Opponents of restructuring keep making the arguments for reform

THE PROBLEM with legislative debate on a measure that generates as much passion and that is as massive as the plan to overhaul the executive branch of government is that you rarely get an actual debate, as in an argument being made and then rebutted. Instead, you get a lot of people talking past each other.

So as the Senate Judiciary Committee convenes this afternoon to continue work on the legislation, allow me to rebut a few of the arguments against allowing the governor to run the government he’s elected to run:

• “Eighty percent of the people that will vote in November will not have a knowledge of what they’re voting on.” — Sen. Ralph Anderson.

Well, that’s the point. When it comes to electing such positions as adjutant general, comptroller general and agriculture commissioner, most people have no knowledge of the candidates; they’re so busy trying to keep up with the candidates for governor, the Legislature and the Congress that there’s no time left to learn about candidates for the more obscure statewide offices.

As far as what Sen. Anderson likely meant to argue, deciding whether you want to have officials elected or appointed is a much simpler decision than who you want to have the job.

• “This entire bill is aimed at getting rid of the Department of Education. Why? Because they don’t want her (Inez Tenenbaum) running for governor. And that’s not right.” — Sen. Jake Knotts.

I’ll admit that I have a hard time believing he could have been serious. But people who don’t follow government closely might wonder about this.

First, Gov. Mark Sanford proposed to let governors appoint the education superintendent and other constitutional officers during his campaign for governor, when he couldn’t be sure who the superintendent would be; and it’s straight out of the 1991 plan put together for then-Gov. Carroll Campbell, back when a Republican was superintendent.

Second, if voters agree to let the governor appoint constitutional officers, the change won’t occur until 2007; if Mrs. Tenenbaum loses her U.S. Senate race and takes on Mr. Sanford, that election would be held in 2006.

• “Please don’t make these arguments about efficiency. It’s about power.” — Sen. Bob Waldrep.

It’s true that you’re not going to pick up a lot of efficiency by letting the governor appoint the education superintendent or the comptroller general. Most of the changes to the constitutional offices are about power — empowering the governor to run the executive branch of government, so he can carry out the desires of voters, and so he can serve as a check on the Legislature.

But the 1,900 pages of merging and re-aligning various agencies will lead to efficiencies. One problem with the current proposal is that it doesn’t merge as many agencies as it should, and it requires all the layers of bureaucracy to remain in place unless the Legislature gives the separate go-ahead to condense them. Even so, merging the five or six agencies that send caseworkers to deal with a single family is still going to lead to some efficiencies, not to mention better service. This is the most dramatic example of how we waste time and energy, but it’s far from the only one.

• “Why are we doing this? ... How will this improve the quality of life for South Carolinians?” — Sen. Darrell Jackson.

We’re doing this because our present system is duplicative and can work at cross purposes; we’re doing this because the governor can’t function as an effective check on the Legislature and because the public will, as expressed by selection of a chief executive, can’t be carried out when he controls only a third of the executive branch of government.

The quality of life is improved when we are able to deliver the same services for less money, and therefore spend more money in education and other areas where we need it (or, in the present circumstances, avoid making deeper cuts to essential services); the quality of life is improved when someone is in a position to offer and push a long-term vision for improving our state — something that legislatures, by their very design, are incapable of doing.

• People who don’t serve in the National Guard are unqualified to decide whether to put a question about appointing the adjutant general on the ballot. That’s the gist of a long line of questions by Sen. John Hawkins.

If that were true, then there would be no way in the world you could argue that voters — the vast majority of whom are not in the National Guard— are fit to elect the adjutant general.

More to the point, saying you must serve in the National Guard in order to make decisions about it is no different from saying you have to be a police officer to make decisions about criminal law, that you have to be an attorney to make decisions about tort reform, that you have to be a farmer to make decisions about the Agriculture Department, that you have to be a doctor to make decisions about medical malpractice, that you have to be an accountant to make decisions about taxes. In other words, it means the Legislature could never make decisions about anything — and neither could the public.

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.