Mandy Powers Norrell
SC Senate District 16
Blog
-
All-male Senate? 3 races will decide
Posted Oct 14 at 10 AM
Tue, Oct. 14, 2008
By RODDIE BURRISThe State
Three S.C. women have three weeks to press their cases to voters for seats in the state Senate, the outcome determining whether the chamber returns to its single-gender roots.
Lancaster attorney Mandy Powers Norrell, Sumter school board member Karen Michalik and former Lexington County Rep. Margaret Gamble face similar challenges in snagging a seat in the 46-member chamber, if different odds.
The Senate has not been all-male since 1980, when Elizabeth Patterson, who later served in Congress, took a seat in the state Senate. This year began with two female senators.
But, Chester Sen. Linda Short, a Democrat, retired and Beaufort Sen. Catherine Ceips, a Republican, was defeated in the June primaries.
Already, South Carolina was the lowest-ranking state in the country for electing women. The prospects for change are shaky at best.
It’s ironic “that women make up 52 percent of the voters in South Carolina, and vote in even higher numbers, somewhere around 60 percent, but fail to turn out and support each other,” said Barbara Zia, president of the League of Women Voters of South Carolina.
The lack of elected women exists across all levels of government and is steeped in history.
“It’s not just the General Assembly,” Zia noted. “There are no (elected) women in federal or constitutional office in South Carolina.”
THE BEST SHOT
Norrell, a Democrat and newcomer to elective politics, seeks to fill the open Senate seat vacated by the retirement this year of four-term Republican Greg Gregory. She faces Rep. Mick Mulvaney in a burgeoning Upstate Senate district marked by explosive growth in both Lancaster County and the Fort Mill area of York County.
A bankruptcy lawyer, Norrell is locked in a fierce battle against Mulvaney over using public money to pay for private school — an issue magnified by financial strains that have been placed on the district due to growth and the Legislature’s change this year that shifts school funding from property taxes to sales tax.
Republican Mulvaney, a real estate developer who received the second-highest financial contribution from controversial New York benefactor Howard Rich, supports school choice through vouchers and tax credits.
Norrell opposes using public money to support private schools in any form, and said it is the seminal issue that caused her to run for office.
“I think it would be very bad for our state if the Senate were all-male,” said Norrell, whom political pundits give the best chance of gender-integrating the body in January 2009. “Women offer a vital perspective and I think it would be a shame not to have that perspective available.”
THE LONG SHOTS
While winning elective office is always a dicey issue in the Palmetto State, Republicans Michalik and Gamble face even more daunting odds. They will need to unseat — in a general election — two of the Senate’s longest-serving incumbents, Sen. Phil Leventis of Sumter and Sen. Nikki Setzler of West Columbia, both Democrats.
“It’s a tough mountain to climb,” Michalilk acknowledges, feeling the strains of the challenge she faces in taking on Leventis. “Where are all the people who so support women in politics in South Carolina?” she asks rhetorically.
School district consolidation is the issue Michalik mentions most, pointing out she differs with her opponent, Leventis, on the issue.
“I’m for term limits,” she said Monday, preparing for a debate with Leventis, who has served in the Senate since 1981.
It’s not just name recognition and incumbency that newcomers like Michalik have to overcome this year, however. A self-professed independent all her life, Michalik is running as a Republican in a heavily Democratic district.
Sumter County and portions of Lee County, which make up House District 35, are Democratic strongholds. Michalik said new voter registrations in Sumter County have doubled since 2004. She suspects that favors Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, and, she fears, helps other Democrats on the ballot.
“It’s a real battle to get people to split their vote,” Michalik said half-jokingly, “but please know they can vote for Barack Obama, and for Karen Michalik.”
IT’S ‘UNLADY-LIKE’
Rep. Joan Brady, R-Richland, who chairs the General Assembly’s Women’s Caucus and is one of the Legislature’s most vocal supporters of increased female representation, said it is tough running for office — and even tougher for women.
“The problem is paternalism here in South Carolina,” she said. “Running for office is considered very unlady-like.” The fact that a woman has to leave her home and family for at least three days a week to come to Columbia makes the job harder, she said.
Brady thinks the sacrifice is worth it.
“Women do bring a consciousness and a sensibility, particularly to issues that affect family and children. We are mothers, we are sisters, we are daughters — there are so many issues that affect the family.”
Brady said women will need to break those paternalistic tendencies, step up and step out if they are to successfully impact government on any level.
Gamble, of West Columbia, who served in the House from 1992 to 2000, is an example. However, she faces Setzler, a conservative, incumbent Democrat first elected to the Senate in 1977 in one of the most conservative counties in the state.
Gamble said such incumbency allows Setzler to amass a war chest that she, nor most women in the state, would be able to compete against.
“I’m not running because I’m a woman, but I am certainly qualified to run and I think women deserve a place at the table.”
Gamble said the thought of a woman-less state Senate is “alarming.”
“If a woman is not elected, it’s not because people don’t think (a woman) can do the job.” -
Republicans for Norrell
Posted Oct 08 at 2 PM
October 7th, 2008
Today the Norrell for Senate campaign announced the formation of "Republicans for Mandy," a group of residents of Lancaster and York Counties who feel Mandy Powers Norrell is the best candidate to send to Columbia to serve in the State Senate.
Those serving as co-chairs of this growing group come from all areas of District 16 and represent a broad array of experience in government, education and business. The co-chairs of "Republicans for Mandy" are: Lancaster County School Board Member Don McCorkle, former Lancaster County Councilman Stanley Smith, former Kanawha President Ward Tucker and his wife Margaret, retired Highway Patrolman Ernest Deese and Holly Lyver, recipient of the 2007 Lancaster County School District's Celebrate Great Teaching Award for Middle School.
Mandy had this to say:
"I will work to stop the tax and spend mentality in Columbia so that government lives on a budget just like families. Particularly in these tough economic times, I think that message resonates across party lines and I am blessed to have received so much support from many Republicans, Democrats, and Independents."
The announcement is a further sign of Mandy's surging candidacy and shows that voters have responded to her message of cutting government waste and protecting public schools from private school vouchers. More and more people are joining Mandy's campaign daily when they realize the stark difference in substance and character between her and her opponent.
Co-Chairs of Republicans for Mandy had this to say:
Don McCorkle: "I am a lifelong Republican, but I will always choose principle over party and it is clear that the race for State Senate is one in which principle is far more important. I have to question so called 'Republicans' who have taken funds and, still worse, promote the ideology of people far removed from South Carolina as to whom and what cause they really serve."
Ernest Deese: "I support Mandy Powers Norrell because I know her to be someone with a strong Christian faith and someone who will look out for retirees and those on fixed incomes."
Stanley Smith: "I support Mandy Powers Norrell and I am sure we will be proud to call her our Senator. I know Mick Mulvaney personally and I don't think he has the honesty or character to serve. He is a politician in the worst sense of the word - the kind that will say or do anything to get elected and who is more concerned about power and his own pocketbook than the citizens he pretends to represent."
Holly Lyver: "As a schoolteacher, I am reminded every day that we need strong leaders in Columbia to protect our educational system from the disasters that would come from private school vouchers. Knowing that our kids' futures are more important that any political party, I support Mandy because she is the only candidate in the race who will fight to improve public education and make sure teachers have all the tools we need to succeed."
If you would like a "Republicans for Norrell" sign, please come to the campaign headquarters at 212 S. Main Street, Lancaster or call (803) 287-6956. -
Mulvaney vows not to take money from millionaire
Posted Sep 30 at 1 PM
The Herald |
Mulvaney vows not to take money from millionaire
By Matt Garfield · mgarfield@heraldonline.com
Mick Mulvaney didn't support Sen. John McCain in the S.C. presidential primary, but he can sure sympathize with what McCain is going through on the campaign trail these days.
Just as national Democrats seek to tie McCain to President Bush, local Democrats are moving aggressively to link Republican Mulvaney with New York City millionaire Howard Rich, a noted proponent of school vouchers.
Mulvaney says he won't take money from Rich in his bid for state Senate -- unlike two years ago when he accepted at least $7,000 in Rich donations while running for the House.
Still, Democratic candidate Mandy Powers Norrell wants to make Rich a central figure in the race. She told supporters in an e-mail this week that Rich has given money to Mulvaney and others "in an attempt to privatize our education system."
"We cannot allow a big real estate developer living in New York to dictate how we run our schools!" Norrell wrote.
The focus on Rich adds to what has already become a fiercely competitive contest. The two candidates have combined to raise more than $90,000, setting up the most expensive race in Lancaster County history, officials in both parties say.
It's a matchup between old and new Lancaster. Norrell is a Lancaster city native who lives just off Main Street in the downtown district. Mulvaney resides in suburban-minded Indian Land, just outside Charlotte, on the county's bustling northern end.
Mulvaney hopes to diffuse questions over Rich by going public with a campaign pledge.
"I am not going to take any money from Mr. Rich," said Mulvaney, a real estate developer who supported Mitt Romney in the GOP primary. "I don't know how I can be any more clear than that. I hope that takes this non-issue off the table so we can talk things like education. And I can't imagine that it wouldn't."
Norrell blasted the pledge in an earlier interview, saying Mulvaney is trying to distance himself from a potential liability. The two are vying to replace Greg Gregory in District 16, which covers the Fort Mill and Indian Land areas.
"If we couldn't trust him two years ago when he said he wouldn't support vouchers, we can't trust him now," she said. "If he was sincere, he would admit to the people of South Carolina he should never have voted for vouchers. He has not done that."
In recent months, Rich's influence has come under scrutiny. Critics say he gives money to S.C. candidates for one reason: To stock the Legislature with lawmakers who share his support for vouchers.
"I call them political terrorists," state Rep. Gene Pinson, R-Greenwood, told The State this year. "They're outside of the state, trying to do a hostile takeover of state government. I like for South Carolinians to run South Carolina."
Mulvaney outlines stance
Last year in the House, Mulvaney voted against an open enrollment plan that required, in part, for children outside school district boundaries to be provided slots in local classrooms. The bill was defeated.
But Mulvaney generally supports school choice, which can provide vouchers and tax credits to families who send their children to private schools.
"I see vouchers as part and parcel of the overall choice package," he said. "You want to send your kid to the local Christian school, the local Montessori or the regular mainline school? Those are three choices that I think are all valid in South Carolina. Or should be."
Norrell, a lawyer, said she is open to school choice, but not if it diverts money from public schools. She denounces the influence of Rich, whose corporations gave at least $155,000 to about 30 S.C. candidates in 2006, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics.
Rich has made clear he'll keep making donations to candidates in South Carolina and elsewhere. This time, however, Mulvaney says he won't take them.
Who is Howard Rich?
Howard Rich is a libertarian political activist and millionaire real estate developer in New York City. He founded and is president of U.S. Term Limits and is chairman of Americans for Limited Government. He has financed ballot initiatives in numerous states on issues including restrictions on regulatory taking and eminent domain, term limits for judges and legislators and state spending limits. He is a proponent of school vouchers.
-- Source: www.sourcewatch.org
Matt Garfield • 329-4063
-
Who is Howard Rich?
Posted Sep 30 at 9 AM
Who is Howard Rich?
This New York millionaire pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into South Carolina political races in 2008, hoping to change the course of this state’s political future.
By Robert W. Dalton
bob.dalton@shj.com
He's also one of the most despised.
It's not movie star good looks or an athlete's physique that has candidates from both major parties feeling passionate about New York developer Howard Rich. It's his willingness to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars - in his own name, through a network of LLCs, through like-minded associates and through groups such as South Carolinians for Responsible Government, Conservatives in Action and the S.C. Club for Growth - in an effort to create a Legislature in his image, that makes Rich a political superstar.
The issues he pushes make him public enemy No. 1 for some members of both parties. Causing the most heartburn is his desire to create a private school system funded by taxpayer dollars.
But Rich's fan club includes some of South Carolina's top-ranking Republicans. State Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson fawned over him in a soft-hitting interview that was broadcast over the Internet. Spartanburg County GOP Chairman Rick Beltram wants to worship at his feet, or at least his hip pocket.
Leading the "Get Rich, Quick" club are top Democrats and public education supporters. Spartanburg County Democratic Party Chairman Glenn Lindman calls him a "disaster waiting to happen." State Rep. Mike Anthony, D-Union, the public information officer for Union County Schools, says Rich is pouring money into candidates who are willing to "sell their souls" to get elected.
Rich, for the most part, tries to stay out of public view. The interview with Dawson took place at Dawson's home, was filmed by SCRG and could be viewed on YouTube for a time.
In an e-mail interview with the Herald-Journal, Rich said that he is driven by a desire to help people, regardless of where they live, pursue policies that will foster and protect individual liberty.
"And the concept of helping others in different places is hardly new," he wrote. "Had American colonies not secured help from France the American Revolution most likely would not have been won. I'm sure there are those in positions of power in Colonial America who resented that 'outside help' then too."
Big spender
Beltram said the election of Gov. Mark Sanford opened South Carolina's doors to Rich. Sanford and Rich both have strong libertarian leanings.
Rich sailed under the radar for a time, but when $1,000 contributions from he and a variety of companies all sharing the same address in New York City started showing up on campaign finance disclosures, the secret was out.
Rich made a splash in 2006 when he sent more than $51,000 Karen Floyd's way in her failed bid for the state Superintendent of Education post. He ramped it up further this past spring when he pumped at least $500,000 into primary races across the state - including six in Spartanburg County.
Lee Bright was the county's biggest recipient, taking in at least $75,000 from Rich and his associates in his Senate District 12 race against Rep. Scott Talley - and that doesn't include mailers and radio and TV ads paid for by SCRG and the Club for Growth. SCRG is not required to report where its funding comes from or where it spends its money because it is an "advocacy group."
Bright said he didn't make any promises to Rich or his groups to get the money. He said he never spoke to Rich.
"We're like-minded individuals who are for less government, and he knew my stance from the debates," Bright said. "But I made no commitments, other than to make South Carolina a better place for my family and other families."
He didn't say how Rich knew his positions from his debates with Talley. Most were sparsely attended, and the audience consisted largely of supporters of the two campaigns.
While Bright got the most money locally, Joey Millwood scored the biggest victory. Millwood unseated Rep. Bob Walker, the chairman of the House Education and Public Works Committee.
Millwood collected at least $50,000 from Rich and his associates, and also benefited from "advocacy" mailings by SCRG and Conservatives in Action.
Millwood also said the money would not influence his votes.
"That's never even been discussed," Millwood said. "I'm nobody's puppet."
Lindman sees it differently. If Rich spent that much money to buy a seat, he says, he's going to expect something in return.
"If you're that beholden to that man for that amount of money, you're representing his interests," Lindman said. "And his agenda is in conflict with what's in the best interest of Spartanburg County and the state."
Bright and Millwood were Rich's only winners in the county. He and his associates also contributed to Republicans Roger Nutt (at least $28,500), Ken Roach (at least $16,000, plus eight mailings from SCRG), and Rep. Ralph Davenport ($7,000), who was unseated by Steve Parker. He and his associates also gave at least $25,000 to Democrat Raymond Russell, who was beaten soundly by Rep. Harold Mitchell.
Lindman said Russell filed to run as a Democrat, "and that was the last we heard from Raymond Russell."
"He was the one guy who registered as a Democrat who took the money," Lindman said. "Fortunately, we were able to get rid of him."
Most of Rich's money showed up in the "dark period" between the date candidates had to file pre-election disclosures and the time voters went to the polls. That prevented voters from knowing who was receiving his funding, and how much they were getting.
Rich said he wasn't trying to hide anything.
"I made donations based on when the support would have the most impact," Rich said. "No other reason."
Beltram said that sounds right to him.
"We who are involved in the world of campaigns know that's when you're going to spend money is in the last three weeks," he said.
But Beltram is trying to get his hands on some of Rich's riches himself. He said he's written letters to Rich and his various LLCs asking them to contribute to the county Republican Party. So far, he said, he's had no response.
Taxes to private schools
The battle to allow families to use taxpayer money for private schools has taken several different forms during Sanford's six years in office: Vouchers, tax credits and a combination have all been beaten back.
Rich said he has a "very strong preference" for tax credits. Under such a system, parents pay for tuition and then receive a break on their income or property taxes.
Critics argue that such a structure benefits only the wealthy. Those who don't pay income taxes or own property get no benefit, and most likely can't afford the upfront tuition payments.
Rich said low-income students would benefit through scholarship-granting organizations. Companies or individuals would donate to the organizations in exchange for a tax credit.
Still, there's no guarantee for those students. If 10 students apply and five scholarships are available, five students are left out.
Rich said that such an example "ignores the fact that today all ten students are stuck in a failing government school."
"Georgia just enacted this approach with bi-partisan support," he said. "Arizona's tax credit program has expanded each year of its existence with a significant portion of the funds going to low-income students."
Supporters of voucher and tax credit plans have always pitched them as a way to improve public education. In his interview with Dawson, Rich said enacting a plan would reduce spending and save taxpayers money.
"With the state spending nearly $12,000 per pupil, there is no question that virtually any school choice program will save money - the difference between the $12,000 and the amount directed toward choice," Rich said. "This is not in dispute. The issue is what the legislature does with those savings. That's a decision for them to make."
Bright said he would support a voucher plan for students in failing schools. Millwood, like Rich, said he favors a tax credit.
When asked how low-income students would benefit from a tax credit plan, Millwood said, "I'll have to get back to you." He said there were "a lot of student grant organizations out there," but when asked where they were he said he didn't know and that he'd never looked into it.
Millwood said those who fear that giving taxpayer money to private schools will be a detriment to public education have no confidence in public schools.
"If you say this is going to be the end of public schools, you're saying those schools aren't good enough to keep those kids," he said.
Anthony said the problem he has with such legislation is that Rich and other voucher proponents want the taxpayer money to come with no strings attached.
"The day they're willing to make private schools accountable for that money, then we'll talk," Anthony said. "I'm not opposed to choice. But whatever choice they choose, they must understand that accountability comes with state money."
Anthony also said he's especially wary of such plans given the current turmoil on Wall Street.
"I think we see what the free market and competition has done in the last few days," he said.
Not just one issue
School vouchers aren't Rich's only passion. Across the country he's pushed spending limits, based on a formula of inflation plus population growth, and private property rights - particularly regulatory takings legislation.
Those two issues could be front and center when South Carolina's Legislature reconvenes in January. Several versions of a spending limits bill were introduced last session, while takings legislation also could be on the horizon.
While they sound like noble ideas, some say there have been dire consequences for a couple of states that put them into practice.
In Colorado, a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) - a law that limited spending increases to the inflation plus population growth formula - limited appropriations for education, health care, public safety and roads. Residents received small rebates, but paid fees for services that in some cases exceeded the amount of the rebate.
Colorado voters approved the TABOR in 1992. Evan Dreyer, a spokesman for Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter, said the legislation had several "virtuous components."
"The most virtuous is that people in Colorado have had the ability to vote yes or no on property tax increases," Dreyer said.
While voters approved the spending limitation, there also were laws that required spending increases in some areas. When those conflicting laws collided with a downturn in the economy in 2001, lawmakers were forced to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget.
One of the hardest hit areas was education, Dreyer said. Funding to colleges and universities was cut by about a third.
"We placed a high premium on K-12 and higher education as a form of economic development," Dreyer said. "You can't afford to be behind by one day or you're going to be behind by years and years."
When the economy turned around, the spending limits prevented Colorado from recovering, Dreyer said.
"It's difficult to put the brakes and the gas on at the same time," he said.
With agencies strapped for cash and services being cut, former Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, pushed a 5-year "timeout" that would allow the state to regain its footing. Voters overwhelmingly approved the timeout in 2005.
Dreyer said the state has gained ground under the timeout. Spending on education is now back to 2001 levels.
"I think most folks would agree there are parts of TABOR that have virtue," Dreyer said. "The majority of voters in this state agreed in 2005 that it has problems as well."
Rich argues that TABOR was good for Colorado, that while it was in effect the state was "number 1 or number 2" in the nation in growth.
" … The record of that battle, the positive impact of the law and outright deceit on the part of the backers of the 'time out' is well documented," he said.
In Oregon, regulatory takings legislation, known as Measure 37, was billed as protection for the "mom and pop" who wanted to build a house on land that had been in the family for years. One TV spot even used a mother and grandmother to pitch the virtues of the bill.
In reality, Measure 37, meant to compensate people who lost value in their property or freedom to use that property due to land-use regulations, turned out to be a developer's paradise, according to Tim Nesbitt, deputy chief of staff for Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
Measure 37 was approved in 2004, and by February 2007 claims against the state totaled more than $10 billion. Less than 15 percent of the claims came from a single landowner seeking to build a home.
If the state couldn't pay - and it most cases it couldn't - developers were free to move forward with their building plans.
"Measure 37 soon had consequences that most voters hadn't anticipated," Nesbitt said. "It's easy to nod yes and to say people should get compensation when regulations change, but it's another thing when it plays out in the real world with open spaces turning into gravel pits and strip mines, and farm and forest land turning into big box stores and subdivisions."
The law didn't limit compensation to instances when regulations reduced the value of a property. It also entitled owners to compensation when regulations restricted the use of the property.
Measure 37 also was retroactive, meaning property owners could seek compensation for regulatory changes dating back to the 1950s and '60s. That provision, Rich contends, was the flaw in the law.
"The Arizona law, which was enacted prospectively, is working very well," he said.
In 2007, 61 percent of the voters in Oregon voted to modify Measure 37. Measure 49 made the law prospective.
But Nesbitt said that "over-reaching" is an issue with a prospective law as well.
"Measure 49 narrowed the applications," Nesbitt said. "It also added protections going forward for forest land. Some of the largest claims (under Measure 37) were timberland claims from developers wanting to put subdivisions in timberland."
While Rich claims deceit on the part of opponents, it's his initiatives that have run into trouble with the law. In 2006 in Montana, for example, a district judge threw out ballot measures to cap state spending, enact a takings law and to make it easier to recall judges because of fraud by out-of-state, paid signature-gatherers, the newspaper The Missoulian reported. The state supreme court upheld the ruling.
Last hurrah?
In his interview with Dawson, Rich said that he and his groups "weren't going anywhere."
Lindman thinks that might not be the case. He believes Rich is making such a big push this year because Sanford has only two years left in office.
"If he's going to have the governor sign off on what his bought Legislature passes, now is the time," Lindman said. "That might not be the case in two years, and he'll have to start over."
There also are signs that the glare of the spotlight is making it too hot for candidates to accept Rich's funding. Republican Rep. Mick Mulvaney, a candidate for the Senate District 16 seat, vowed not to take money from Rich because of heat from Mandy Powers Norrell, his Democratic opponent.
And Lindman said the Democratic Party is seeing an influx of "middle-of-the road conservatives" who are unhappy with the hard right turn the Republican Party seems to be taking.
"Conservatives talk about upholding traditional values," Lindman said. "Well, public education is a traditional value. These guys aren't conservatives, they're extremists."
Rich said he isn't trying to impose his will on South Carolina. He said he has "no vision" for the state, even though in the interview with Dawson he said he believed South Carolina could become the model for school choice.
"On South Carolina, there are thousands of individuals on the ground who favor free market solutions and want to empower parents," Rich said. "I provided some funding to enable them to achieve their goals."
This story appeared in print on page A1 -
Norrell Announces Support for Roll Call Voting on Expenditures
Posted Sep 23 at 2 PM
September 17, 2008
Mandy Powers Norrell, candidate for S.C. Senate District 16, today announced her support for Representative Nikki Haley’s efforts to pass a bill which would require any state expenditure vote in the General Assembly to be recorded by a roll call.
Haley (R-Lexington) introduced the bill last session and it quickly gained bipartisan support, eventually reaching twelve co-sponsors. Norrell’s opponent, Rep. Mick Mulvaney, did not join in the effort to promote open and honest reform of government’s spending practices.
Under the current system, legislators can vote on massive amounts of spending in secret with no accountability to the taxpayers. Last session, the General Assembly received criticism after the South Carolina Policy Council released study results showing that state legislators held recorded votes less than one percent of the time on all legislation passed last year.
Norrell released these statements on the matter:
“I believe in an open and accountable government that allows the voters to see how Columbia spends our tax dollars. I believe in fiscal restraint and public scrutiny of spending practices will allow us to cut wasteful spending. Like most families, I have to live on a budget and the legislature should be no different.”
“I applaud the bipartisan efforts of Rep. Haley to promote the common sense idea of governmental accountability. It was a worthwhile measure and I plan to support similar efforts in the Senate to make sure this passes next year.”
“I am disappointed that my opponent did not support this worthwhile effort last year as a representative when he had the opportunity. Despite all his talk of reform, he seems only to bring these issues up on the campaign trail.” -
SC Must Invest in Small Business
Posted Aug 27 at 1 PM
It’s no secret that times are hard in our community. Unemployment has been in double digits for a long time and Lancaster County is now ranked 9th in the state in unemployment. In my bankruptcy practice, I am seeing people who have worked hard all their lives and never would have dreamed they would be facing insolvency. In our community, I see people who I worked with at Springs Mills who are now laid off, unable to find a job, and who don’t know where to turn. And because of the lack of disposable income in our community, many of our local businesses are closing their doors.
It is heartbreaking to see local people who have worked hard to open a small business and fill a need in our community, who have taken a risk and set their own course, only to have to close their doors. Small businesses create the vast majority of jobs in our community. They sponsor our soccer teams, they contribute to local causes, and their employees volunteer in our schools. Our small businesses are owned by local people who employ local people, all of whom reinvest their salaries right here in our community. And they do all of this at great personal risk. If the local economy slips, many of our small businesses fail. That’s because small business owners work without the safety nets and incentives that our state gives to large corporations.
As a small-business owner myself, I know the joy of giving back to my community and of being my own boss. I also know what it is like to have a handful of people who rely on me for their livelihoods, just as I rely on them for mine. I know what it feels like to have to dip into my personal savings during the lean times to pay my employees. I know how an unexpected expense or repair can ruin the year’s budget. And I know how hard it is for a small business to provide health or retirement benefits for its employees.
My parents were small business owners and so were their parents before them. While working at Springs, my mom and dad also ran a ceramics and crafts store in the Antioch Community. In the 1940s and 50s, my mom helped her father at the family’s store, Blackmon’s Grocery, on Gay Street. And my dad grew up helping his parents operate a saw mill and auction barn in the Buford community. My parents and grandparents had the same dream as all small business people: to provide for their families and live the American Dream. Our government should be encouraging that dream – not stifling it with taxes and regulations that are disproportionate to those imposed on outside corporations.
I am not saying that small businesses should receive more than their share from the SC Department of Commerce, only that they should be treated fairly. I believe our small businesses should be recognized and appreciated for their significant impact upon our state’s economy. Small business owners reinvest their profits right here in the community, while outside corporations send the bulk of their profits to a corporate headquarters in another state. But when is the last time you heard of our state and local governments giving tax incentives to a local restaurant, a beauty salon, or a body shop? It never happens – because small businesses are not even on the radar of the SCDOC.
We are shortsighted if we only strive to recruit big corporations and ignore the local citizens who have taken a chance and invested in our community. The SCDOC should make it its business to encourage and preserve small businesses with proportionate tax breaks and incentives. It is these local entrepreneurs who keep our community moving forward in face of difficult times. As your Senator, I promise to remember where I came from and fight for the interests of our small business men and women. -
Protecting the Greatest Generation
Posted Aug 02 at 11 AM
As a child, I spent many summer afternoons with my great aunt Virginia Jones at her home at the corner of Gay and York Streets, eating Kentucky Fried Chicken on her front porch and watching the children in the Leroy Springs swimming pool across the street. Aunt Gin had a stroke one evening when I was about 6 years old, and spent her remaining years confined to her bed at the county nursing home. Although she had been fiscally responsible all her life, Aunt Gin’s savings was depleted quickly.
My father was a diabetic and relied on an insulin pump. After he retired from Springs, he began receiving his medication from the VA because he was a Navy veteran. It was common for the government to change his medication depending on which pharmaceutical company offered the lower prices. It seemed like as soon as one brand started to work, the government would switch to another. But my dad was one of the lucky ones. Because he was a veteran, he didn’t have to worry about the high cost of prescriptions faced by many of our Seniors.
My mother now lives on Social Security and her retirement savings from Springs. She’s doing okay, but like a lot of retirees on fixed incomes, she’s having to deal with the rising cost of food, gasoline, and utilities.
Since the New Deal, we have had the basic belief that if we work hard and make the effort, we can succeed. That we can find a job that pays a living wage and we can send our children to college and they can have a better life than we do. If we’re sick, we can get healthcare without having to worry about bankruptcy. And we can retire with dignity and security. This is the basis of the American Dream. But today the American Dream feels like it is slipping away.
There is a silent struggle in our community. Our economic difficulties are hitting our senior population particularly hard. You can see it in our churches and in community groups such as H.O.P.E., Carenet, and our local soup kitchen. Meals on Wheels volunteers tell stories of folks who are unable to cook or to drive to a restaurant, who count their wealth in coins and dollar bills, who may otherwise eat cereal for every meal – and for whom the Meals on Wheels lunches are the only balanced and healthy meals of their week. They also tell stories of folks who are lonely, and who look forward to the visit by Meals on Wheels as the highlight of their day. Healthy food and companionship – two of our most basic needs. Is it any wonder why this program has a lengthy waiting list of Seniors hoping to be served?
But our state government doesn’t get it. Our governor led the effort to cut $2.9 Million in funding for Meals on Wheels. I believe that people who have worked hard all of their lives have the right to dignity and security. That’s the promise that has been made to all working families, and it’s a promise that our government has kept for generations. But our leaders are more and more often people who are independently wealthy, who don’t have to worry about issues affecting regular people, and if people suffer because of their decisions, at least is not people they know and love. A secure retirement is no longer a guarantee for the middle class. It’s harder to save. It’s harder to retire. And our government doesn’t understand that.
And those most affected are our Seniors. We call them the Greatest Generation. The generation that fought WWII and saved us from Nazi oppression. The generation that gave us the highest standard of living in the world, that saw technology evolve from the lightbulb to the iPhone. And the generation that has seen the cost of a comfortable home rise from $5,000 to upwards of $200,000. This generation has seen more change than any generation before them or since. Some changes have been good, but some unanticipated changes have left many of our seniors in difficult financial struggles. For this reason, senior citizens make up the largest growing block of clients I see in my Bankruptcy practice. It is heartbreaking to counsel a senior who is having to choose between paying for groceries and her prescription medication – all the while knowing that the freedom and prosperity we enjoy today has been built on the backs of the generation before us. We owe a debt to this generation that we could never repay.
The very least we can do is provide them with a warm healthy meal, assurances of health care at a reasonable cost, and basic financial security. And yet, our governor led the effort to take away Meals on Wheels from 5,500 seniors, while at the same time state spending grew 40% across the board.
We must do better. As your Senator, I will bring to Columbia the experiences of ordinary people, our shared values, and a common sense approach to taking care of our senior adults. My parents taught me to respect my elders. And I will never turn my back on the greatest generation or give up on the American Dream. -
Summers at the Mill
Posted Aug 02 at 11 AM
I’ll never forget the long, hot summers I spent working in Grace Bleachery to help pay my way through college.
I’ll never forget the smell of the dye that was pumped into the big blue barrels, the 120-degree temperatures between the new Zimmer machine and the cinder block wall, the sounds of clacking and whirring as the cloth was printed and processed, and the bright yellow earplugs we wore around our necks that showed that we were all a part of the same team.
I’ll never forget how much that $6 an hour meant to me during the school year when it was time to pay my tuition, buy my books, pay for gas back home on the weekends.
And I’ll never forget the lessons I learned – lessons about being on time, about being part of a team, about sticking to something and finishing it.
But mostly, I’ll never forget the people I met there -- people who helped shape my attitudes about the power of hard work, about how to treat the people who depend on you, about patience, about devotion to family and loyalty to company.
People like Ferris Phillips, who loved to laugh, and found enjoyment in every task - he was the first person I saw every morning and the last one I saw in the evenings.
People like Johnny Childers, who showed me how to calculate the amount of dye needed for each pattern, who never seemed to mind my asking one more time how do the calculations.
People like Don Deese, who’d worked at the bleachery for decades and had a tremendous pride in his job and the products he helped send around the world.
People like a fellow whose nickname was “Ninety-Mile,” because of his speedy work ethic and commitment, who always greeted me with a smile – he loved his job as much as I loved mine and would talk about it with as he wheeled the barrels of dye to his machine.
People like Ernest Croxton, who always talked about his family – it was obvious who he was working for and on what he was spending that check he took home every week.
I ride by the bleachery now, the old Lancaster Plant site, Customer Service, the Elliott, Francis, and Katherine Plants, and my heart rises in my throat. All those jobs – gone. That way of life – gone.
But I know the people aren’t gone. They’re still here.
Some of them like my parents, who worked for Springs for a combined 68 years, are living comfortably on the retirement they worked years to earn – living comfortably, but still facing the realities of a fixed income, a rising cost of living and looming medical bills.
Some of them, like my friend Doris, are going back to school to learn new skills for a global economy, skills that they hope will win them a better job in a company that will be here until they retire.
And many of them are driving hundreds of miles each week to jobs in other towns and counties, spending hours on the road, hours that they once spent with their families, working in their gardens, worshiping at their churches.
They – and I – never dreamed that the bleachery or the Customer Service Center or many of the jobs at the Corporate Offices in Fort Mill would be gone so soon.
Those people are the reason I’m running to represent this District in the South Carolina Senate. I want to bring good jobs back to the people of Fort Mill, of Indian Land, of Lancaster.
I want to see our district prosper, our people have the jobs they need to fulfill their dreams of owning a home, of vacationing with their families, of going to college.
I know firsthand the incredible talent and work ethic the people of this district have to offer.
And I know that with hard work and ingenuity, we can bring new jobs and opportunities back to our district.
And if you allow me to serve you in the South Carolina Senate, you can be assured that I’ll use all the lessons I learned those summers in the bleachery to bring new jobs back to the people of District 16.
