get tax credit

To the editor:

I have just read your article in the Business Journal (Commentary, 11/14) and I am puzzled by your logic on the subject of vouchers. Please tell me why for the 12 years my kids are not sitting in a public school, I shouldn't get a credit for educating them somewhere else? If they aren't sitting in a public school they aren't costing the school system any money. Every parent of a public school student recieves [sic] money from the state for their kids education in the form of that education. The amount of money the goverment pays for each public school student is far more than the $4,000.00 credit that we would get. This means that the school system would still recieving part of my kids funding even if we recieved a voucher from the state. (Keep in mind it's not the "state's money", it's our tax money that we paid in.)

So my family would get a credit for only 12 years and we still pay to fund public education until we retire. This only seems logical to me. I am a general contractor. Using your logic, If I choose to use a certian electrical firm, I am taking money away from all of that electrical contractors competitors thus treating them unfairly. You don't take into account that I chose contractor A over the others because I am looking for a better quality job.

Competition works to spur improvement in every other business in the world. What logical reason can you provide that excludes education from this universal truth. Please give me a reason to see your side of this or why my side is wrong. I am a businessman and I deal with logic, not emotion. Your rich getting richer line is nothing more than class baiting. We pay more taxes and usually contribute more to society than "the poor" so calling a voucher program "subsidizing private education" is an incorrect term in my opinion. Even with a voucher you are still keeping part of my kids state education money in the public system for free.

-- Name withheld upon request, Wando, S.C.

11/28: Brack's right on voucher plan's impact

To the editor:

I agree with your previous State House Report concerning an effort by the naysayers of our Public School system to privatize it (Commentary, 11/14). Especially those who want to get their foot in the door by taking some public funds for private education as our Governor is proposing with his "Let The Parents Choose" vote getting program.

This program, along with other similar programs is, in my opinion, simply a sneaky way of resegregation our school system. The Public School system is certainly not perfect but it does not warrant privatization, be it partially or otherwise.

The run-up to such privatizing efforts was, in my view, triggered by the Bush Administrations underfunded "No Child Left Behind" program. A program that all public school systems are struggling with. That program accentuates the negative instead of enumerating the positives of Public education.

Again, if the truth were known, talk about using public funds for private education only tends to refuel the resentment many folks had at the dawn of School Integration. Private funds should only go towards Private services and Public funds to Public services. It's the American way. All Public School Systems should continue to work to improve but that does not include carving out the funds needed to do so simply to please some who don't like the mix their darlings have to face in the classrooms.

The 'Separate But Equal' Public School System once used in the South did not work and neither will the Governor's vote getting attempt to take public education back the days before the Civil Rights movement. Senator Graham is correct in coming out against Sanford's proposal.

11/16: Give public schools a fair fight

To the editor:

I can not believe the lack of EQUALITY in the voucher fight. They day they give a public school $4,000.00 to educate a child would be the happiest of my life! How come parents get $4,000.00 in tax breaks to send a kid to a private school while the public schools get less than $2000.00 per pupil to try to do the same job? At least give us a fair fight!

-- Dr. Janet Roberts, public school educator, Chapin, S.C.

11/15: Governor is wrong on vouchers

To the editor:

I just finished reading your commentary on school vouchers in today's Sumter Item. Even though I don't have time to elaborate on all the points of the commentary, I felt compel to write and THANK you for making such a strong and timely case for us parents with kids in public schools as well as for citizens who appreciate the value of public education and the role it plays in the well being of our society. As PTA president of an elementary school here in Sumter I will ask all of our membership to please read your commentary. You touched all the salient points and I hope parents as well as concerned citizens will let our politicians know that the Governor is wrong on this one. Again, thank you.

-- W. Harrison Brown, PTA President, Millwood Elementary School, Sumter, S.C.

11/15: Current education model doesn't work

To the editor:

Vouchers, Private School, reduced state funding, blah, blah, blah, etc., does not influence the quality of education in any given State or district.

Public Education , S.C.E.A., N.E.A., and yes S.C.S.B.A, and the Democratic party will continue to support any position that keeps eggs in their basket ( tax money). The will complain about any accountability standard that is applied (NCLB) and they will continually avoid the truth that we are failing to educate our children.

Alternative programs are not the enemy. In my county we are spending somewhere North of $9000.00 per child exclusive of capital improvement debt and less than half of the student population scores proficient on PACT. We hand pick a select few of our students to take S.A.T. and we average less than 900. Private schools down the road charge less than $3500 per student inclusive of capital improvement costs and have remarkably stronger academic scores.

When a system openly discusses a "head count" as a manner to increase budget revenue, that system has lost focus of why it exists.

Public Education can work. Our current model does not work and should not receive continued protection. Our children deserve better and our local economy should demand better.

-- David L. Cope, Jasper County Board Of Education, District 1

11/8: SC would be better with two-party system

SC would be better served with a strong two-party system instead of one controling political party (See Commentary, 11/7). I was the only individual who challenged an incumbent as a Democrat from Greenville County for the SC House. Greenville County area residents seem oblivious to the goings on in Columbia, but as the largest populated county, we alone control 13 seats in the Statehouse.

If the metropolitan counties of Greenville and Spartanburg actively recruited more Democratic candidates and actively supported them, SC would see changes. One major obstacle is the Greenville media outlets amnesiac coverage toward the Statehouse. As a recent former USC graduate student, I was amazed by the Columbia area media coverage toward the General Assembly (that) Upstate residents simply do not get.

Elections are only meaningful when there are challengers. Even in hopeless cases, challengers keep the officeholders honest and focused on the needs of citizens rather than on simply accumulating and holding power and perks.

Occasionally a challenger wins. Those wins infuse the system with new ideas, and new excitement, engage more citizens, and provide a salutary object lesson for other elected officials who have let their attention drift away from the needs of their constituents.

-- Luanne McIntyre Taylor, Greenville, S.C.

11/8: More competition is better, Republican agrees

Andy, once again, you make some very good points(See Commentary, 11/7). This Republican has no problem with a little more active and principled competition. When the Democrats are prepared to either run to win, or at least run respectable, Alex Sanders-type statesmen, it will hold us Republicans more accountable for what we say and what we do.

As I once pointed out on my post-election message on the EvacuateHodges.com website, those Republicans who fail to learn from the lessons of defeats at the hands of Democrats are doomed to repeat them, and the people of this state are the real losers when those lessons fail to be learned by either side.

To those Democrats who wish to make their party into a team which can increase political accountability for all, as well as the number of constructive inputs into the process of governance, I wish them luck … but not too much luck!

-- Earl Capps, Summerville, S.C.

11/8: Column was Democratic front

To the editor:

As a Republican, I too was amazed at DeMint's homophobic comment (See Commentary, 10/10). I have, also, always been amazed by John Graham Altman's bigoted comments. But I don't paint the entire party as homophobic because of one or two individuals' comments .

But aren't you doing the same thing in your column? "A bunch of white guys"? That's Democratic code for "the rich" which somehow gets demonized by every Democrat for their success and money: money which Democrats want to re-distribute to their base. The "politics of division" indeed.

Also, I did not see anywhere in your article condemnation for overboard assertions from Democrats in the past election. If you are going to write an article only from the Democrat's point of view, at least have a banner that states, " Approved by the Democratic Party". By the way, Michael Graham is a "conservative columnist", not a "Republican columnist".

-- Barry Blake, Mount Pleasant, S.C.


11/7: Where's the coordinated Democratic effort?

I may be wrong, but my impression is that SC Democrats have failed in mutual support. As hard as Charlie Smith worked in the campaign for the State Legislature, he garnered little or no support from the State and County leaders. It was similar in the last election, when Lindsey Graham campaigned successfully as a team-player with other Republicans, aptly portrayed in the brochure they distributed as "The Republican Team."

Where's the coordinated Democratic team effort? Where's Democratic mutual support? Where's effective statements of a shared Democratic vision? This should be a call to order for party leaders: think as a team or go down as independents.

-- David Bossman, Charleston

11/5: Make voting changes now

To the editor:

Never mind not doing anything about this antiquainted way of voting at present (See 10/31 commentary.) Let's make some changes now.

For example, I almost missed voting on Tuesday because there were so many people voting and it was taking as much as 4 hours to get through the lines. I went home thinking I could come back a little before 7 p.m. and I almost did not make it in time to vote. It still took me 1 hour and 45 minutes to go through the line at 5 minutes to seven. And I know that some people did not vote because of the wait on those long lines.
.
Here is what I propose: You people need to send me a voting ticket of some kind at least two weeks before the National or any election. I can than go over the ballot, complete the thing and send it to whoever is keeping tally of this votes. That way I don't even have to leave my house.

Voting on the weekend is ridiculous. We have other more important things to do than that. So, changes to this mess need to be done and let's do it now before the next big fiasco comes about. Make sure you get those so-called lawmakers to get things moving about this.

-- Nathan Zavala, West Columbia, S.C.

11/2: GOP provides role models

To the editor:

I read your "Brack Report" piece on the "Southern Strategy 2.0." I have no objection to your expressing your opinion but I do think someone needs to set you straight on a couple of things. First is the importance of role models in education. One of the single biggest and most important issues in our country today is teen-aged pregnancy. Virtually all communities are united in wanting to do everything possible to combat and reduce it. It is impossible to do this when a teacher is single and pregnant. And I think you have read about the problems which the Catholic Church is having with predatory homosexual (and hetrosexual [sic] too) priests who prey on children. Most parents want no part of homosexuals in positions involving young children while having no objection at all to them in other posts. There is no need whatsoever to apologize for these positions.

The Republican Party seems pretty serious about role modeling. President Bush has not one but two African Americans in key cabinet-level positions. The President himself admits to an early drinking problem which he has clearly beaten. These are the kinds of role models which are important to me and I think to many others.

The truth of the matter is that the originator of the politics of division in this country is the democrat party [sic]. Its infamous incitement to class warfare permeates its every position on taxation and it never met an organized minority it didn't like and didn't try to pander-to. I remind you that it dominated the South for years until the electorate saw what it really was.

-- Chris Hammond, Charleston, S.C.

11/1: Southern Strategy 2.0 seemed to be right on track

To the editor:

Thank you, thank you for the report on Jim DeMint and what his campaign has been about! He is an absolute embarrassment, and if he is elected to the Senate, SC should be ashamed of themselves!

-- Christine Greenleaf, Charleston, S.C.

10/11: Writer does a hatchet job on GOP

(Editor's note: We publish the following e-mail -- misspellings and all -- from someone unhappy about last week's Southern Strategy column. Two factual corrections: First: I have only offered for office once. Second: The newspapers that publish the commentary have all disclosed my past political forays. -- Andy Brack)

To the editor:

in regard to southern strategy I wondered how long you could constrain yourself by a hatchet job on the republican party-I dare you in your next article to identify Andy Brack-long time worker for Fritz Hollinhgs-unsuccessful candidate for numerous democrat elected positions -in reality a Democrat political hack-who needed a job in the private sector since being continuously reejected at the ballot box-fortunately there are plenty of left leaning newspapers around for you to survive-You are a dishonest individual when you write an article like this without giving the reader your background.If you did we both know your credibilty would be suspect

-- Bill Roe, Bluffton, S.C.

10/10: Southern Strategy 2.0 is at work

To the editor:

Congratulations, wonderful comments. Yes, those architects of Southern Strategy 2.0, have yet to recognize the worth of the above mentioned recommendations. Until they do do, SC will continue in its backslide away from the realities of the now 21st century.

-- Harriet Smartt, Isle of Palms, S.C.