Retirement fund needs to get better return
To the editor:
Thank you for the information on the retirement fund. My husband worked very hard for the state and did much good for S.C. when he could have taken a job paying much more with a better retirement plan such as matching 401K contributions. Instead he chose to teach computer science at Midlands Technical College. The majority of the students stayed in state and contributed to the well-being of the state. The 1.6 percent return on investment is so low compared to the returns we have seen on ours and on endowed scholarship funds in my family’s names at Wofford and another through the United Methodist Foundation, Inc. for South Carolinians wishing to go into ministry.
We do appreciate your interest and the leaders who are working hard to make sure the retirement fund will be handled well in the future.
— Carol Cook Guggan, Columbia, S.C.
State leaders need to look at the big picture
To the editor:
People will come and go, but until our representatives think statewide rather than provincially and putting re-election above all else, we won’t see the radical change that we need: to rein in our unfunded pension liability; to have judges appointed on the federal model versus by legislator-lawyers who practice in front of them; and to enact tax reform that will super-charge economic growth.
— David G. Ellison, Greenville, S.C.
Term limits still needed
To the editor:
“New Senate highlights how much things change” interestingly notes that, “31 different senators will be seated in 2017 compared to just 12 years… earlier”. That a whopping 67 percent of Senate seats will have turned over in 2017 since 2005 (12 years) may suggest termlimits are not needed. I beg to differ still not only because I believe there should be two-year term limits, but the snail’s pace in arriving at this “change.” The editorial did reveal an extremely gradual shifting trend.
I may have erred in limiting my scope to “here and now” versus what will happen in 2017. Currently, 15 senators (33 percent) have served four-terms (since 1997) or more, while eleven senators (24 percent) have served three-terms or more. And while six new senators will be seated in 2017, only three very entrenched incumbents were actually voted out of office — Senators Hayes, Martin, and Fair, all having served since 1991, 1993 and 1995 respectively. Senator Bright (not entrenched at all) was voted out as well, but Senators Lourie (not quite as entrenched) and Thurmond (not entrenched at all) did not seek reelection. It’s also worth noting that Senator Cleary (not quite as entrenched) did not seek reelection, and Senator O’Dell (very entrenched) died in January after having served since 1988.
Only four Senate incumbents (9 percent) were voted out of office for 2017 and therein lies the problem. Many may have come and gone, but the ones serving currently since 2005 make up 57 percent of its body. It seems the only chance to elect new lawmakers is when they are offered lucrative state agency jobs, convicted of ethics violations or voluntarily step down. The real problem is the influence that entrenched lawmakers gain/exert over decision making in the body. Gerrymandering certainly contributed to this extension of power, but if the law requires two term limits for governors and the president, why not lawmakers?
— Name withheld upon request, Hartsville, 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
We Can Do Better, South Carolina!