14.21: Rural roads, Graham’s bid, local government funding

NEXT YEAR:  A measure to legalize medical marijuana to treat medical conditions like epilepsy won’t pass this year, but its lead sponsor, Beaufort GOP Sen. Tom Davis (second from the left) told supporters it will get done next year. More testimony is expected before next year’s session. Advocates hope to pass it next year, but opponents, such as the State Law Enforcement Division and S.C. Medical Association, hope to block it. More.

STATEHOUSE REPORT | Issue 14.21 | May 22, 2015

 

NEWS

Rural roads highlight funding needs, proponents say

By Andy Brack, editor and publisher

MAY 22, 2015 | Proponents of South Carolina spending more money to fix crumbling roads and bridges are pointing to a new report that shows the Palmetto State has the nation’s second-highest fatality rate on rural roads.

According the new study by the national transportation research group known as TRIP, South Carolina ranks behind only Connecticut in fatalities on rural roads with an average of 3.4 people killed per million vehicle miles.

The state Senate, which started debating road funding packages on the floor this week after being stalled on an anti-abortion bill, has six work days left in this year’s session. A “sine die” session often occurs after the main session to allow lawmakers to have time to consider gubernatorial vetoes. If senators don’t finish on road funding by the first week of June, they conceivably could consider the issue in the “sine die” session. That possibility generally is considered remote.

State Sen. Brad Hutto, D-Orangeburg, said lawmakers were working in a bipartisan manner to get additional road funding this year. The state Department of Transportation estimates there are more than $40 billion of needs over the next 25 years. Current funding proposals call for an extra $300 million to $800 million to be generated annually to spend on roads. Lawmakers also may have extra revenue from tax collections to spend. House Ways and Means Chair Brian White, R-Anderson, announced Thursday he will submit a supplemental appropriations bill next week to cover that possibility.

Hutto said the state can’t afford to not fund more money to deal with all roads, including rural roads.

“No matter where you live, you drive to other places,” he said. “The roads, in general, need to be fixed.”

The report on rural road fatalities found about 20 percent of Americans live in rural areas. They tend to be “more heavily reliant on their limited transportation network — primarily rural roads and highways — than their counterparts in more urban areas. Residents of rural areas often must travel longer distances to access education, employment, retail locations, social opportunities and health services.”

Other findings:

Connectivity. If rural areas don’t get better transportation, additional economic growth may be impeded, the report said, and thereby reduce rural residents’ quality of life.

Safety. Traffic deaths on rural roads are three times higher on rural roads than other roads. Reasons for higher rates include roads without enough safety features, longer response times for emergency vehicles and higher speeds that people often drive on narrower, rural two-lane roads.

Deficiencies. Rural roads and bridges have significant deficiencies, including poor pavement conditions and lots of bridges that need rehabilitation.

• To read the report, click here.

NEWS BRIEFS

Promise Zone leaders recognized

The S.C. legislature recognized leaders of the effort for the poorest part of the state to win a federal Promise Zone designation in a recently-approved resolution.

On April 28, the Obama Administration announced that Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell, Colleton, Hampton and Jasper counties were part of a new program that will give pervasively poor places a better chance of getting federal grants and other aid. The region is the second rural area in the county to win the competitive designation.

The Senate resolution by state Sen. Brad Hutton, D-Orangeburg, with which the House concurred, recognized the Southern Carolina Regional Development Alliance, the Center for a Better South, Chernoff Newman, the S.C. Association of Community Economic Development and the University of South Carolina at Salkehatchie for “its unifying vision to coordinate and win a federal Promise Zone designation that will create jobs, increase economic activity, improve educational opportunities, and reduce violent crime.”

The group is scheduled to meet with federal officials next week to move forward with the designation.

COMMENTARY

Graham may have tough time here in GOP presidential race

By Andy Brack, editor and publisher

MAY 22, 2015 | An Australian who follows politics wrote wondering whether our own U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham would get momentum if he won the state’s first-in-the-South GOP presidential primary next year.

Yes, he would — but he’d have to win the primary, which at this point seems highly unlikely.

It’s hard to conceive of a path for Graham, who is stretching out an announcement until June 1, to win the GOP nomination. It doesn’t have anything to do with his qualifications, but with pure, power politics. Lord knows that Lindsey Graham, big buddy of former GOP presidential standard-bearer John McCain, is a whiz at foreign policy and lots of other things.

But Graham, you’ll recall, had six challengers last year in his Senate re-election bid. While he beat all in the primary with 56.4 percent of the vote, more than two in five voters were upset enough with him to vote for somebody else. That doesn’t show lots of strong support among the GOP base, some of whom were ticked off about Graham’s position on immigration and other issues close to the ultra-conservative wing of the party.

Then in the November general election, Graham got a respectable 54.3 percent of the vote in a field of four candidates. Graham’s winning percentage, however, followed that for Gov. Nikki Haley (55.9 percent), Lt. Gov. Henry McMaster (58.8 percent) and U.S. Sen. Tim Scott (61.1 percent).

Fast forward to today. National polls show Graham at the back of a crowded field of candidates in the early running. RealClearPolitics.com’s average polling percentage for the last month says Graham grabs 1.3 percent of the vote — the same as Carly Fiorino and Bobby Jindal.

In South Carolina, Graham also isn’t leading. An April Winthrop Poll indicates that only 7.6 percent of likely South Carolina GOP primary voters would support their home state senator in next year’s presidential primary. And while 37 percent said they would consider voting for him, 55 percent said they would not. Meanwhile, the poll shows Graham’s approval rating is 58.2 percent — behind the general view of the state legislature (61 percent) and Haley (79 percent). With as little respect as many seem to feel for the recalcitrant legislature these days, for Graham to score below legislators shows he has a problem with the GOP base here at home.

So just based on numbers, it’s hard to see how Graham could get the support at home to gain any momentum to win the GOP presidential nod.

But why he would want to try at all? A number of theories emerge after talks with those who follow Republican politics:

• Another job. Perhaps Graham is angling, some wonder, for another job if a Republican becomes the next president. Graham is one of the most popular guests on the Sunday political talk shows in Washington because of his home-spun pragmatism and vast experience with the military and foreign policy. He might, many say, make a great secretary of state or secretary of defense, both of which might give a good scare to lots of folks in the Middle East who provide trouble for the U.S. Or some wonder whether he would make a good vice presidential candidate.       That’s unlikely, others say, because South Carolina is a predictably red state in presidential balloting and the number two on the ticket generally brings something to the ticket by being able to deliver a swing state.

• Kingmaker. Graham may be running to get more credibility in national politics to be able to anoint the next GOP presidential candidate. As a presidential contender — and an important friend of McCain’s — he could bring a key endorsement or a few at a crucial time.

But Graham would be in the race to win, not just pussyfoot around, according to a former staffer.

“He was not supposed to win the last primary without a runoff, but being a tenacious campaigner paid off,” said Bill Tuten, now a consultant in the Charleston area. “It’s another example of how he has been underestimated in the past and then over-performed. And in my opinion, he is going to join the race to win — that will be his only objective.  I honestly don’t think that he would have an interest in a cabinet position.”

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

ACLU of South Carolina

FEEDBACK

Wants statues for Haley, Scott

To the editor:

It felt like S.C. hit rock bottom after the northern war of aggression in the 19th century. Still, we bounced back like a yo-yo when we took heed that we were not where we needed to be.

Today with have beacons of hope for the Palmetto State through Gov. Nikki Haley and U.S. Sen. Tim Scott [with] Haley being the first Asian-American female governor in the Americas and Scott being the first black in the U.S. to be selected by the people to serve in both areas of our legislative branch.

There is nothing we can be than to be happy for them and honor them like they have earned. These are achievements that our rugrats, grown-ups and geriatrics will spend their lives with. Erecting sculptures on our government grounds in this state or nation is the most appropriate thing we can do to give them kudos. God didn’t make us to hate; he taught us how to love.  I would ask the S.C. Statehouse and U.S. Congress to formally start the planning on making this happen for these great leaders.

– Jordan Cooper, Columbia, S.C.

Send us a letter. We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information. Send your letters to: feedback@statehousereport.com

MY TURN

Ulbrich:  Local government by the numbers

By Holley Ulbrich

MAY 22, 2015 | Every year, the Office of Revenue and Fiscal Affairs publishes a report on local government revenue—where it comes from and how it has changed over time.

The latest one came out about six months ago, and if you like to tease a story out of numbers, this report offers an interesting picture of what has happened to state aid to South Carolina local governments—cities, counties, school districts—between 2007 and 2013. That span of years covers the implementation of Act 388. It also gets us pretty well into the recovery from the great recession of 2008-2010.

By itself, the report doesn’t tell you everything you need to know, because the need for revenue at the local level is driven by changes in the prices they pay for their inputs—electricity, computers, wages and salaries, employee health insurance, paper, and building maintenance. Revenue needs are also driven by growth in the population they serve. More people need more garbage trucks, more classrooms and teachers, more police, more road repairs, and even more tax collectors. So, if we supplement the report with census figures on population growth, state Department of Education figures on school enrollment, and U.S. government figures on the inflation rate, we can come up with a pretty clear answer to what has happened to the fiscal resources that local governments in South Carolina have had available to finance those services we expect them to provide.

Local governments raise a lot of their own revenue. They also get some from the state, and some from the federal government, although that’s a much smaller share. According to the report, per capita local government revenue rose from $3,062 in 2007 to $3,238 in 2013. So far, so good. Oh, wait, there was some inflation in those six years. When we adjust for inflation, per capita local government revenue in 2013 drops to $2,826 compared to $3,062 in 2007. Not so good.

Local governments are being asked to do more with less. Many, but not all, local governments have raised their property tax mill rates, within the limits allowed by state law, but that has still left them with less money, because they are getting a lot less from the state. For example, the amount that counties received from the Local Government Fund dropped from $97 to $45 per person during those six years.

School districts are much more dependent on the state than cities and counties. Looking at the change in school revenue, which we measure per pupil rather than per capita, we run into the complication of Act 388 and property tax relief. Act 388 doesn’t show up in the figures for fiscal year 2007, which ran from July 2006 to June 2007. Is Act 388 money replacing local property tax revenue, as proponents of the law claimed when it was passed, or is it state aid to education, which they are more likely to call it now?

If we take Act 388 out of the picture, because it reduced the amount of revenue that local governments could generate from the property tax, the figures for state aid are pretty dismal. In 2007, school districts received state aid from various sources—grants, existing property tax relief programs, and EIA (Educational Improvement Act) and EFA (Education Finance Act) programs—in the amount of $4,457 per pupil. Between 2007 and 2013, leaving out the new property tax relief program, there was a modest increase in total state aid to schools of just over $69 million dollars, with some drops in the bad years in between. But even after state budget revenues picked up, by 2013 per pupil state aid had dropped to $4,172 compared to 2007. After adjusting for inflation, state school funding had a purchasing power of only $3,640 per pupil compared to 2007. So you think the public schools are getting worse? Maybe we’re getting as much as we’re willing to pay for!

U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., once famously said that we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. You may read the meaning and implications of these numbers differently from someone else, but at least we can all start from the same numbers. The numbers can help us to reflect on whether the amount of revenue the General Assembly raises and the way that they appropriate it among state and local public services is what we, the citizens, would like them to do. Perhaps good numbers can start some good conversation.

Holley Ulbrich of Clemson is a noted economist who is senior scholar at the  Jim Self Center on the Future at the Strom Thurmond Institute at Clemson University.

SCORECARD

Thumbs up on CDV bill, down on abortion ban

Thumbs up

Columbia. Baseball hats off to the Capital City for winning a new single-A baseball team, which will get a new stadium, logo and more when it moves from Savannah.

Domestic violence. Thanks go out to House legislators for approving a compromise package to toughen domestic violence laws. It’s now likely to get overall passage … and become law soon. More.

Peachoid. How refreshing — the Gaffney Peachoid made famous in “House of Cards” has a new paint job.

Charleston. The Holy City is gaining population and may sometime take over Columbia’s designation as the state’s largest city. Greenville County continues to be the largest in population in the state. More.

In the middle

Roads. It looks like there’s more money that might be available to the state and it may go to fix sorely-neglected roads and bridges, but the state Senate shouldn’t use this as an excuse to put off the enduring work that needs to be finished to raise taxes or fees to fund long-term maintenance.

Thumbs down

Abortion ban.   There are almost no abortions done in the state after 20 weeks, yet the state Senate wasted valuable time bickering about a pointless bill on making abortions illegal after 20 weeks with rare exceptions. Way to kowtow to the wingnuts.

Offshore drilling. Legislators who want to drill for oil and gas offshore should be sure to read the report on how lots of dolphins died after the Deepwater Horizon accident in 2010 that spewed oil into the Gulf of Mexico. More.

Foster care. A new report says foster children too often are sent to live in group homes instead of individual families. More.

NUMBER

2

QUOTE

Blocking and tackling

S.C. ENCYCLOPEDIA

Battles of Ninety Six

Editor’s note: The Siege of Ninety Six started 234 ago in 1781. We thought you would enjoy learning more about how this small community played two big parts in the Revolutionary War.

Situated in the South Carolina backcountry at the crossroads of important trade routes, Ninety Six was a newly established courthouse town on the eve of the Revolutionary War. The question of independence deeply divided the inhabitants of the district. For many colonists, land grants and protection from Indian incursions created strong devotion toward Great Britain. Others thought that the crown had shirked promises of better government to backcountry settlers and favored independence. With mounting tensions and the absence of British authority, conflict began in the South Carolina backcountry as a civil war.

On July 12, 1775, patriot forces seized nearby Fort Charlotte on the Savannah River. Returning to Ninety Six with captured ammunition, the triumphant party was met by a group of Loyalists who had been informed by a defector from the patriot ranks. The affair ended without bloodshed, and the gunpowder was returned to the fort. Fighting was narrowly averted again a few weeks later when Tory forces gathered and threatened. Whig political leader William Henry Drayton and Major Andrew Williamson countered with a show of force, and the standoff ended with both sides agreeing to a truce on September 16. Weeks later a force of eighteen hundred Loyalists attacked one-third that number of patriots under Williamson, who gathered Whig forces in a hastily erected stockade near Ninety Six on November 18, 1775. The two groups had been jockeying for control of a supply of gunpowder and lead sent to the Cherokees by the colonial government. After three days of fighting with few casualties, the two sides agreed to a brief truce. Although neither side admitted defeat, Loyalist forces failed to recover the ammunition and withdrew. A month later, a substantial patriot force mounted an expedition, the so-called “Snow Campaign,” to crush organized Loyalist opposition.

The following year saw an increase in attacks on settlements in Ninety Six District by hostile Cherokees. In late July 1776 Williamson, now a brigadier general, mounted a punitive expedition into the Cherokee Nation, which ended in October. The village of Ninety Six experienced a period of relative peace for the next few years. Although Loyalists remained in the region, the courthouse village retained Whig rule. Crown forces, however, shifted their strategic focus from the northern to the southern colonies with the capture of Savannah in December 1778. Charleston fell in May 1780. Lieutenant Colonel Nisbet Balfour was quickly dispatched up the Cherokee Path to deal with any patriot militia still under arms in the upcountry. Arriving at Ninety Six in late June, he found that rebel leaders had surrendered the fort and munitions to royal authority a few days earlier. By the end of the year, the British had strengthened the old fort’s defenses and established Ninety Six as a depot and meeting ground for Tories.

Losses at King’s Mountain, Cowpens, and other engagements set the British on less than sure footing in South Carolina by February 1781. After the Battle of Guilford Court House in North Carolina in mid-March, the British commander in the South, Lord Cornwallis, retired to the North Carolina coast with his battered army. Instead of pursuing, the American commander, Major General Nathanael Greene, set out to reduce the chain of posts in occupied South Carolina. Royal forces soon surrendered or abandoned many positions in the northern and central parts of the state, and Greene turned his attention to the western garrison at Ninety Six. American forces arrived in late May. With his chief engineer, Colonel Thaddeus Kosciuszko, Greene surveyed the fortifications and decided to lay siege to the Star Fort, then under the command of New York Loyalist Colonel John Harris Cruger.

For twenty-eight days the small American army steadily dug siege lines and defended them against frequent sallies by the fort’s defenders. Other means were tried as well. But on June 17 word of a British relief column reached the besieged village. Greene reluctantly ordered an assault the next day, and for nearly an hour his soldiers bravely tried to breach the fort’s defenses without success. When Cruger’s men counterattacked successfully, the American commander ordered a retreat. The American army withdrew from Ninety Six two days before British reinforcements arrived. Afterward British commanders deemed the post untenable and abandoned their position within the week. The departing British Army demolished the fortifications and set fire to the few buildings still standing. The civil war would linger in the region for many months, but the withdrawal marked the end of a British presence at Ninety Six.

– Excerpted from the entry by Samuel K. Fore. To read more about this or 2,000 other entries about South Carolina, check out The South Carolina Encyclopedia by USC Press. (Information used by permission.)

CREDITS

Editor and Publisher: Andy Brack
Senior Editor: Bill Davis
Contributing Photographer: Michael Kaynard

Phone: 843.670.3996

© 2002 – 2015 , Statehouse Report LLC. Statehouse Report is published every Friday by Statehouse Report LLC, PO Box 22261, Charleston, SC 29413.

Excerpts from The South Carolina Encyclopedia are published with permission and copyrighted 2006 by the Humanities Council SC. Excerpts were edited by Walter Edgar and published by the University of South Carolina Press. Statehouse Report has partnered with USC Press to provide readers with this interesting weekly historical excerpt about the state. Republication is not allowed. For additional information aboutStatehouse Report, including information on underwriting, go to https://www.statehousereport.com/.