Carolina Politics Online

Meet Susie — the poster dog for animal rights in North Carolina.

You might remember her as the badly burned and beaten puppy found in a south Greensboro park last summer. The pit bull-shepherd mix captured the hearts of many, and they rallied to save her.

Now Susie’s supporters will gather Sunday to rally again — this time to advocate for tougher animal cruelty laws in North Carolina. They’re going door-to-door in Guilford County with information on the state’s laws, which allowed Susie’s abuser to get off with what they say is a light sentence.

Earlier this month, a judge sentenced Lashawn Whitehead to probation for felony animal cruelty, a judgment that followed the state’s structured sentencing laws. Whitehead, 21 , also received six to eight months in prison for setting personal property on fire. That personal property was Susie.

The News-Record

I’m in favor of a little “eye-for-an-eye” in cases like this. Forget the six-to-eight months in the clink; let’s pour some gasoline on this son of a bitch and light a match. Let’s see how he likes it. Maybe we’ll add a little something extra and douse the fire with vinegar instead of water.

“We want everybody to understand how minimal the penalties are for cruelty to animals,” said Roberta Wall , a Greensboro real estate agent who fostered Susie until she was placed in a permanent home with Donna Lawrence .

Under structured sentencing, the judge did not have the option to give Whitehead prison time on the cruelty charge, which is a Class I felony, the lowest level.

Under what has been dubbed “Susie’s Law,” that charge would be bumped up to a Class F felony, which allows a judge to hand out an active prison sentence.

A few weeks back I sent out some candidate questionnaires to the 13 candidates running for Congress in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District.  They were lengthy and very detailed and I felt would be a great source of information on each candidate running in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

Unfortunately, to date I have only received one back.  I am disappointed in the response because I am not one to give softball questions (which may be why I only got one back) and I think these questionnaires could be used as excellent educational resources for those of you wanting to read up on the candidates running.  But, without further ado, here are the responses from Republican candidate Paul Thurmond.  It’s a long read, but well worth it.  If you wanted to know it, the answer is probably here.

Health care and insurance costs have been rising steadily each year.  What is your opinion of the current proposal that is currently being reconciled between the House and Senate?  What, if anything, would you propose differently to help bring down health care costs?

I cannot and will not support a plan, like the one offered by Congressional Democrats that is currently being considered.  Should either the current House bill or Senate Bill be enacted before I am elected, I will work to repeal these bills when I get to office.

The current proposals, increase government control while doing nothing to address the biggest problem with our system- rising costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Obama Administration’s own actuaries have said that the Democrats’ plan would raise costs for American families, and raise the amount we spend on health care in general.

Instead of forcing people into plans they may not want and out of the plans they currently enjoy, we should enact real reform that decreases costs for all Americans while focusing on patients instead of government. I would support a plan that increases the number of insured Americans while decreasing the cost everyone pays.  Such a plan will include reforming allowing people to buy plans across state lines, and providing states the tools necessary to lower health care costs. Unfortunately the Democrats’ plan does none of these.

Do you feel that the Federal government has an obligation to provide a public health insurance option for those who cannot obtain their own?

Long ago, our government created health care systems to provide quality care for the elderly, and the chronically poor.  These long-standing commitments cannot now be broken.  That said, we also must recognize the reality that currently nearly half of the funding spent on health care is spent by the federal government, and that spending is increasing at a rate much higher than the dollars being spent by the private sector.

If another government run insurance plan were created, what little health care cost containment we have now, would be completely lost and we would forever surrender 1/6^th of our economy to the Federal government.  What we should do, instead, is focus on lowering the cost of health insurance so that those who cannot afford it now can do so in the future.

The current Congress has come under heavy scrutiny over its spending practices.  The current National Debt is over $12 trillion and the debt ceiling was recently raised to over $14 trillion.  Does this concern you?  Why or why not?

The current Democrat controlled Congress and White House makes the fundamental mistake of thinking that they can spend our way out of the current recession.  They spent 2009 passing trillion dollar bill, after trillion dollar bill and when President Obama’s budget, the health care bill and the cap-and-trade bills are combined they have threatened to raise taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade.

This spending and taxation are unsustainable, we must enact across the broad cuts in spending and taxation.  On the spending side, Congress needs to sunset duplicative government programs, eliminate under-performing agencies, and address the runaway spending of entitlements.  On the tax side, we must create an environment where small business is allowed to expand, hire more employees and become more profitable.

For the 2009 fiscal year 62% of the Federal budget was allocated towards Social Security, Medicare, and defense, the three biggest expenditures of the Federal government by far.  These percentages are increasing each year.  How can the Federal government continue to fund these programs at their current rate particularly with Medicare having a projected insolvency date of 2017 and Social Security in 2037? (these figures come from a May 13, 2009 publication in the Wall Street Journal)

There is not a government program more important to the future of our nation than the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare are individually.   One of the explicit powers of the Federal government mentioned in the Constitution is providing for the common defense and as I said previously, we have made long-term commitments to our senior citizens, and I will not allow these commitments to be broken.

However, the fact that these programs are important does not mean they are without waste, fraud and abuse.  Congress must take a line-by-line review of these programs in order to eliminate these cost overruns.  The savings we see from these cuts must not be used to pay for new Federal spending.

At a time when our servicemen and women are putting themselves in harm’s way in order to protect our freedom and security, we must cut carefully.  Ensuring we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1990s where the Defense budget was cut to the point that we found ourselves unable to effectively protect our servicemen and women after September 11^th.  In fact, defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been falling since the 1960s.

The world has been witnessing increased aggression from nations like Iran and North Korea. Do you agree with the idea of the Monroe Doctrine that the United States has an obligation to police the world against these types of perceived threats?

As the last remaining Superpower, the United States has a responsibility to deal proactively with nations that have the potential to harm our citizens or international stability.  In many corners of the world, the only appeal for peace understood by dictators is a stern call from our Secretary of State, or a United States aircraft carrier, parked off their coast.

While I am uncertain if any appeal will be heard by the current rulers of Iran and North Korea, we must use all available options to calm the threat posed by these rouge states.  In doing so, military force should be the last resort, used only when international dialog, economic sanctions and all other options have been proven fruitless.

Were Israel to launch an attack against Iran over their goal of uranium enrichment capabilities, how should the U.S. respond?

Israel is the United States top ally in the Middle East and I am deeply concerned about an Iranian regime that continues to defy the United Nations and the international community by developing a nuclear weapons program.  I support all international efforts to eliminate this development that poses a grave threat to Israel and to the United States. I support every option available to prevent Iran from achieving success with its nuclear weapons program and would have co-sponsored and supported the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, and the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.  I support Israel’s right to determine its security needs by its own standards.  I also find it unhelpful for other governments, such as Russia and China to conduct back door dealings with Iran and at the same time try to dictate when Israel should or should not use force.

South Carolina’s unemployment rate is over 12%.  What can the government do to bring that number down and help put people in our state back to work?

Government should not be in the business of job creation.  Government should be in the business of creating the environment where small businesses are allowed to flourish by giving them the tools to succeed.  I would advocate allowing credit to be made more available to small businesses as well as encouraging small business tax credits.  I would also work to defeat harmful policies such as climate taxes, cap-and-trade, card check and government run health care legislation that have frozen the level of confidence that small business have which has resulted in small businesses not hiring new employees.  Also transportation and infrastructure projects would immediately help create new long lasting jobs in areas such as high speed rail and modernizing America’s bridge and highway systems.

Do you feel it is in the best interest of the United States to continue sending foreign aid to other nations despite our rising national debt?

I feel that strategic foreign aid is an investment of tax payer dollars for the national security interests of the United States.  I support a strong system of transparency where the public is entitled to know where every dollar of foreign aid is spent.  I strongly support former President George W. Bush’s vision for the Millennium Challenge Corporation.  His criterion for foreign aid through the MCC was only to nations that demonstrated: good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizens were eligible for foreign aid. By using this model for partnerships it allows developing nations to be strategic allies of the United States and prevents them from becoming havens for terrorism.

Some have criticized NAFTA saying it is responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  Do you agree or disagree with that sentiment and what is your overall opinion of NAFTA?

Trade pumps more than $45 billion into the South Carolina economy every year and employs more than 260,800 South Carolinians.  Almost all of these dollars flow through the Port of Charleston and the Port of Georgetown from countries with which we have trade agreements.  Additionally, while trade is often demonized as an American jobs killer, the facts do not support this argument, since the enactment of NAFTA, only 3 percent of job losses can be attributed to free trade.

Instead of returning to the failed protectionist policies, we must create a climate that incentivizes companies to move their manufacturing operations to South Carolina.   The first step in this process is fighting against harmful policies such as a cap and trade tax, card check and government run health care legislation all of which will kill more manufacturing jobs than trade ever has.

Were you supportive of TARP, the automotive bailout, and the stimulus bill and/or do you feel they have been effective?

Washington repeatedly touts statistics which they claim prove that the Stimulus and the bailouts have worked.  But even if these facts are to be trusted, the only thing they can tell us is that these bills just kick the can down the road.  Avoiding tough questions to stay in office, while saddling future generations with debt, has unfortunately become the rule in Washington. Instead, these issues should be addressed head on to truly solve problems before they become unmanageable.

I do not believe these skewed statistics and judge these programs to be failures.  TARP was supposed to bring back responsible lending in this country, yet homebuyers and small business owners still find it nearly impossible to secure credit.  Our domestic automakers are once again turning profits but have become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Federal Government.  The Stimulus was touted as necessary to keep unemployment below 8 percent.  South Carolina’s unemployment rate for the past few months has hovered above 12 percent.

Instead of government enlargement, we need to remove government from the private sector.  Give the freedom to build the cars that the American people want to buy at a price they can afford back to American car companies.  Jobs can be created by allowing businesses to spend more of their capital on growing their business and less spent to pay the tax man.  Finally, Wall Street needs to learn that the Federal Government is not their insurance agent.

If I had been in Congress, I would have voted NO on TARP, NO on any automotive bailout, and NO on the Stimulus.

Should the Federal government raise taxes to make up for the rising Federal budget deficits?

No.  Increasing taxes will only stifle innovation and economic growth.  Without this growth, our tax base will shrink as businesses lay off existing workers or forgo hiring new workers, which also leads to more government expenditures due to the payout of unemployment benefits.

As a real world example of this fact, the Obama Administration’s proposal to increase the top two tax brackets from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively.  According to the Administration, this tax increase will make the “rich” pay their fair share while helping to balance the Federal Budget.   However, when the facts are examined, it is evident that 44% of small business owners would see a tax increase due to this proposal.  As such, this targeted-at-the-rich tax increase will in fact hit those which are responsible for 80 percent of new hires.

Should the Federal government cut spending to balance the budget?  If so, what specifically should it cut?

Yes.  We cannot return fiscal order to our government without making cuts to the Federal budget.  The first step should be ending duplication in Federal programs.  While, the Federal government should help retrain workers to capture new job opportunities, it is absurd that there are 15 different Federal entities managing 165 different job-training programs, similarly there are 342 economic development programs run by the Federal government through 13 autonomous government entities.  Cutting the duplication out of these programs could save billions of dollars in overhead and administrative savings alone.  This is just a first step; we must also cut those Federal Departments which only serve to further their own interest.  For example, of every taxpayer dollar which finds its way to the Department of Education, 30 cents never leave D.C.  Instead these funds are used to pay Washington bureaucrats.

Would you be in favor of a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget by the Federal government?

Congress should be forced to live within its means, just as every local government, state government and American family already does.  I applaud our Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint for leading this charge in the Senate and when elected, I promise to sponsor or cosponsor an Amendment to our Constitution requiring a balanced budget.

Do the American people have a reasonable expectation to privacy?

Our Founding Fathers wrote strong protections against government intrusion in our daily lives into the Constitution; and if elected I will place my hand upon the Bible and swear to uphold those protections.  Our nation now faces an enemy which uses tactics and strategies that our national security apparatus have never encountered and were certainly never envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  However, these new threats do not make our Constitution obsolete and I will spend my time in office ensuring that our government continues to maintain a responsible balance between security and privacy.

Do you agree or disagree with the TSA’s push to deploy more full body scanners at airports across the country?

TSA’s efforts to deploy more full body scanners will be another tool to increase aviation security.  The current magnetometers in the Nation’s airports – which detect only metal objects – are antiquated and are a 1970s solution to the current day security challenges.  While the whole body scanners may not be the silver bullet, they far surpass the abilities of the Nation’s current airport screening technologies.  Whole body imagers can detect liquids, powders, gels, ceramics, small improvised explosive devices and likely would have detected the explosive on the Christmas Day Detroit terror bomber.  While passengers may have legitimate privacy concerns, privacy issues are being addressed with the TSA and no passenger will ever be forced to undergo whole body scanning.  Pat downs remain an option.

Should TSA engage in profiling?

TSA’s Behavior Detection program is a relatively new layer of aviation security.  Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) observe passenger behavior at airport checkpoints and throughout airports in uniform and in plain clothes.  Based in part on Israel’s human factors layer of security, BDOs are trained to detect certain behaviors in the stressful airport environment to determine if a passenger may have ill intent. While the BDO program would not be considered profiling, it is an important step in engaging passengers directly within the confines of U.S. law.

Should illegal immigrants in the country be given a pathway to citizenship and what can be done to stop the flow of illegal immigration?  Should it be stopped?

We are a nation of immigrants. However, without the rule of law, our nation loses the vital character imbued in it by the Constitution.   Rewarding those who enter our country by breaking these laws with amnesty degrades the value of citizenship and damages our country.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States….”  In terms of providing for the general Welfare, what does that mean to you?

To me, government should provide for the people that which they cannot provide for themselves.  Too often the Federal government is considered the first option when in fact it should be considered only when the private sector, local government and state government have proven themselves incapable of handling a problem.

What, in your opinion, is the primary role of the Federal government and have they stayed within or strayed from the constraints of that role?

The primary role of the federal government, as laid out in the Constitution, is to foster a society where all Americans are free to use their inalienable rights. What the Federal Government cannot do, though it has increasingly been attempted (resulting in outsized deficits, an unmanageable debt, and increasing dependents on government largesse), is to guarantee individual outcomes. If elected, I will fight to ensure that the Federal Government is one that promotes strong families, individual achievement, growth in the economy, and everything that makes America the exceptional country that it has been since 1776. But I will also strongly oppose government that replaces these things with bureaucracy and unaffordable government from Washington that ignores what makes this country great.

While most of our York County discussions typically center around the unscrupulous, incredulous, and very cagey Paul Lindemann, there is actually another seat on the York County Council that will also be quite competitive in the upcoming June primary. Rock Hill School Board and State Board of Education member Dr. Britt Blackwell announced his candidacy last week to take on Councilman Buddy Motz for the Republican nomination.

Motz came within 42 votes of losing his seat in 2008 to Alex Haefele who is also running again this year. Motz and Haefele were at odds over an expansion of the runway at the Rock Hill/York County Airport. This year, the big issue will likely be the flop with the Crystal Lakes housing development in Newport.  I imagine a lot of blame is going to be thrown in Motz’s direction.

Blackwell had a kick off event on Friday in which more than 70 people showed up which is pretty good for a county office candidate on a weekday afternoon.  Among the crowd were State Representatives Gary Simrill, Debbie Long, and Phil Owens shoring up support for Blackwell.  It was a sure sign that people are looking for some change in our county’s governance.

If elected, Blackwell intends to focus on job creation by aggressively recruiting businesses to York County.  He wants to reduce county taxes by weeding out waste and making the county government operate more efficiently.  He is also an advocate of open and transparent government and pledges not to be beholden to any special interest groups.

This is just incredible.

Spratt defended his support of the Affordable Health Care for America Act, a bill that has been debated by U.S. Congress for months. He champions the bill, as well as President Barack Obama’s involvement in trying to pass the bill in Congress.

“I would have liked to see the bill done a bit differently, but he’s (Obama) done a magnificent job on it,” Spratt said. “This is something Presidents Truman, Nixon, Ford and Clinton have tried to do before, and I give him credit for trying.”

The Lancaster News

Those are the words Congressman John Spratt used to describe ObamaCare while speaking at the Lancaster County 2010 Democratic Convention.  I think this man needs to stop puffing on the magic dragon.  The entire process of this health care plan has been carried out in a fashion of Mafia thuggery masquerading as the legislative process.  It’s been filled with backroom deals, bribes, and threats and intimidation.

If this is what Bubba thinks is magnificent then he has either been in Washington too long and/or senility is setting in.

…but has been very busy. 

Never fear though, fair readers. For I have heard your cries, and I will proceed as promised with a candidate questionnaire. I’ve also got a few other projects up my sleeve. More about those this weekend.

Also, St. Patrick’s Day is almost here, so I need to clear next week schedule for a full seven days of drinking. So if you don’t hear from me all next week… well, you know.

Wilmington’s Juggling Gypsy hookah bar is the first establishment in the area fined for violating the state’s new indoor smoking ban.

The Castle Street bar received two violations from the New Hanover County Health Department carrying a total of $400 in administrative penalties, under the ban that went into effect Jan. 2.

Juggling Gypsy Manager Denny Best said the bar would appeal the fine and ask for a hearing with the health department.

If unsuccessful there, Best said this week the bar would appeal further to the court system and planned on holding a fundraiser later this month to raise money for legal fees if it gets that far.

The Star News

Gasp! Smoking? In a hookah bar?!?! Why… I’ve never heard of such a thing. Surely the benevolent busybodies of government can protect all us peons from the scourge of the dastardly people forcing customers into their bars and exposing them to second-hand smoke.
[/sarcasm]

Good luck to the Gypsy. I’ll keep my on this case and let you know how to donate to their defense fun if it gets that far.

The North Carolina we all fell in love with on The Andy Griffith Show lives on in Person and Caswell Counties.

The former district attorney for Person and Caswell counties stopped drivers by flashing a gold badge and tried to use dismissed cases to win re-election, according to a search warrant filed Tuesday.

The State Bureau of Investigation has been investigating Joel Brewer since last fall, officials said, but the reason for the probe hadn’t previously been disclosed. Brewer, who retired last month, has said he is cooperating fully with the investigation.

SBI agents searched Brewer’s office at the Person County Courthouse two weeks ago, seizing two folders containing pink copies of citations, notes, phone messages and letters, according to the search warrant. One file was for male defendants, and the other was for female defendants, the warrant states.

Two people told investigators that Brewer would keep the pink copies in his office after dismissing charges and would call the defendants up during a campaign to remind them of the cases. He wanted the defendants to vote for him and to work at the polls for him on Election Day, the people told investigators.

WRAL.com

The first shot has been fired in the battle to uphold states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment. Call or email your state legislators and tell them that we want North and South Carolina to follow suit and unite against this encroachment of the Federal government.

RICHMOND — The Virginia General Assembly has given final approval to a bill that would make it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a measure intended to conflict with Democratic efforts to reform health care in Washington.

Thirty-four other states are weighing similar legislation to block the individual mandate, which is an element of bills that have passed both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. But Virginia is the first state to complete legislative action on such a bill.

Gov. Robert F. McDonnell said Wednesday that he intends to sign the legislation.

The Washington Post

Wake Superintendent Del Burns, who until Tuesday ran one of the nation’s highest-profile school systems, will serve out his tenure on administrative leave for making what board members said were “totally inappropriate” public criticisms.

Members announced after a closed meeting Tuesday night that Burns, 56, will remain available for consultation and will be paid until his previously announced resignation date of June 30.

The session was the third closed meeting that board members had held on Burns’ tenure since Feb. 16, when he abruptly announced his resignation and his intention to remain in the job until June 30. At that time, Burns said he was resigning because he could not in good conscience carry out the directives of the new school board majority.

Two days later, he gave pointed interviews objecting to the majority’s plans to make extensive changes in Wake County’s diversity-based assignment patterns and other policies including mandatory year-round schools.

The N&O

Bad-mouth your new bosses in public, go bye-bye.

Del Burns has presided over four straight years of declining graduation rates, but he is being paid more than the governor of N.C. and slightly less than the President of United States. Wake County residents can thank the old status-quo board for that genius move.

Don’t let the door hit ya where the dog should of bit ya, Del.

On Saturday, D’Annunzio got into a flap with officials at the Cumberland County Republican Convention in Fayetteville.

During a forum, candidates drew cards with random questions. When rival Lou Huddleston of Fayetteville was asked if he supports eliminating federal agencies, he replied without mentioning D’Annunzio.

When D’Annunzio tried to respond, organizers told him according to their ground rules, he couldn’t. Party chair Suzanne Rucker took his microphone. He walked off the stage.

On his blog, D’Annunzio said the forum was “put together to enable the home town candidate to attack me while not giving me any opportunity to respond with the truth.”

Charlotte Observer

If the rules were followed consistently throughout the forum then I have to call bullshit on this accusation of there being some kind of conspiracy theory in favor of Lou Huddleston, which is who D’Annunzio is referring to.  The rules are the rules.  They drew questions at random.  Nobody can control who got what question and if they weren’t allowed to opine on the questions of other candidates then that’s the way it is.  It’s not the way I would conduct a debate, but the rules should have been understood before it started.  On the other hand, if they were allowing other candidates to do follow ups and not D’Annunzio then he has a point to be upset.  All of that aside, I think he conducted himself poorly by walking off the stage and it’s more negative press that he doesn’t need.  He’s already been getting poked pretty hard by the alternative media.

Lou Huddleston, of course, is taking advantage of this and calling for D’Annunzio to drop out of the race.  That’s not necessary.  The voters are perfectly capable of making that decision on election day.

This incident is one of two obstacles to put a rut in the D’Annunzio campaign just this week.  His top political adviser Jack Hawke resigned from the campaign regarding a dispute over a blog that D’Annunzio has been writing called “Christ’s War” which according to the Charlotte Observer “combines politics with Biblical references and end-times theology.”

Hawke said he advised the candidate to take it down after a February Observer story quoted passages from it.

It disappeared from public view for a while but then reappeared. Another news story about the blog ran Thursday in Raleigh’s News & Observer.

“He took it down, told me it was down and down to stay,” said Hawke, who advised former Gov. Jim Martin and gubernatorial candidate Pat McCrory. “Next I knew it was in the N&O telling me it was back up. … I don’t think any candidate should get up at 3 or 4 in the morning, sit down in front of a computer and pour your heart out. It’s just not a smart thing to do.”

Charlotte Observer

Catherine Welborn, the Executive Director of Change the Congress in 2010, is putting together a “Meet the Candidates” forum in Charleston next month.

Change the Congress in 2010, a Federal PAC, is sponsoring this event that is free and open to the public.  Since many people never get to meet the candidates, this is a great opportunity to get ‘up close and personal’ and ask the candidates questions that may be important to you.

Candidates for any race and from any party are welcome to attend and Meet the Public.  Candidates must provide whatever they may need and are expected to take leftover campaign materials with them.  Contact Catherine Welborn at 843.270.1650 or by email at CWelborn@ChangetheCongressin2010.com (email preferred) for further information.

The forum will be held at the Custom House Steps on East Bay Street in Charleston on April 10th from 11am to 2pm.

Like I said last year and the year before they are never going to let this go.  From yesterday’s Post and Courier article, let’s start with the logical fallacies of one Dr. Charles Darby.

“The higher the taxes, the more lives that we can save. It’s time for South Carolina to do what is right for our state,” said Dr. Charles P. Darby Jr., Medical University of South Carolina professor emeritus of pediatrics and executive director of the Children’s Hospital Center for Child Advocacy.

“Those of us who do not smoke pay higher health insurance premiums and taxes to subsidize the habit of smoking,” he said. “It is time the smoker pays for some of the cost.”

The Post and Courier

So according to the good doctor the only way to possibly solve this problem is to hand over more money to the government.  There would seem to me to be a much more logical solution.  Why don’t the insurance companies simply raise their premiums on people who smoke?  What, is that just too easy?  Or is the problem if we go that route our elected officials can’t get their grubby little paws on the money and then redirect it to all of their own little pet projects so they can buy votes at election time?

“Every delay just allows more children to get hooked on cigarettes,” Darby said.

According to what data, Doc?  You think a thirty cent price increase on a pack of cigarettes is going to stop kids from smoking?  It’s a negligible amount.  I am a former smoker myself.  I started smoking in high school back in the early 1990s when Marlboros were a buck a pack.  When I eventually quite smoking in my 20s the price of Marlboros was approaching $5 a pack.  It wasn’t the price that got me to quit.  I just decided to start being more cautious of my health.

Now I am going to shock you.  Unlike in years past, I am not as vehemently opposed to this tax hike this time.  Here is why.

Rep. Chip Limehouse, a Charleston Republican and a ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, made the proposal to get the 30-cent increase in the budget. He said a cigarette tax increase is about the only tax increase he could support and that it’s more important than ever to pass it now. New cash for Medicaid will free up money for schools, law enforcement and other priorities.

If they give so much as a dime of this increase to the schools I am going to be thoroughly pissed.  They don’t need any more money, but other state departments do.  As one example, our jails in particular have been the recipients of excessively painful budget cuts and that effects the safety of every resident in South Carolina.  The state budget has been stripped by more than $2 billion over what it was two years ago, so the efforts have definitely been made to try and reel in spending.

There is also this.

The governor said again in his State of the State address in January that he wants a cigarette tax increase to be used to cut corporate income taxes to make the state more competitive.

“We’re very much of the same mind as we’ve been in years past — that being that we’d definitely be open to an increase in the cigarette tax if it was accompanied by a corresponding tax cut in some other area. In fact, we’ve proposed just such an action in years past,” Ben Fox, communications director for Sanford, said in an e-mail Monday.

The House on Thursday gave key approval to a plan that eliminates the corporate income tax, as a way to make the state more attractive to business, making a cigarette tax increase this year even more likely.

That is a plan I can support.  If the state were to inversely eliminate the corporate income tax in exchange for an increase in the cigarette tax then that is something I can probably roll with.  Unemployment in South Carolina just hit 12.6% and we need a more competitive business environment.  Eliminating the corporate income tax would definitely put us on that path.

The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.

This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is “fluid” and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn’t issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.

That’s a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.

ESPN

Of course it was a charade. Obama doesn’t give a damn about what the public thinks about anything. He’s demonstrated that pretty consistently throughout the past year.

So what is the point of this? The states have been managing the use of their waterways with little to no problem for over 200 years. Well, it turns out that this whole unconstitutional power grab is being orchestrated by the radical left environmental movement.

As ESPN previously reported, WWF, Greenpeace, Defenders of Wildlife, Pew Environment Group and others produced a document entitled “Transition Green” shortly after Obama was elected in 2008. What has happened since suggests that the task force has been in lockstep with that position paper.

Then in late summer, just after he created the task force, these groups produced “Recommendations for the Adoption and Implementation of an Oceans, Coasts, and Great Lakes National Policy.” This document makes repeated references to “overfishing,” but doesn’t once reference recreational angling, its importance, and its benefits, both to participants and the resource.

Additionally, some of these same organizations have revealed their anti-fishing bias by playing fast and loose with “facts,” in attempts to ban tackle containing lead in the United States and Canada.

That same tunnel vision, in which recreational angling and commercial fishing are indiscriminately lumped together as harmful to the resource, has persisted with the task force, despite protests by the angling industry.

As more evidence of collusion, the green groups began clamoring for an Executive Order to implement the task force’s recommendations even before the public comment period ended in February. Fishing advocates had no idea that this was coming.

The commercial and recreational fishing industries have already been taking a big hit in both North and South Carolina and the last thing we need is further encroachment by the Federal government.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has already exhibited plenty of incompetence in the way it enforces U.S. fisheries laws such to the effect that Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC-03) has called for a halt to all prosecutions of fishermen by the NOAA and a complete overhaul of how the laws are enforced.

Morlock fears that “what we’re seeing coming at us is an attempted dismantling of the science-based fish and wildlife model that has served us so well. There’s no basis in science for the agendas of these groups who are trying to push the public out of being able to fish and recreate.

“Conflicts (user) are overstated and problems are manufactured. It’s all just an excuse to put us off the water.”

In the wake of the task force’s framework document, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) and its partners in the U.S. Recreational Fishing & Boating Coalition against voiced their concerns to the administration.

“Some of the potential policy implications of this interim framework have the potential to be a real threat to recreational anglers who not only contribute billions of dollars to the economy and millions of dollars in tax revenues to support fisheries conservation, but who are also the backbone of the American fish and wildlife conservation ethic,” said CSF President Jeff Crane.

Morlock, a member of the CSF board, added, “There are over one million jobs in America supported coast to coast by recreational fishing. The task force has not included any accountability requirements in their reports for evaluating or mitigating how the new policies they are drafting will impact the fishing industry or related economies.

“Given that the scope of this process appears to include a new set of policies for all coastal and inland waters of the United States, the omission of economic considerations is inexcusable.”

This is not the only access issue threatening the public’s right to fish, but it definitely is the most serious, according to Chris Horton, national conservation director for BASS.

“With what’s being created, the same principles could apply inland as apply to the oceans,” he said. “Under the guise of ‘marine spatial planning’ entire watersheds could be shut down, even 2,000 miles up a river drainage from the ocean.

“Every angler needs to be aware because if it’s not happening in your backyard today or tomorrow, it will be eventually.

This is what happens when you put an out of touch ideologue beholden to radical special interests in the highest office in the land. The fact that Obama intends to implement this with an Executive Order completely bypassing Congress gives credence to the accusation that he is becoming an elected dictator, much like Hugo Chavez.

This won’t be used to just regulate fishing either. Rest assured that the bureaucratic entities created to manage all of this will also be used to thwart any oil or natural gas exploration off our coastal waters, thus effectively reinstating the Federal drilling ban that just expired less than two years ago.

There is already talk of a ban on bottom fishing all the way down the North and South Carolina coasts to Georgia.  Thousands of jobs in these states can potentially be effected by this at a time when they are experiencing double digit unemployment rates. That aside, there is also the element of this being yet another chipping away at the block of individual freedom and liberty that Americans have enjoyed for over two centuries and that the President and this Congress spit on daily.

If this is put into place it seems like El Presidente will get to decide when and where you go fishing. With the industry being so large I am hoping this will end up in the Supreme Court with a Constitutional challenge if Obama makes good on this move.

Public pressure might be building on Bubba or maybe it’s his shoddy polling numbers, but something is possibly causing Spratt to reevaluate his position on the health care legislation.  According to a few different publications, Spratt is being referred to now as a possible undecided vote on reconciling the health care bill with the Senate version.  Spratt voted in favor of destroying the American health care system late last year.

“We’re telling constituents that he is withholding judgment until he sees the final bill,” says a staff aide.

Christian Science Monitor

Obviously, there are a lot of Democrats who voted “yes” in the fall who have indicated that they want to vote “no” or are considering voting no: Jerry McNerney, Steve Kagan, Henry Cuellar, Kathy Dahlkemper, Dan Lipinski, Marion Berry, Baron Hill, Brad Ellsworth, Dina Titus, Michael Arcuri, Dennis Cardoza, James Oberstar, Bart Stupak, Shelley Berkeley, Dan Maffei, Earl Pomeroy, Nick Rahall, John Spratt and Kurt Schrader.

National Review

I will update the whip count near the end of the day, but Steve Kagen, along with John Spratt, may be undecided now.

Fire Dog Lake

If you live in South Carolina’s Fifth District, call John Spratt’s Congressional office and demand he vote no on the health care bill.  Tell him to stop representing San Francisco and start representing South Carolina.

Washington Office
1401 Longworth Bldg.
Washington, DC 20515
Tel. 202-225-5501
Fax 202-225-0464

Apparently Bubba has set up a call screening system in order to stop the influx of out of state residents from calling into his office about the health care bill.  I guess I can sort of understand.  He doesn’t represent people that live outside of the Fifth District.  Although now that I think about it, he doesn’t represent those of us in the Fifth District either.

A poll conducted last week by Rasmussen of the Republican gubernatorial primary in South Carolina shows Henry McMaster the current favorite.  Out of the four candidates he leads with 21% of the vote.  He also has the highest favorable ratings.  Lt Governor Andre Bauer comes in second with 17% of the vote, yet ironically has the highest unfavorable ratings by a mile with 21% of respondents viewing him very unfavorably and 22% somewhat unfavorably.

1* 2010 South Carolina GOP Primary for Governor

That will be a cold day in Hell.  This man is becoming more incredible by the day.

I can say with the utmost certainty right now that I will not be fingerprinted by the Federal government and treated like a common criminal just so I can have a job and if Lindsey Graham thinks that the people of this state are going to stand for this he is sorely mistaken.

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.

The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.

The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.

“It’s the nub of solving the immigration dilemma politically speaking,” Mr. Schumer said in an interview. The card, he said, would directly answer concerns that after legislation is signed, another wave of illegal immigrants would arrive. “If you say they can’t get a job when they come here, you’ll stop it.”

The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.

“It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people’s privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”

The Wall Street Journal

Damn right it will. That’s the same thing that happened with Social Security. Your Social Security number was only supposed to be used within the parameters of that program and it ended up turning into a national identifier for just about every aspect of our lives, credit, employment, loans, etc. This proposal is a back door to the National ID that people have been pushing back against.

We don’t need an Orwellian government tracking program to stop illegal immigration. We just need to enforce the existing laws on the books.

Lindsey Graham needs to be stopped.  He is morphing into an oppressive fascist who no longer has any respect for our Constitution nor the freedom of the American people.