Protecting American Values

FEW SEES WEAK CHALLENGE FROM BUTLER

2010-09-23T20:52:00.000-04:00

Sheri Few, Republican Candidate for District 79, welcomed Democrat Mia Butler to the General Election campaign following Ms. Butler’s 380-vote victory over Todd Wood in the un-expected and low-turnout Democrat primary Tuesday night. The three-way Primary was prompted by incumbent Anton Gunn’s sudden departure from South Carolina politics last month.

“Now that the other party has finally decided on a candidate and a platform,” Mrs. Few said, “we look forward to letting the voters compare who has the track record of standing behind pro-business, pro-family, education-reform issues for the people of South Carolina, and who has a record of looking out for special interests.”

Mrs. Few questioned Butler’s claim to offer strong leadership for District 79 voters. “Is it leadership or opportunism,” she asked, “that brings a candidate out only after the favorite son has left the state?”

Mrs. Few also made light of Butler’s professed pro-business, job-creation stance, noting that Butler is a career special interest lobbyist.

“We know what Mia Butler and the Democrats offer; the same thing they’ve been pushing for over the last few years: more government, more regulation, and more burdens on South Carolina businesses,” she said. “We know that state government’s problems are not going to be solved by putting a paid-for special interest advocate in the House of Representatives. We know that the answer to our current economy is getting government to stop ‘helping’ with programs that do more harm than good.”

“We, self-reliant South Carolinians, know the value of smaller government that lets us take care of business,” Mrs. Few continued. “There are enough special interest lobbyists lurking around outside the chambers trying to waste our tax money. The last thing taxpayers can afford is to let this one in.”

TAX CREDIT: FALSE HOPES OR FALSEHOODS, AND WHY?

2010-07-27T16:11:00.000-04:00

Perhaps it is a measure of how far the Republic has fallen that South Carolina citizens are faced with deciding whether news from the State House shows their elected representatives to be deceived, deceptive, or just more supportive of Big Government than in the needs of their home districts.

The event prompting this sorrowful soul-searching is a July 22 press release from District 79 representative Anton Gunn. Gunn’s press release proclaims the good news that 53,000 Palmetto State small businesses will get tax credits to offset the costs of employee health care premiums—thanks to the beneficence of Obamacare. This claim so clearly stretches optimism past the breaking point that it deserves a little critical review. And it prompts the question of why he would put his name on the “news.”

First, it is important to note that according to Gunn’s press release, HE is not making the claim, he is merely reporting claims made by two other groups: Families USA and Small Business Majority. In a document entitled “A Helping Hand for Small Business,” these two groups produce comprehensive statistics for the number of small businesses in every US state they say will qualify for the new health care law insurance premium tax credits.

It is not unreasonable for taxpaying voters to perform the minimal due diligence that Gunn has not done and investigate the validity of the claims in the report before accepting them at face value. In fact, it is reasonable to look into two things when considering this report:

1) are the report authors impartial analyzers of the evidence
2) are the claims based in fact
Once voters have looked into these two questions about the issue, it is entirely reasonable for them to have a few more things to ask Mr. Gunn.

Let’s take first things first. Are the report authors are reliable and impartial analyzers of the data. The answer, sadly, is “no,” they are not. Gunn’s press release identifies the groups behind the report (Families USA and Small Business Majority) as a national health care consumer nonprofit and as a small business advocacy group. But this is a very incomplete and misleading identification of the organizations.

Cynics will express no surprise that the groups Gunn relies on for his wishful thinking press release on the benefits of Obamacare are nothing but private clubs of Democrats, by Democrats, for Democrats; un-abashed propagandists for the “progressive” agenda. For example, the Families USA website shows it has no interest in any “Family” issues; it exists solely to cheerlead for Barack Obama’s vision for America.

Families USA president and co-founder is Phillipe Villers, who in 2008 reported $40,550 in political contributions, all to democrat candidates and support groups. The group’s executive director and vice president, Ron Pollack, was a Clinton administration presidential advisor. The Board of Director’s first listed member is that family-friendly organization GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The first organization on the group’s website page of linked supporters is ACORN. This is a group that describes itself with a straight face as “non-partisan.”

The other organization behind the report is Small Business Majority. This group’s website shows it has interest in only two things—support for Obamacare and an eagerness for enacting the Cap and Trade business-destroying energy policy. This group’s founder and CEO is John Arensmeyer, prominent member of the Board of Directors of the (San Francisco) Bay Area Democrats. The group’s National Policy Director is Terry Gardiner, former Democrat Speaker of the House in Alaska who lists on the internet that one of his projects is supporting medical reform legislation (HR 417) sponsored by Vermont’s Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. Like Families USA, Small Business Majority describes itself as a source of “unbiased information.”

Anton Gunn may think these groups are doing nothing but providing un-biased, non-political information, but the rest of us can surely be excused for not buying that line.

Let us now look into the second question-- Are the claims reported in “A Helping Hand for Small Business” (report available at: http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/health-reform/Helping-Small-Businesses.pdf) based on fact and believable? Sadly, according to the report itself, the answers to these questions are “no.”

Pages 8 and 9 of the report describe the methodology used in creating the study. It reveals that the numbers of small businesses and their tax credit eligibility are not based on actual enumerative counting, but on estimates extrapolated from other estimates that are based on some pretty good guesses.

The bedrock estimate comes from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ). This agency used something called the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) Insurance Component (IC) database for 2008 to create an estimate of the number of small businesses (25 or fewer employees) with average payrolls below $50,000 per person. The MEPS-IC is a “sample” of 39,000 businesses using data that it admits is no more than 80% complete.

In other words, the bedrock for the claim is an estimate drawn from information that is admittedly 20% incomplete. The MEPS-IC is further corrupted because it includes and lumps together all assumed employees despite status (full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary) and considers that all employees have 50% of their health insurance premiums paid by the employer, when real world experience shows that workers who are not full-time employees often do not get employer-paid health insurance.

According to the report methodology, this “might inflate the estimate of the number of eligible firms by capturing more firms that meet the average wage criteria.” Indeed.

As if this were not cause enough to doubt the numbers, the report itself further states that in its estimate small businesses that have more than one physical location are counted as completely separate businesses. A further corrupter of the numbers is the MEPS-IC sample size—39,000 estimated small businesses, or only about half the number of purported small businesses in South Carolina alone, extrapolated out for the entire country.

The report methodology explanation also gives other examples of why its own numbers are not to be taken literally, but in the interests of letting reader eyes un-glass over from number gobbledygook overload, let’s stipulate that the statistics (the worst kind of lie, according to Mark Twain) are not “fact” and move on.

So now that we have seen there is reason to doubt the source and accuracy of the information used in Gunn’s July 22 press release, let us ask whether Anton Gunn had access to better information, and let us ask why he is “highlighting” this report.

Surely a “small business advocate” as Gunn styles himself, would have been aware of a July 20 report from the National Federation of Independent Business (that national group known as “The Voice of Small Business”). NFIB’s report is entitled “Just the Facts: Small Business Healthcare Tax Credit” and its findings are devastating to Americans hoping against hope that Obamacare will result in lower-cost health care.

The NFIB’s conclusions are:

• any benefit from the tax credit will be far outweighed by burdensome paperwork
• only half the number of businesses claimed to be eligible for the tax credit actually will be eligible
• even among firms that qualify, only a very small number will receive the low “maximum” credit of 35%
• the tax credit phases out rapidly as a small business’s number of employees and average salary increase

The NFIB’s report provides the startling news that a South Carolina company with as few as 17 workers making an average annual income of $38,000 would not qualify for any tax credit off-set what so ever.

If “small business advocate” Anton Gunn were unable to hear the voice of small business, he might at least be familiar with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber notes that Obamacare’s “paperwork nightmare” will make it very difficult for any small business to keep the health care insurance plans they currently have. Making even minor changes to health care insurance plans can force a company’s employees into a government-approved insurance plan.

Based on just a quick review of the facts behind Anton Gunn’s press release claims, it is clear that the report he “highlights” is not based on actual factual data, but instead on interpretations of extrapolations of incomplete and assumed estimates. South Carolina business men and women know that this is no way to run a business—or a government. Business plans and state policy built on nothing more than false hopes can only lead to expensive and unpleasant consequences.

It is also clear that Gunn has accepted at face value claims made by groups that put politics first; groups who’s first priority is not American Families or Small Business, but Big Government and the advancement of a “progressive” platform. Like Anton Gunn, both of these groups describe themselves as independent or non-partisan voices, but like Gunn both groups are hip-deep in progressive politics and demonstrate no interest in any other topic. Gunn has accepted the claims from these groups with a press release put out days after evidence refuting them was published by NFIB.

If Anton Gunn were what he claims to be—a small business advocate—NFIB and the Chamber of Commerce’s analysis would play a role in the formulation of his position on the issue. Instead, his un-critical acceptance of the misleading tax credit claims reveals the true Anton Gunn to be an unrepentant Obama supporter. “Not,” as Seinfeld might say, “that there is anything wrong that,” but District 79 voters have every reason to wonder why their representative goes to such lengths to hide his true allegiances.

District 79 voters might also ask why their State House District representative would bother with his July 22 release on this issue. Obamacare was not a state-level issue debated on or voted on in the General Assembly, but a national issue driven by the ego of a president who revels in the opportunity to remake America in a different and disturbing image. As a national issue, it not within Anton Gunn’s District 79 purview: unless he sees himself as something more than the District 79 representative.

Gunn knows full well the information in the report he highlights is not a non-partisan analysis performed by non-political advocacy groups. He knows these groups are nothing but Obama agenda propagandists—that is why he is so comfortable with them and familiar with their work. This explains why Gunn was so eager to put his name on an Obama handiwork, as Obama’s South Carolina Political Director and as State Director of Organizing For America, he is Obama’s point man in the Palmetto State.

Gunn also knows he cannot be honest with District 79 voters about his allegiances and beliefs, because they conflict with the interests and aspirations of his constituents. Gunn knows that District 79 does not want more government or the higher taxes and diminished liberty that increased government control will bring.

It is time that District 79 voters let Anton Gunn know that his disguise does not work and that in November they will make clear they have no interest in a representative who hopes they are not paying attention.

The informed voter is the cornerstone of Democracy, and the end of Mr. Gunn’s political career.

GUNN’S FEAR OF HIS OWN RECORD

2010-07-20T10:27:00.000-04:00

In a recent letter desperately seeking money from his supporters, Anton Gunn claims he needs the ready cash to combat “an onslaught of negative ads.”

There was a time in our politics when an incumbent had little to fear, confident that his record in office would make the case for re-election. Those days must be gone, and now it seems Mr. Gunn fears that voters WILL learn about his record…or lack thereof.

In his letter, Mr. Gunn says his two years in office is replete with evidence of his bi-partisan pro-business attitude that has worked to “create jobs and stimulate the economy.” He says that re-electing him will give him a chance to do something about the state having “one of the highest un-employment rates in the country.”

Voters, business owners, employers, employees, and the un-employed in District 79 might be excused for wondering just where these legislative triumphs are and why the claimed improvement of the business climate and economy of the state has not yet produced a better employment rate. The truth of the matter is that if the first claim were true, the second statement would have already been addressed.

For all his claims of being pro-business, Gunn still cannot wrangle anything better than a below-average rating from the South Carolina State Chamber of Commerce (the chamber gave an average rating of 79% pro-business voting record to state legislators for 2009—Gunn earned a 75%). Below average results do not merit re-election.

With our state and our nation facing serious problems resulting from the progressive agenda, 2010 is not a year for politicians to hide their beliefs or fake their results. Sheri Few plans to campaign on Anton Gunn’s record, and if that seems “negative” voters should ask themselves why.

District 79 voters deserve a candidate who sees nothing “negative” about her positions and her record. That candidate is Sheri Few.

Common Sense and SC Schools

2010-05-18T14:46:00.002-04:00

I learned a lot of valuable common sense lessons in school, such as “don’t put off until tomorrow what you can do today.” We need to put that common sense adage into practice. Now, not tomorrow or some undefined future date, is the time for positive thinking about the present and future of our public schools. This means that politics must take a back seat to innovative solutions for South Carolina’s education funding.

The “educational calamity” predicted on May 4th by our Democrat Superintendent of Education bothers me to no end and must not come to pass. Just because our economy is down and funding is tight is no reason to lose the progress we are making in South Carolina schools.

The fundamental thing we must do to improve the outlook for our schools is to spend our limited money wisely. That means not buying some frivolous things like walkways over interstates during years when we feel flush with cash. It means not passing bills with earmarks that only promote one politician’s local power. It means planning ahead for bad times, so when we have some economic rainy days we are not left without an umbrella. That is what responsible government does, and it is what we can do again.

I believe that this year South Carolinians will vote for leaders who understand that relieving tax and regulation burdens on businesses and other free market reforms will create jobs and grow our local economy. I believe the voters will turn away from the demonstrably failed progressive agenda and will seek a solid, proven, conservative approach that will not see a crisis as something to use for political advantage, but rather as an opportunity to create a flexible, sustainable and transparent education funding formula.

We citizens who live in the real world and not in an academic ivory tower or pillow fort of political theory know that the most important step in funding state education is getting the state economy on track. State revenue comes from state citizens working and having an income from which to pay a reasonable tax. In-state jobs also stimulate in-state business as workers spend their paychecks in local stores that hire other local workers. It is a positive economic cycle that benefits ALL South Carolinians, not a government spending death spiral that strangles struggling businesses and reduces state revenue and opportunity.

We all know that in the past the state and nation’s actual experience under previous administrations encouraged employment in small businesses that tended to grow the economy and provided growing tax revenues including surpluses that helped the state actually reduce the taxes on individuals and still provide necessary support to schools. This progress was put to a halt nationally when Democrats such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd decided with support of a Democrat-controlled Congress that all Americans deserved elaborate houses, whether or not they could make the mortgage payments. This is what crashed the national economy, and as a result our state economy.

To supply our education needs and opportunities for our young—our future—we must use every possible effort to keep the Free Enterprise System that made our country the economic powerhouse it was for more than 200 years. When we support small business and the employment of our people we lay the foundation for funding our children’s education. We can do this by electing principled conservatives and withholding support from any politician who advertises that she or he is eager to cross the aisle and “work with” the failed democratic-socialistic agenda.

We can do this at home, or we can look overseas to see our future in the riots and economic meltdown of Greece, where the only thought is what can I get from the government before someone else gets the last cashable check. Make no mistake, there is nothing inherent in our sandhills soil that will let us implement the same socialist policies that have bankrupted other countries and avoid the same sorry results.

School administrators and teachers often line up on the other side of the current argument and support the party that claims it will do more, more, more to support our education system. But I would ask them to think back to the progress of South Carolina schools under Republicans to know which side to support should they want to keep their jobs.

A bankrupt state treasury cannot spend more on any school issue—no matter how many political promises one might bank on. If the Democrat Superintendent of Education had spent more time watching what has happened to the state and national economy since his party took control of Congress and then the Executive branch, he might have prepared in past good years for these current bad years. That this Superintendent now predicts “educational calamity” is a testament to his own poor planning during flush years and a clue to how he will continue to perform in lean years.

This year, voters should demand that their representatives and school administrators plan “rainy day” financing by cutting unnecessary spending wherever and whenever possible. These voters can count on a conservative approach to properly fund education with money saved from ending frivolous spending.

The surest way we can avoid a continuation of the “educational calamity” is to replace those who could not see it coming with those who want to fix it more than they want to profit from it.

Sheri Shares Honors Society Honors With Kershaw County Youth

2010-04-23T14:36:00.002-04:00

Sharing the excitement of young people discovering the wonderful ways life rewards hard work and personal responsibility is one of the greatest joys an adult (and especially a proud parent) can experience. That is why I was especially pleased for the opportunity to address National Honor Society inductees at Lugoff-Elgin High School (LEHS) last week.

I found this great event particularly satisfying because of my devotion to helping guide young men and women to the very best outcomes for their lives through SCPIE—South Carolina Parents Involved in Education. I founded this non-profit citizens’ group ten years ago, and in that time I have had the privilege of seen SCPIE work in school districts across the state to train public school teachers to give our students a character-based abstinence curriculum.

I know from my life and the life of my own family that good character is the root from which good choices will grow, and that these good choices predict the life outcomes of our youths as they accept the roles and responsibilities of incipient adulthood. I am passionate about helping our kids adopt these good character traits, both for their benefit and, in a larger sense, for ours.

Of course as Honors Society inductees, the students I addressed had already made good choices based on the good character they have developed from the examples in their homes, churches, communities, and schools.

These student leaders have blossomed by setting priorities in their own lives. Setting and then sticking to these well-chosen priorities will let these honored students reach their goals and realize their dreams—not by dreaming, but by putting in the work and avoiding the pitfalls that trap too many others their age in self-defeating habits and behavior.

Bad choices and blindly following the wide and well-trod paths of least resistance erode the opportunities open to so many South Carolina youths, but achieved by far too few. Conversely, making the right choice even when it is the hard or un-popular choice lets our children reach adulthood not just successfully but as leaders; and not just as leaders but as what I call “servant leaders”—the highest calling of all.

Here are my priorities that I stressed to the inductees, and why:

• My relationship with Jesus Christ. I tell this to every audience, Christian or not, so they know that I am someone they can trust to always be honest about my beliefs because truth is fundamental to my Christian faith. I do not try and hide my faith or re-package my positions to better appeal to one audience over another.

• My family. I shared with them that I have a wonderful husband of 25 years and three boys who are the joy of my life. Most of the audience probably knows at least one of my sons--if not all three of them as the oldest two graduated from LEHS and the youngest is a junior there.

• My commitment to the call on my life to be a servant leader. The idea of servant leadership used to motive our state, local, and national leaders, but is all too rare in our society. Unfortunately today, we see far too many examples of self-serving leaders; leaders who put themselves first—who are in their position for personal gain.

I believe a true leader is someone who humbles him or herself to serve others in a leadership role –someone who puts the interest of others above one’s self. We live in a society that has become self-absorbed, seeking the most immediate of gratifications. Most people, when asked to help with a project, are motivated to do so only if there is something in it for them.

I blame this in part on the whole self-esteem movement of the past decade. While we were trying to teach children to esteem themselves, they lost something more valuable. Harvard University published a study that proved self esteem cannot be taught; rather it is something derived from actual achievement. Many people today have far too much love of self and far too little desire to love others above themselves.

I urged each of the student Honor Society inductees to adopt priorities for their continued success. I told them that from my experience, putting faith first and depending on it as a source of strength, courage, perseverance, and even joy in the struggles that inevitably come, will fundamentally bring all of their other priorities into place. I told them that as they strive for their personal successes, that always honoring their family, especially their mothers and fathers, will bring great blessings into their lives, both now and well into the future.

But in addition to offering guidance to the student inductees, I also wanted to say something to the parents in the audience.

I told them that if or when a son or daughter veers off the path and loses sight of their priorities to not be discouraged. I told them as parents they should help the son or daughter get back on the path; to never give up as parents and to never tire of providing direction for their children’s lives.

This is important, because another Harvard study proves the part of the brain that helps young people make good choices is not fully developed until about the age of 25. Our children need our direction well into their early twenties.

I reminded the audience once again to live by their priorities—to work first and then have fun, for the fun is all the sweeter once it is earned.

In conclusion, I personally offered my assistance to each of the new inductees and their families. I asked them to consider me their servant leader and said that if I could help in any way with their future goals I was available for them to call upon.

Let us hope that as these inductees mature into productive adulthood we leave them a country and society to lets them achieve their dreams through work and dedication, guided by the love of parents and family and not smothered by the heavy hand of intrusive government.

Did You Ever Have A Friend?

2010-04-10T10:21:00.003-04:00

Did you ever have a friend who tried to hide from you who they were; someone who would say one thing to you and then do something entirely different or would say the exact opposite to someone else?

Was that person a friend for long, or did the duplicity wear on you to the point that the friendship wasn’t worth it?

When something like that happens, it is easy enough to walk away and say good riddance to the toxic relationship and find another, better friend. But when the person in your life who constantly misrepresents himself is your elected representative, well…that’s another story.

Voters in South Carolina’s 79th House District are in just such a toxic relationship now. In 2008 they elected Anton Gunn who put himself forward as an “independent leader,” someone not wedded to any particular party ideology but rather interested in serving all residents of this district. This representative, once again running for the office, even now advertises his “independence.” But is he, or is he telling us one thing locally while positioning himself another way when he thinks he is out of the local spotlight?

How much faith can we have in Anton Gunn’s veracity when he claims political “independence.” Far from being “independent” from one party or one political ideology, Anton Gunn is soaked in the most radical belief his party has to offer to (impose on?) Americans—the idea that our highest duty is to take all we can from a gargantuan government that controls every aspect of our lives.

How “independent” is Gunn from the Democrat party leadership? He was the political director of the South Carolina primary campaign for his party’s leader, Barak Obama, in the 2008 campaign—is that independent? He was vice chair of the Richland County Democrat Party—is that independent? He is the state director for Organizing For America—the group founded by the Democratic National Committee to drum up support for the Obama legislative agenda—is that independent?

Although his 2008 campaign material downplayed his part affiliation—to the point that his party affiliation was not even shown on his campaign signs, Anton Gunn serves in the state legislature, not as an “independent” but as a Democrat.

And what kind of Democrat is Gunn? Is he a moderate in the mode of John F. Kennedy who urged Americans to “…ask not what your country can do for you…” or an Obama clone who urges Americans to organize and demand services and handouts from their government? That answer is pretty clear.

Inspired by the example of Barak Obama, Gunn has followed the same career trajectory: college, then “non-profit” “community organization” work that taps a leftist network of nationwide funding from George Soros’ Foundation and other supporters of a socialist agenda, then a political career under the guise of a moderate (independent) while supporting the most radical of legislation.

Is it “independent” to urge taxpayer funding for health insurance for the children of criminals who break immigration laws? Is it “independent” to urge the United States to sign onto a “Global Warming” pact in Copenhagen that would cripple the US economy under the guise of fighting the hoax of man-made climate change? Is it “independent” to support the Card-Check effort to destroy secret ballot protection in employee voting on whether to form or join a union? Is it “independent” to saddle hard-pressed companies with higher and higher taxes and fees to pay for government costs, especially at a time when more and more South Carolinians find themselves unable to find a job?

These are all positions that, when placed before the voters, the voters reject. But our elected politicians have shown this year that public opinion takes a back seat to political agendas. This year has shown that politicians who run as “moderates” or “independents” have no hesitancy to set aside the mask once in office and free from fear of voter rejection.

This month, Gunn is featured in a glowing article in the “American Prospect” magazine that mentions his name as being floated “for higher office.” That would be great in an “independent” magazine, but is that what this magazine is? Once again; far from it. The magazine was founded by Robert Reich (served as Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary); Paul Starr (advised President Clinton); and Robert Kuttner (advisor to President Jimmy Carter and former writer/editor for far-left Pacific radio).

The “American Prospect” touts itself as “an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas” with the oxymoronic sub-heading “Liberal Intelligence” on the cover. The magazine claims that “across two decades, the ‘Prospect’ has served as a vital link between ideas and political activism...” and states its belief that “there is a greater range of genuinely transformative policies than is often imagined.” Yes…that is independent all right.

The “American Prospect” article takes the opportunity to slip in cheap shots and slurs (tea-bagger) at me; shots and slurs that Gunn refuses to disavow even as he promises to avoid negative and polarizing rhetoric on the campaign trail.

Anton Gunn campaigned in 2008 (with the help of tens of thousands of dollars in pro-Obama funding from outside his state and district) and campaigns today as an “independent,” but instead he is as wedded to the economy-destroying and liberty-eroding Obama agenda as any politician in America today. As an American, I have no objection to Gunn holding radical views—every private citizen has the right to hold any views he or she pleases. But it is dishonest for someone with Gunn’s left-wing background and associations to claim to be someone or something else.

If re-elected in 2010, Gunn will have no reason to hide his far-leftist views and associations any longer. He will have proven that the Obama model of running as a moderate then governing as far left as possible can be done even in South Carolina. Voters in the 79th District can do something about this “false friend” who puts on one face for the folks at home and revels in the fringe left adoration of a national stage. They can walk away and get a true friend who does not say one thing to them and another thing to the big political donors outside the state.

South Carolinians have every reason to wonder why Anton Gunn hides his political affiliations and beliefs from the voters he supposedly represents. This November, residents of the 79th District should ask themselves how they can trust a man who does not even trust them enough to tell them his party. But even if Gunn won’t tell us who he really is, we are able to educate ourselves based on what he does and who he pals around with.

The informed citizen is the cornerstone of Democracy. That is what Gunn is afraid of. After losing office this November, he will find that he is the one who needs a true friend.

Is It A Baby Or A Budget Item?

2010-03-26T21:47:00.000-04:00

In a press release that may well set a state record for double talk and lack of clear thinking, Anton Gunn last week complained that some representatives tried to stop using state taxpayer money to pay for abortions that take the lives of future South Carolinians.

In his words: “It didn’t help us to become more fiscally responsible.” He complained that the 12-hour debate was not worth the staff time spent.

Any parent who kisses an infant to sleep at night or who mourns the endless ache of the un-timely death of a child could tell Mr. Gunn that this is not a question of cost but of conscience.

Who but an incumbent who has spent too much time in government can weight the life of a child against half a day of staff time and find the staff’s time the more valuable.

South Carolinians who see abortion used too often not as a necessary medical procedure but as way to dispose of an inconvenient consequence of personal action find use of their taxes to pay for someone else’s irresponsible attitude as an abhorrent crime against nature.

This November, South Carolinians can have their say on what is more precious: one man’s personal career on the public’s dime, or protection of the most vulnerable of our society. The answer won’t take twelve hours.

If I am entrusted to represent the constituents of District 79, I will protect the interests of all South Carolinians—even those too small to have a voice.

South Carolina Government Lacks Women

2010-02-26T15:28:00.000-05:00

This following was published in the Camden Chronicle Indpendent 10/28/2009 in response to an editorial piece about Republican women in the United States.

The recent article by nationally syndicated columnist, Kathleen Parker, highlighted Republican women and Ms. Parker’s opinion of their potential to bring new energy to the Republican Party in specific areas of the country.

I read the column with interest because of my work to encourage more women to become involved in South Carolina government. However, I wonder if Ms. Parker, who happens to be a Camden resident, is aware that a bigger issue in the governance of her home state is that women are grossly underrepresented by both major political parties.

South Carolina ranks 50th – last – in the nation in terms of women in public office. In the 2009/2010 Legislature, South Carolina is the only state in the nation with a single-gender chamber – the South Carolina Senate. In addition, there are only 17 women members of the South Carolina House of Representatives. This means only 10% of the Legislature is female. To top it off – there aren’t any statewide elected offices held by South Carolina women.

Only one woman, Elizabeth Patterson (D), has ever been elected to Congress in her own right. She served in the US House of Representatives from 1987 to 1993.

Only three women in South Carolina history have been elected to statewide office: Lt. Governor Nancy Stevenson (1979-1982), Superintendent of Education Barbara Nielsen (1991-1999), and Superintendent of Education Inez Tennebaum (1999-2007).

The blatant lack of women’s input into critical decisions for South Carolina is especially surprising when South Carolina women make up 51.3% of the state’s population and 56% of the voting population.

Not that anyone should vote for a candidate strictly because of their gender but I would hope that, in light of the facts I’ve presented, a male or female voter who finds a candidate that represents their values will also consider gender before casting their vote.