Greer.gif)
YourUpstate
Local News
Does this state always have to be a follower -- never a leader -- when it comes to basic concerns such as health care?
Do state leaders care about the well-being of South Carolinians?
Across the nation, states are acting aggressively to make sure more people have health insurance.
Governors and state leaders are striving to address one of this nation’s greatest problems. Some would call it a disgrace: 42.4 million people have no health insurance in the richest nation in the world.
States are trying to reduce those numbers.
Is South Carolina?
Not at all.
South Carolina is one of only eight states in the nation in which the percentage of uninsured residents actually is increasing.
Almost 700,000 South Carolinians have no health insurance.
That number includes 100,000 children.
This state is one of the few in the nation that doesn’t provide insurance for children in families up to 200 percent of the poverty level.
Meanwhile, check out what other states are doing:
-- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently proposed extending health care coverage to all of California's 36 million residents.
-- Two states — Massachusetts and Vermont — announced plans last year to provide health coverage for all residents.
-- In addition to California, Maine and Louisiana now want to cover all residents.
-- New Jersey also is considering universal coverage.
-- In July, Illinois became the first state in the nation to insure all children in the state.
-- About a dozen other states are considering plans to insure all children.
Meanwhile, in South Carolina we’ve heard almost nothing from state leaders this year about the uninsured.
Hard-pressed South Carolinians face losing their insurance. Many small businesses are having to drop health-care coverage for their employees.
What’s particularly interesting is that health-care initiatives throughout the nation have won the support of both Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats love to say that Republican just don’t care about the health-care needs of the poor and uninsured.
But nationwide, Republican governors are taking the lead — Schwarzenegger in California and Tim Pawlenty in Minnesota, to cite two notable examples.
Why can’t Republican Gov. Mark Sanford in South Carolina do the same?
Do our state leaders care about the well-being of South Carolinians?
I'm sure they'll say they do. But is it too much to ask that they show it?
January 08, 2007:
Republican leaders have been tragically incompetent in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
President Bush and top Republican lawmakers have never gotten the troop levels right. Nor do they seem to understand the complex cultural environment in which we're fighting.
The Iraq Study Group confirmed the public's perception of ignorance at the highest levels.
But now the Democrats are in charge of Congress.
We should see a return of competence to Washington, right?
Wrong.
With Iraq engulfed in a probable civil war — and American lives at stake — you’d think the Democrats would want their most knowledgeable people in charge.
Apparently they don’t.
Jeff Stein, editor of Congressional Quarterly, recently posed a question to Democratic Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the incoming chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
He asked Reyes, a Texas Democrat, whether al-Qaida was Sunni or Shiite.
“Predominantly — probably Shiite,” the lawmaker guessed.
Stein corrected him in an article: "Al-Qaida is profoundly Sunni. If a Shiite showed up at an al-Qaida clubhouse, they’d slice off his head and use it for a soccer ball.”
Stein then asked a Hezbollah question: “What are they?”
Again, Reyes was stumped. “Hezbollah,” he said. “Uh, Hezbollah. Why do you ask me these questions at 5 o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish?”
Wonderful — Reyes is a comedian, too.
Stein, like a good journalist, put some questions to Republicans on the same committee. He asked them if they knew the differences between Sunnis and Shiites.
Reps. Terry Everett and Jo Ann Davis didn't know. “One is in one location, another in another location. No, to be honest with you, I don't know,” said Everett.
Stein, earlier in the year, asked Willie Hulon, chief of the FBI's national security branch, which sect of Islam dominated Hezbollah. “Sunni,” Mr. Hulon replied incorrectly.
This is dismaying. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," has had a field day with the ignorance of this nation's highest elected officials.
But it’s no laughing matter.
Our sons and daughters in harm’s way may pay a dear price for Republican and Democratic incompetence in Washington.
January 05, 2007:
South Carolina's leaders can be so frustratingly slooooooooow.
Even when it comes to something as vitally important as the safety and security of our families.
Case in point: ignition interlocks.
State leaders approved these devices for use in 2000 to help reduce drunken driving.
It was a great idea: Many other states require convicted drunken drivers on probation to install these devices in their cars.
Drivers are required to blow into a small alcohol sensor on the dashboard before their car will start. If the driver is intoxicated, the car doesn't start.
So, does the state actually require drunks to use these devices?
No, we don't.
Why?
Good question.
It's the usual excuse: Not enough money. And state officials have not even written the regulations regarding HOW the devices should be used.
Seven years -- and nothing.
In the meantime, South Carolina continues to have one of the worst rates in the nation of drunken-driving fatalities on the road.
By some accounts, we're No. 1 in alcohol-related traffic deaths.
Forty-four other states have laws allowing or requiring ignition interlocks, according to Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
Officials say that ignition interlocks and other such technologies are more effective than revoking driver’s licenses because offenders often continue to drive even with suspended licenses.
Results for these devices nationwide have been impressive: New Mexico, another state with a high number of alcohol-related fatalities, last year became the first state to use ignition interlocks after a first DUI offense.
That state saw a 12 percent drop in alcohol-related traffic fatalities last year.
A 12-percent drop in alcohol-related fatalities in South Carolina would mean dozens of lives saved annually.
Do we need any more convincing?
Enough excuses. Seven years is too long to wait.
Gov. Sanford and other state leaders should move forward this year on ignition interlocks and other technologies that will protect us from drunks and save lives.
January 04, 2007:
Wow! That was quick.
The state Republican Party already is talkin' trash.
In a strident press release and e-mail to the faithful, the state GOP last week blasted the presidential candidacy of Democrat and native South Carolinian John Edwards.
And presidential primary elections are still more than a year away.
More than a year.
Ugh. That doesn’t bode well for the upcoming presidential campaigns.
At least in South Carolina, it seems the politics of destruction already has begun.
Things may get pretty nasty over the next year. Voters can expect to have their ears thoroughly assaulted -- probably by both parties.
You know John Edwards, right? Nice fellow, born in Seneca, humble background, parents were textile workers, sympathetic to the concerns of ordinary folks.
Not according to the state GOP.
Here’s how the party greeted Edwards' candidacy: “Smooth-talking trial lawyer and blindly ambitious liberal politician John Edwards, a pro-abortion one term Senator and failed vice-presidential candidate, joined the three-ring circus better known as the 2008 Democrat Party Presidential Primary field on Thursday.”
Ouch.
But you have to admit: That melodramatic language is a hoot.
“Smooth-talking trial lawyer” (as opposed to bumbling inarticulate GOP lawyers?) ... “blindly ambitious liberal politician” (Republican politicians, of course, are NEVER blindly ambitious ... yeah, right ... ) ... “pro-abortion” (not pro-choice, mind you, but “pro-abortion” — everyone should have one.) ...
And so on.
Then, S.C. Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson chimed in: “South Carolina Republicans aren’t surprised to see a run-of-the-mill liberal politician like John Edwards join the Democrats’ three ring circus of a presidential primary,” said Dawson. “John Edwards is going to team up with Al Gore, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich as a part of what will surely be an election season of bloopers and gaffes, the absurdity of which will be the greatest show on Earth.”
Well, so much for Southern politeness.
The headline over all that was "Johnny Joins the Circus."
Given the ugliness of last year's state elections, you'd think the Republican Party would give voters a little break from the invective.
But you'd be wrong.
What’s remarkable is the state GOP has decided to go negative so soon. Usually, parties wait at least until front-runners have emerged before they stoop to name-calling and mud-slinging.
Most presumed presidential candidates haven’t even announced they’re running yet.
The GOP response to Edwards also is surprising given that South Carolina is an overwhelming Republican state. The party can afford to be generous.
Negative campaigning usually is a sign of desperation. You have to wonder: Why is the state GOP so worried about Edwards, who’s not even the presumed front-runner?
Is it because Edwards has a gift for expressing the concerns of ordinary folks while the state GOP is preparing for a fancy-pants inaugural ball in Columbia where top sponsorships go for $10,000 each? (But, hey, you get six whole tickets for that price!)
Oh, I know what you’re thinking: I’ll criticize Republicans for their hard-line partisanship but I won’t say a THING about Democratic nastiness.
Wrong. If the state Democratic Party goes as negative as the state Republican Party, you’ll see it denounced here first.
I guarantee it.
Let’s see what happens when John McCain announces.
In the meantime, here’s hoping against hope for cleaner presidential campaigns over the next year and a half.
January 03, 2007:
Gov. Mark Sanford is not known as a champion for those who are struggling.
Quite the contrary: On signature issues such as his school choice plan, he's only helped to bolster his reputation as a Lowcountry millionarie who's mainly interested in helping the well-to-do. The first version of that plan would have provided big tax breaks for families who already have the wherewithal to send their children to private schools.
But, surprise, Sanford is offering an interesting proposal this year: a $2 million initiative to increase Internet broadband accessibility in rural South Carolina.
This is a great idea, even if the funding is rather modest. Maybe the Legislature could up the ante.
This initiative will be good for education and the economy in areas of the state that often suffer from poor schools and high unemployment.
The Internet is particularly valuable for students, providing libraries of information for young people, no matter where their school is located. It’s also important for businesses, which can connect with customers or suppliers worldwide.
Rural areas in South Carolina are far less likely to have broadband access than urban areas. That puts those areas at a big disadvantage in a global economy.
Sanford wants to create a South Carolina Broadband Advisory Committee within the Department of Commerce to provide grants and match private sector dollars aimed at created broadband infrastructure in rural areas.
Extending high-speed Internet access would bring the
information superhighway to struggling areas of our state.
It’s a great example of government helping people help
themselves.
