Tuesday, May 30, 2006

School Choice

2006 ELECTION FOR STATE SUPERINTENDENT
School choice focus of forum
GOP candidates differ on using tax credits for private schools
By BILL ROBINSON
brobinson@thestate.com
SCETV debate page
Archived stories and debate footage (as available)
ABOUT THE DEBATES
2006 ELECTION FOR STATE SUPERINTENDENT

School choice — at least a version that would grant tax credits to some parents who enroll their children in private schools — revealed clear differences for viewers who watched Sunday’s televised debate featuring five Republicans running for state superintendent of education.

Karen Floyd of Spartanburg and Kerry Wood of Batesburg-Leesville said they would have voted for the tax-credit plan the Legislature rejected this year.

Bob Staton of Lexington and Mike Ryan of Surfside Beach side with the legislative majority that opposed it, while Elizabeth Moffly of Mount Pleasant supports tax credits as a concept but opposed the version that failed this year.

The topic animated the hour-long debate on the state’s ETV network and provided viewers with a glimpse of how uneasy discussing the hot-button topic makes some of the candidates.

Floyd initially sidestepped giving an answer, claiming the proposal that has dominated debate within the Legislature for two years “was an evolving piece of legislation” that made taking a stand difficult. When pressed about the version that failed to gain legislative support, Floyd said “I would have supported it.”......

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Shame on you,Tom Tancredo

Congressman Tancredo,
Indiana Congressman Mike Pence is a hero to me and other conservatives all across the country.You used to be.
Disagreeing with Congressman Pence's new approach to immigration is one thing, slandering the plan and the man and posting the most unflattering picture you can find of the man is another.
I am one of those conservatives who have constantly defended you from my Republican establishment friends and other critics of yours who say all negatives things about you.

They said you were a demagogue who wanted the issue more than the solution.
I said you were a Patriot fighting in the trenches for us.

They said you were a conservative only in it for money
I said you were a man of integrity

They said the most dangerous place to be in America was not in a big city ally at 3am but rather between you,Tom Tancredo and a reporter or television camera.
I told them they were wrong you were simply dedicated in your work.

They said you were ineffective
I said no way

They all said you were a joke and not a man personally not worthy of the title of Congressman.

I told all of them every time with out exception they were wrong.

It appears they were RIGHT and I was wrong.

Saying Pence "redefined amnesty to suit his interests" is false.Pence is a man of integrity and only does what he thinks is good for the country.
Congressman Pence mentioned your name during his speech saying he just spent a half an hour talking with you and that you were "looking it over"(Pence's plan). Obviously, Pence would not have used your name in the speech if you had used this type of rhetoric when talking with him in person.Which brings me to my next questions, Did you tell Pence you were going to be adamantly opposed when talking with him? or did you simply blind side him? Did you take your case to Pence in private? or simply send out the press releases?

Pence's plan while not perfect (he freely admits it is a compromise on his part)It is the only plan that can viably pass conference while keeping HR 4437 intact.You say Pence's plan isn't security first, you know that isn't true,Pence's plan would keep 4437 intact save for two exceptions (felony provision,and Good samaritan provision).

Pence's plan does the following:
1 seal the border(4437)
2 enforce existing interior laws(4437)
3 grant NO path to citizenship
4 remove all 12 million illegals from America
5 require all illegals to return home before being eligible for guest worker
6 end anchor baby citizenship

You call this amnesty! Apparently you do not want a guestworker at any cost and that is an ok position to have but do not call a plan amnesty just because you do not agree with it.Pence realizes for 4437 to pass conference he would have to compromise. Pence plan is to trade
1 a sealed border
2 enforced interior laws
3 granting no path to citizenship
4 requiring all illegals to go home
5 the END of undocumented aliens


in exchange for
1 a limited guest worker program for those who return home and apply

Not Perfect. but with the liberal Senate we have it is the best we can do.
What is the alternative? Allow the Democrats to team up with Open border Republicans and grant real AMNESTY? Apparently that is what you want so you can keep the issue alive.
Disagree with Pence if you like,but do it honestly and above reproach. This is not amnesty and Pence is a man of integrity and a hero. You used to be. Perhaps you can answer the questions I posed to you next time you are in South Carolina. I will be the guy in the front row with 20 or so of my Christian conservative friends wearing Pence buttons and we will come up to you after and ask "why do you have no shame"

Mike Rains
former Tancredo fan

The guest worker program conservatives should embrace

The following address was delivered today at the Heritage Foundation.

I come before you today in the midst of a national debate over immigration reform. While I acknowledge that, as the New York Times stated Sunday, we are near the "end game" on immigration reform in the United States Senate, we are far from reaching the kind of compromise that would make a legislative outcome possible in this session of Congress. I bring these remarks in the hopes of offering a new approach and a real middle ground on immigration reform.

One week ago President Bush set out his views on immigration reform to the American people. He stated: "There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation."

I agree with the President that a rational middle ground can be found between amnesty and mass deportation, but I disagree with the President that amnesty is the middle ground. Amnesty is not the real rational middle ground. In the coming days I will introduce the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, which as I will discuss today sets forth a real rational middle ground between amnesty and mass deportations.

The Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act is a bill that is tough on border security and tough on employers who hire illegal aliens, but recognizes the need for a guest worker program that operates without amnesty and without growing into a huge new government bureaucracy. I believe that it is a strong alternative to the amnesty plan being debated by the Senate and pushed by the President, and I hope that it will serve as an attractive alternative to Members of the House.

As the grandson of an Irish immigrant, I believe in the ideals that are enshrined on the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. Located on a plaque on Lady Liberty's pedestal are the words of Emma Lazarus from the "New Colossus":

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

America always has been and always will be a welcoming nation, welcoming under the law any and all with the courage enough to come to this shining city on a hill. But, a nation without borders is not a nation, and across this country Americans are anxious about the security of our border.

Every night Americans see news images of people crossing the border illegally; they hear tales of people paying thousands of dollars to so-called "coyotes" to smuggle them into the country; they worry that drugs will make their way into the hands of their children more readily; and they rightly fear that our porous borders make it more likely that terrorists will cross with deadly intentions against our families.

In 2005, Customs and Border Patrol stopped 1,189,114 people from illegally crossing the border. Of that number, approximately 165,000 were from countries other than Mexico. Over 200 were from Middle Eastern countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that twelve million illegal aliens are currently living in America. Just a few months ago, that estimate was eleven million. In a few more months or years, that estimate will grow to thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, twenty or more million illegal aliens, unless we do something to turn the tide.

And, we must do something because this is a problem of epic proportions. It is a problem that threatens the very fabric of America. Every time I am home in Indiana, I hear about this issue from my constituents. Hoosiers are concerned. Americans are concerned. I am concerned.

We can control our borders. At the same time, we can find a real rational middle ground for dealing with the illegal immigrants currently in America. A lot of people in Washington are talking about what we can do, but the solutions they are offering, up to this point, are not workable and they are not acceptable to millions of hard-working Americans who believe in law and order and the American Dream.

The Senate is debating a bill that will provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Amnesty is no solution. It only will worsen the problem because it will cause more people to come here illegally with the hope of someday having their status adjusted.

I see the solution as a four-step process. Securing our border is the first step. The second step is to make the decision, once and for all, to deny amnesty to people whose first act in the United States was a violation of the law. The third step is to put in place a guest worker program, without amnesty, that will efficiently provide American employers with willing guest workers who come to America legally. The final step is tough employer sanctions that ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in the enforcement of our laws on immigration and guest workers.

On border security, the House of Representatives got off to a great start in December 2005 when we passed H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005. The Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee were able to put together a strong bill that will secure our borders.

The House-passed bill was a first step. In fact, my bill begins by including the House bill, with a couple of minor changes. The House got it right, and aside from removing the felony provision for illegal presence and clarifying that no one is trying to put Good Samaritans behind bars, I am keeping this language as-is. We must take a tough approach on securing this nation's borders. I have said it once today and will say it again, "A nation without borders is not a nation."

Therefore, we must make America a nation with borders. We must man the door. I believed that in December 2005 when I voted for the House bill, and I believe it now.

The President called for 6,000 more Border Patrol agents and the use of the National Guard in the interim. I welcome that call and support it, but it is not enough. The House-passed bill adds port of entry inspectors, ends catch and release, puts to use American technology such as unmanned aerial vehicles, and requires the building of a security fence across approximately 700 miles of our Southern border.

These are the kind of actions that will bring about a new day on our border. Instead of "coyotes," drug-runners and criminals ruling the border, American law enforcement will rule the border. Instead of terrorists having the ability to sneak through a porous border, they will find a secure border hardened to prevent their illegal entry.

However, as I have been thinking about securing our border, a thought kept coming back to me. So many of the people crossing the border are not crossing for nefarious or devious reasons. The great majority of illegal border crossers do so in order to find work or to be with family members working in America.

I have come to believe that securing the border would be much easier and allow for a better use of our resources if we could eliminate these people from the ranks of those crossing the border illegally. The House bill will secure our border, but it will do it even better when its provisions can concentrate just on those illegal border crossers who are criminals, drug dealers and possible terrorists. In order to do that, there must be a legal means for the great majority of people seeking temporary work to come to America.

A few months ago a very dedicated and resolute American came to me with an idea. Her name is Helen Krieble, and she is here with us today. Thank you, Helen, for being here.

Helen is the founder and president of The Vernon K. Krieble Foundation, a private foundation dedicated to public policy and America's Founding principles. She is on the front-lines in this debate, literally. She hires ten guest workers each year for her business, the Colorado Horse Park, which is a major equestrian and events center in Parker, Colorado. She hires them legally, but as she can tell you, it isn't easy. The bureaucracy is confounding.

So, she came to me with an idea. She asked why we couldn't have a no-amnesty guest-worker program run by the private market instead of the government. Helen's idea represents the core of the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act, and I readily acknowledge that. Helen is living proof that the best ideas don't come from Washington, D.C., but come from the creative minds of men and women living the American Dream.

Step two is to say no to amnesty in any form. My bill offers a no-amnesty solution to the problem of 12 million illegal aliens living in our country. Some argue that there is no amnesty if these 12 million illegal aliens are required to pay a fine or back taxes. The President and many in the Senate seem to believe this to be the proper path.

There is no support back home in my district for amnesty, and this has nothing to do with race or ethnic discrimination. It has everything to do with the fundamental belief of every American in law and order. America is, and always has been, a welcoming society. This sentiment is essentially an expression of a moral principle. The ancient words, "Do not mistreat an alien or oppress him for you were aliens in Egypt," reflect the sentiment of millions of Americans who share this compassionate view of the illegal aliens in our midst. But, there still is no support back home for amnesty.

Amnesty is allowing people whose first act in America was an illegal act to get right with the law without leaving the country. Allowing 12 million illegal aliens to stay in our country instead of leaving and coming back legally is amnesty, no matter if fines or back taxes are paid, or how it is otherwise dressed-up or spun by its proponents. The only way to deal with these twelve million people is to insist that they leave the country and come back legally if they have a job awaiting them.

But people ask, "Congressman, if you're not going to provide amnesty, what are you going to do with 12 million illegal aliens"?

They recognize it is not logistically possible to round-up 12 million illegal aliens, put them on buses and conduct a mass deportation. It also is not realistic to think that some American businesses can operate without these workers. And, it is unreasonable to think that people who came to America illegally and found jobs will voluntarily leave those jobs and opportunities without knowing whether they can return legally.

Therefore, the solution is to set up a system that will encourage illegal aliens to self-deport and come back legally as guest workers. This may sound outside of the box, and it is. It may sound far-fetched and unrealistic, but it isn't. It is based on sound, proven conservative principles. It places reliance on American enterprise and puts government back into its traditional role of protecting its citizens. Let me explain to you how it will work.

Private worker placement agencies that we could call "Ellis Island Centers" will be licensed by the federal government to match willing guest workers with jobs in America that employers cannot fill with American workers. U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers. In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department. The visa will be issued only outside of the United States.

Outside of the United States. That is a key point because it is the provision that will require the 12 million illegal aliens to leave. Now, some of you are thinking to yourselves that twelve million people aren't going to pack up and leave just to get a visa to come back legally. But, I believe most will.

The process that I just described to you will only take a matter of one week, or less. That is the beauty of the program. Speed is so important. No employer in America wants to lose employees for an extended amount of time. No worker who is earning money to feed and clothe a family can afford to be off the job for long.

But, an employer faced with a looming requirement to verify the legality of its employees and stiff fines for employing illegal aliens will be willing to use a quick system to obtain legal employees. And, an illegal alien currently employed in America will be willing to take a quick trip across the border to come back outside of the shadows and in a job where he does not fear a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In fact, I envision employers working with placement agencies to make sure that their long-time illegal employees get their paperwork processed, background checks performed, and visas issued so that they will be back on the job quickly.

Imagine for a moment asking millions of people to line up at the U.S. Consulate in Mexico City to obtain a visa to come to America and work as a guest worker. It would be a disaster. Now, imagine private companies competing against each other to process guest worker applicants and match the applicants with open jobs. Imagine the application of American business ingenuity to this process. That, my friends, is why this program will work.

Let me give you a few other details on the guest worker program. The visas will be referred to as "W Visas." (No kidding.) I think it is obvious whose support we are trying to garner here. Seriously, the W Visa results from a fortuitous instance of bill drafting. The code already has visa categories for letters A through V, so W is the next open letter. The W Visa, without amnesty, would be the real rational middle ground that the President has called our nation to in this debate.

Now, for some less interesting details. First, the number of guest workers will be limited. After the program is up and running, there will be a period of three years when the market and the needs of U.S. employers will set the limit on the number of guest workers. Not letting the market and the needs of employers govern the number of guest workers initially will prevent illegal aliens from being willing to self-deport. No one wants to be one number over the limit, and that person will want to come here or stay here illegally.

But, after three years of this program, we should be in a vastly different situation from where we are now. The great majority of illegal aliens will have self-deported and come back into a confirmed job. The number of those who don't should be a manageable number for law enforcement to pursue and employers to terminate. Therefore, after three years of the program, a reasonable limit on the number of W Visas will be determined by the Department of Labor based on employment statistics, employer needs and other research. After the three-year window has closed, this limit will be strictly enforced. Thus, the three-year window will provide even greater incentive to those who are currently illegal to enter into and comply with the new guest worker program.

There also will be a limit on the amount of time a guest worker can spend in America. Guest workers will be allowed to renew their W Visas, but only for a period of up to six years. At that point, the guest should decide whether to return home or enter the separate process of seeking citizenship. We cannot have people coming to America as permanent guest workers. That is why having a six-year limit is important. It keeps the meaning of the word "guest" in guest worker.

In order to receive their first renewal, guest workers will be required to study English and pass an English proficiency class. If America is willing to invite you to come and work, I believe that after two years of working here, the guest worker should be willing and able to speak basic English. They also will be required to pass an updated background check. We are not going to allow criminals to come and work in America.

The bill will require employers to treat guest workers fairly and to follow employment laws. Employment taxes will be paid. Workers will be allowed to change jobs within a certain time period without having to leave the country. No worker will be trapped in a job with an abusive employer.

The W Visas themselves will be issued in the form of secure wallet-sized cards, similar to the cards described and endorsed by the President. Employers will swipe them to verify the guest worker's eligibility. Border patrol agents will swipe the cards to confirm the guest worker is allowed to enter the country. The card will contain information about the job the guest worker is coming to perform, and it will contain personal and biometric information so that the guest worker can be tracked. If a guest worker is fired, convicted of a crime, or just disappears, the card will be cancelled, preventing another employer from hiring the person.

Before going to a placement agency with a job, U.S. employers must try to hire American workers. They will have to attest their efforts to the agency. Believe me, this is a tough requirement that will protect the American worker because people will be watching and checking-out employers. Our society has many watchdogs, and I have no doubt that people will be watching to make sure that if an American could be hired, he or she is hired.

With a guest worker program in place, there is no reason why an employer ever should hire or continue to employ an illegal alien. Employers who choose to operate outside of the system, however, must face tough fines in order to be made to comply. That is what the enforcement system and the new fine structure will do.

The strict employer enforcement contained in the House-passed bill is contained in my bill. It sets forth a nationwide electronic employment verification system through which employers will verify the legality of each prospective and current employee. Right now employers are put in a no-win situation. Under the law, they must accept employees with documents that reasonably appear on their face to be genuine. They cannot challenge such documents without risking a lawsuit.

We all know that the use of counterfeit documents by illegal aliens is widespread. To combat this problem, employers need a system through which they can quickly and accurately verify whether an employee is legal. Under the guest worker program, the W Visa cards will be easy to verify, with each worker's personal and biometric information. However, some will continue to try to use old, fake documents. We must weed out these people.

Under this enforcement system, each employer will transmit its employees' names and Social Security or alien identification numbers to a confirmation office that will compare the names and numbers to Social Security and Homeland Security records. Within a few days, the employer will be notified of the results, and if an employee is ineligible there is a period of ten days to perform a secondary verification. If after that, the employee is still ineligible the employer should dismiss the employee. Continuing to employ an unverifiable person will be subject to serious monetary penalties and fines.

As a final incentive, my bill requires that in order to hire a guest worker, the employer must be a participant in the employment verification system. Participation in the system is phased-in over a period of two to six years. However, my bill allows employers to voluntarily join the system before they are required to participate in order to hire guest workers. This puts enforcement at the work site first.

Employer enforcement is the key. Once in place, jobs for illegal aliens will dry up. Why hire an illegal alien when you can hire a legal guest worker and eliminate the possibility of a big fine? Why stay in the country illegally when you can quickly return home and come back as a legal guest worker?

So, is all of this pie-in-the-sky? Only if you do not believe in the private market or American business. Only if you do not believe that Americans are a willing and open-minded people. Only if you do not believe in the desire of those who are here illegally to have the opportunity to get right with the law.

We can do this. I believe the Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act is a solution that conservatives can embrace. I believe this legislation is a solution that those opposing amnesty can embrace. I believe this proposal offers a solution that those calling for humane treatment of the illegal aliens in our midst can embrace. And, I believe that this solution is one the American people can embrace. This is the real rational middle ground.

I mentioned at the outset that I am the grandson of an Irish immigrant. I take my name, Michael Richard from his. Richard Michael Cawley came to this country on a boat from Ireland and stepped onto Ellis Island, in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, in the early 20th century. Like millions who came before and since, that frightened teenage boy had a simple dream, a dream expressed when his mother handed him the one-way ticket and said, "you have a future there", a dream we call the American Dream.

My grandfather grew up in a two room house in farm country east of a small village called Tubbercurry, Ireland. When I saw that home the summer after he died, I better understood a moment we shared just a few weeks before he went home to be with the Lord.

It was the fall of 1980 and my father had finally given in to my mother's wish for a bigger house and the two-story, 4,000 square foot home in Columbus, Indiana seemed like a palace to all of us...especially my grandfather. When I walked into the house, I saw grandpa sitting alone in the family room and I noticed his eyes were moist with emotion. When I asked if he was alright, he quietly replied in a gentle Irish brogue, "I just never thought a child of mine would live in a house like this..". My grandpa, like my mom and dad, lived the American Dream. He got off that boat an Irish lad, he died an American, and I am an American because of him.

Immigration reform is about renewing the American Dream. We renew the American Dream by reaffirming our commitment to legal immigration. We renew the American Dream by giving those who have made their way into our country illegally, an opportunity to come out of the shadows. We renew the American Dream by creating a system that recognizes the dignity and worth of every person in this One Nation Under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.



Mr. Pence, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, represents the 6th District of Indiana in the U.S. House of Representatives. He was chosen as the HUMAN EVENTS "Man of the Year" in 2005.

Pence proposes NO Amnesty Amnesty(Tancredo bashes Pence)

Mike Pence has proposed his “ Border Integrity and Immigration Reform Act” which he calls another compromise. You know what that means—dressed up Amnesty. Pence calls his bill the “no-Amnesty Solution” yet he makes clear that all illegal aliens can immediately return to the US as guestworkers! This is very problematic because Pence has a reputation as a principled conservative. He is a member of Tom Tancredo’s Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and Tancredo and 62% of the CIRC are members of his Republican Study Committee. Call Pence at (202) 225-3021 and let him know that you do not support his “no-amnesty” amnesty.” Also call congressmen who are in the CIRC and RSC and tell them to stand with Tancredo and for Secure Borders, not with Pence and Amnesty. READ MORE

Robert Novak: A Hard Bill

Tancredo Expresses Disappointment at Pence’s Immigration U-Turn (Tancredo bashes Pence)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chairman of the 97-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, expressed disappointment at Rep. Mike Pence’s policy shift on immigration reform. At a Heritage Foundation speech this afternoon, Pence presented what he called “a rational middle ground… between amnesty and mass deportation” that turns its back on a enforcement-first strategy, grants rogue employers amnesty, and would in effect reward illegal aliens for breaking the law.

“Mike Pence is making the same mistakes that the President has, using the straw man of mass deportations and redefining amnesty to suit his interests. Unfortunately, like the President, Pence is breaking from House conservatives who remain steadfast in their support of a security-first approach to immigration,” said Tancredo.

Pence’s plan would require illegal aliens to return to their home countries to apply for a new ‘W’ worker visa. Employers could hire as many foreign workers as they want under the W visa, and, in practice, they would likely hire the same workers who they employed illegally before. Pence wants to start the new foreign worker program before border security is even proved effective, which is the same strategy that was used in the 1986 amnesty. Twenty years later, the U.S. got amnesty as promised but no border security.

“Pence’s W visa is aptly named. It gives the Administration exactly what it wants: unlimited foreign workers first, enforcement later or never,” said Tancredo. “Pence’s plan is just the 1986 amnesty with a trip home tacked on.”

The Pence plan includes no prevailing wage standard for foreign workers—it simply relies on the good will of employers to “try to hire American workers” before offering jobs under the new foreign worker visa. In fact, almost all current visas require employers to offer the job to American workers before seeking foreign labor, but with no enforcement mechanism, the requirement is laughable.

“The House’s strategy in H.R. 4437 was to fix the illegal alien problem by enforcing the law. Over time, as illegal workers cannot obtain jobs, they go home because they have no other option open to them. Pence takes a much different approach: fix illegal behavior by legalizing it,” said Tancredo. “As a conservative and a friend of Mike Pence, I am baffled by his shift on immigration. I hope he reconsiders his position and returns to an enforcement-first position.”

Shame on you, Tom Tancredo

Congressman Tancredo,
Indiana Congressman Mike Pence is a hero to me and other conservatives all across the country.You used to be.
Disagreeing with Congressman Pence's new approach to immigration is one thing, slandering the plan and the man and posting the most unflattering picture you can find of the man is another.
I am one of those conservatives who have constantly defended you from my Republican establishment friends and other critics of yours who say all negatives things about you.

They said you were a demagogue who wanted the issue more than the solution.
I said you were a Patriot fighting in the trenches for us.

They said you were a conservative only in it for money
I said you were a man of integrity

They said the most dangerous place to be in America was not in a big city ally at 3am but rather between you,Tom Tancredo and a reporter or television camera.
I told them they were wrong you were simply dedicated in your work.

They said you were ineffective
I said no way

They all said you were a joke and not a man personally not worthy of the title of Congressman.

I told all of them every time with out exception they were wrong.

It appears they were RIGHT and I was wrong.

Saying Pence "redefined amnesty to suit his interests" is false.Pence is a man of integrity and only does what he thinks is good for the country.
Congressman Pence mentioned your name during his speech saying he just spent a half an hour talking with you and that you were "looking it over"(Pence's plan). Obviously, Pence would not have used your name in the speech if you had used this type of rhetoric when talking with him in person.Which brings me to my next questions, Did you tell Pence you were going to be adamantly opposed when talking with him? or did you simply blind side him? Did you take your case to Pence in private? or simply send out the press releases?

Pence's plan while not perfect (he freely admits it is a compromise on his part)It is the only plan that can viably pass conference while keeping HR 4437 intact.You say Pence's plan isn't security first, you know that isn't true,Pence's plan would keep 4437 intact save for two exceptions (felony provision,and Good samaritan provision).

Pence's plan does the following:
1 seal the border(4437)
2 enforce existing interior laws(4437)
3 grant NO path to citizenship
4 remove all 12 million illegals from America
5 require all illegals to return home before being eligible for guest worker
6 end anchor baby citizenship

You call this amnesty! Apparently you do not want a guestworker at any cost and that is an ok position to have but do not call a plan amnesty just because you do not agree with it.Pence realizes for 4437 to pass conference he would have to compromise. Pence plan is to trade
1 a sealed border
2 enforced interior laws
3 granting no path to citizenship
4 requiring all illegals to go home
5 the END of undocumented aliens


in exchange for
1 a limited guest worker program for those who return home and apply

Not Perfect. but with the liberal Senate we have it is the best we can do.
What is the alternative? Allow the Democrats to team up with Open border Republicans and grant real AMNESTY? Apparently that is what you want so you can keep the issue alive.
Disagree with Pence if you like,but do it honestly and above reproach. This is not amnesty and Pence is a man of integrity and a hero. You used to be. Perhaps you can answer the questions I posed to you next time you are in South Carolina. I will be the guy in the front row with 20 or so of my Christian conservative friends wearing Pence buttons and we will come up to you after and ask "why do you have no shame"

Mike Rains
former Tancredo fan

Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Bauer injured in wreck

(Blacksburg) - South Carolina Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer has been injured in an aircraft crash.

The accident happened around 6:30 p.m. in the Cherokee County town of Blacksburg, near White Farm Road. The plane was registered to Bauer.

Few details have been released, but News19 has learned the crash happened shortly after take-off. The aircraft crashed into a power line, and then caught on fire. Bauer was transported to Greenville Memorial Hospital with what are called non life-threatening injuries. Senate Clerk Jeff Gossett says Bauer and a passenger who was also on board were conscious after the crash.

State Senator Harvey Peeler says Bauer flew to the area to visit a friend who had a death in the family. The weather was sunny with light winds in the Upstate at the time of the crash.

Monday, May 22, 2006

Official list of RINO house members

Last week during the Budget debate House Amendment 832 was offered by Jeb Hensarling and voted on by the House as a subsititute to H.CON.RES.376 (the Budget).832 was the brainchild of Hensarling,MIke Pence and the RSC and was the culmination of CONTRACT WITH AMERICA:renewed which was an effort to get house Republicans back the the basics of Fiscal discipline that cemented our majority in the first place.More on the
  • Contract with America renewed here
  • and
  • HERE



  • voting against conservatism were
    Robert Aderholt (AL)
    Rodney Alexander (LA)
    Roscoe Bartlett (MD)
    Charlie Bass (NH)
    Judy Biggert (IL)
    Sherwood Boehlert (NY)
    Henry Bonilla (TX)
    Joe Bonner (AL)
    Mary Bono (CA)
    Charles Boustany (LA)
    Jeb Bradley (NH)
    Henry Brown (SC)
    Michael Burgess (TX)
    Ken Calvert (CA)
    Dave Camp (MI)
    Shelly Moore Capito (WV)
    Mike Castle (DE)
    Ander Crenshaw (FL)
    Barbara Cubin (WY)
    Jon Culberson (TX)
    Geoff Davis (KY)
    Jo Ann Davis (VA)
    Tom Davis (VA)
    Tom DeLay (TX)
    Charlie Dent (PA)
    Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL)
    Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
    John Doolittle (CA)
    Thelma Drake (VA)
    Vernon Ehlers (MI)
    Jo-Ann Emerson (MO)
    English (PA)
    Terry Everett (AL)
    Mike Ferguson (NJ)
    Mike Fitzpatrick (PA)
    Mark Foley (FL)
    Jeff Fortenberry (NE)
    Vito Fossella (NY)
    Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)
    Elton Gallegly (CA)
    Jim Gerlach (PA)
    Wayne Gilchrest (MD)
    Paul Gillmor (OH)
    Virgil Goode (VA)

    Kay Granger (TX)
    Sam Graves (MO)
    Mark Green (WI)
    Ralph Hall (TX)
    Melissa Hart (PA)
    Doc Hastings (WA)
    David Hobson (OH)
    Kenny Hulshof (MO)
    Duncan Hunter (CA)
    Henry Hyde (IL)
    Bill Jenkins (TN)
    Bobby Jindal (LA)
    Nancy Johnson (CT)
    Tim Johnson (IL)
    Walter Jones (NC)
    Ric Keller (FL)
    Sue Kelly (NY)
    Mark Kennedy (MN)
    Peter King (NY)
    Mark Kirk (IL)
    Joe Knollenberg (MI)
    Jim Kolbe (AZ)
    Ray LaHood (IL)
    Tom Latham (IA)
    Steve LaTourette (OH)
    Jim Leach (IA)
    Jerry Lewis (CA)
    Ron Lewis (KY)
    Frank LoBiondo (NJ)
    Frank Lucas (OK)
    Michael McCaul (TX)
    Thaddeus McCotter (MI)
    Jim McCrery (LA)
    John McHugh (NY)
    Buck McKeon (CA)
    Candice Miller (MI)
    Gary Miller (CA)
    Tim Murphy (PA)
    Bob Ney (OH)
    Ann Northup (KY)
    Devin Nunes (CA)
    Jim Nussle (IA)
    Tom Osborne (NE)
    Jon Peterson (PA)
    Tom Petri (WI)
    Chip Pickering (MI)
    Todd Platts (PA)
    Ted Poe (TX)
    Richard Pombo (CA)
    Jon Porter (NV)
    Deborah Pryce (OH)
    Adam Putnam (FL)
    Jim Ramstad (MN)
    Ralph Regula (OH)
    Denny Rehberg (MT)
    Dave Reichert (WA)
    Rick Renzi (AZ)
    Tom Reynolds (NY)
    Mike Rogers (AL)
    Hal Rogers (KY)
    Mike Rogers (MI)
    Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
    Jim Saxton (NJ)
    Jean Schmidt (OH)
    Joe Schwarz (MI)
    Clay Shaw (FL)
    Chris Shays (CT)
    Don Sherwood (PA)
    Rob Simmons (CT)
    Mike Simpson (ID)
    Chris Smith (NJ)
    Lamar Smith (TX)
    Mike Sodrel (IN)
    Mark Souder (IN)
    Jon Sweeney (NY)
    Bill Thomas (CA)
    Pat Tiberi (OH)
    Michael Turner (OH)
    Fred Upton (MI)
    Greg Walden (OR)
    James Walsh (NY)
    Zach Wamp (TN)
    Dave Weldon (FL)
    Curt Weldon (PA)
    Jerry Weller (IL)
    Ed Whitfield (KY)
    Roger Wicker (MI)
    Heather Wilson (NM)
    Frank Wolf (VA)
    Don Young (AK)

    support marriage South Carolina!!!!

    Armed with a megaphone and signs, small groups of protesters also gathered to show their support for the amendment.

    "I want to warn these people ... to warn America that it is turning its back on God through supporting homosexuality," said Lewis B. Rivers, 54, of Columbia. "Homosexuality is evil. It's an abomination to God. Marriage should be between a man and a woman. There's no doubt about that."

    James Budenbender and a few members of Concord Baptist Church in Lexington held signs quoting Bible verses.

    "I don't agree with same-sex marriage. I don't agree with same-sex at all," Budenbender said. "The Bible is against it and I stand on God's word.".....

    South Carolina Sportsmen caucus

    Bill to create a sportsmen’s caucus goes to governor
    By PAT ROBERTSON
    Outdoors Columnist
    SOUTH CAROLINA SPORTSMEN will have a much stronger and more organized voice in legislative decisions in the future with the passage of a bill that authorizes a South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus.

    The bill was ratified Thursday and sent to Gov. Mark Sanford’s desk for his signature. Sponsors hope the governor will put his seal of approval on the bill since he was a member of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus when he was a congressman.

    The South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus is modeled after the 315-member congressional caucus in Washington. U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham and U.S. Reps. Gresham Barrett, Henry Brown and John Spratt are members of that caucus.

    Although passage this session was in doubt because both houses were tied up on other matters, the bill had strong bipartisan support in both the S.C. House and S.C. Senate. Pending the governor’s signature, South Carolina will become the 29th state to join a national network of state legislative caucuses, which focus on promoting a pro-sportsmen’s agenda in state governments.

    The South Carolina caucus will be a member of the National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses, which provides a venue for exchange of ideas between state caucus leaders, sportsmen’s groups, industry, media and other organizations.

    “The Sportsmen’s Caucus is an important step to building coalitions, strengthening opportunities and enhancing outdoor activities throughout South Carolina,” said Sen. Thomas Moore, D-Clearwater. “As a bipartisan legislative group, we will further the understanding of and access to outdoor sports.”

    Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, who spearheaded the effort to form the caucus, said the caucus will work to preserve hunting and fishing traditions in South Carolina.

    “The South Carolina Sportsmen’s Caucus will serve as a medium for uniting legislators and outdoor interests to work together to guide policy decisions to enhance hunting and fishing activities and natural resources for future generations of South Carolinians to enjoy,” Pitts said

    Pitts said 72 members from both political parties joined an organizational caucus in the House. The Senate now will move to organize a Senate committee to work with the House on writing bylaws for the new caucus.

    “This is new ground because it is a bicameral, bipartisan caucus, and highly unusual in South Carolina to put the Senate and the House on the same page,” Pitts said. “Hopefully, everything will be in place when the session starts next year.”

    Pitts said the caucus plans to address several major issues in the next legislative session, including no net loss of public hunting and fishing areas and a constitutional guarantee of the right to hunt in South Carolina.

    “No net loss says simply that if a state loses public hunting or fishing areas, we must locate predominately public hunting or fishing ground in another area so there will be no net loss to the public,” he said.

    However, Pitts said enforcing a no net loss law in South Carolina probably will be more difficult than in other states because of the state’s relatively small size, coupled with the tremendous development under way across the state.

    “In the Upstate, when we lose public hunting there may not be another area we can go to because of development,” he admitted.

    The constitutional amendment to establish a right to hunt in South Carolina has already been introduced in the Legislature. It is not expected to make it out of the Senate this year, but it will be a key issue for the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus next session, especially on the House side, Pitts said.

    The caucus also will be ready to address other issues that pop up from time to time, such as the bill to ban computerized hunting this year, he noted.

    More than 1 million South Carolinians continue the state’s tradition of hunting and fishing and spend more than $1 billion annually to use the state’s natural resources. With increased encroachment on traditional hunting and fishing areas, more and more decisions must be made at the state level that impact wildlife management and access to public lands and waters.

    While the caucus will play a role in making those decisions, it will rely heavily on a group already organized and working, the South Carolina Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus Foundation. The foundation’s board comprises representatives of hunting and fishing organizations and sportsmen-related business interests across the state who will serve as a conduit for information between the grass-roots sportsmen and the legislative caucus.

    “The foundation will be a support organization for the caucus and will be key in helping determine the direction of legislation to protect our outdoor heritage for the future,” Pitts said.

    Saturday, May 20, 2006

    out of touch Senate approves Social Security for illegals

    This is just more proof that Senate Republicans are ignoring their base at our majorities peril




    By Sher Zieve – On Thursday, the US Senate approved Social Security payments for illegal aliens, even if their employment status was due to stolen and/or forged documents. The Social Security system has long been touted as being in jeopardy for future payments to US citizen workers.

    Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said: "It makes no sense to reward millions of illegal immigrants for criminal behavior while our Social Security system is already in crisis. Why in the world would we endorse this criminal activity with federal benefits? The Senate missed a big opportunity to improve this bill, and I doubt American seniors will be pleased with the result."

    Siding with the illegals, Vermont Democrat Senator Patrick J. Leahy said: "We should not steal their funds or empty their Social Security accounts. That is not fair. It does not reward their hard work or their financial contributions. It violates the trust that underlies the Social Security Trust Fund."

    Friday, May 19, 2006

    Back to basics MR PRESIDENT

    Our party is in trouble in Novemeber not because we have lost the swing voters.We are in trouble because the base is upset.We need to get back to conservative Republican basics.

    The fight for our party's soul

    A Right Turn Holds Perils For Bush

    By E. J. Dionne Jr.
    Friday, May 19, 2006; Page A21

    As they watch President Bush's approval ratings tumble, conservative activists are offering a surefire strategy for presidential recovery: Bush should move to the right and "rally his base."

    There's one problem with this approach: It could do the president's party far more harm than good, even within its own ranks. The conservative view ignores the roots of the president's difficulties in the disaffection of moderate voters who are more concerned with performance -- or the lack thereof -- than ideology.


    The Post-ABC News poll released this week found the president with a 33 percent approval rating and suffering losses in esteem almost everywhere. Conservatives are by no means his biggest problem.

    In January 2005 Republicans who described themselves as conservative gave Bush an astonishing 94 percent approval rating. The new Post-ABC survey, conducted May 11 to May 15, put Bush's approval rating among conservative Republicans at 76 percent, down 18 points.

    But the poll found that among moderate Republicans, the president's approval rating had declined 31 points, from 88 percent in January 2005 to 57 percent now. Recent surveys by Gallup and the Pew Research Center also point to losses among moderates.

    Bush has lost even more ground among moderate independents. The Pew surveys found Bush's approval rating in this group dropping from 48 percent in January 2005 to 22 percent last month.

    The middle of the middle is going south on Bush.

    This creates a conflict between Bush's immediate political interests and the interests of many Republican candidates on the ballot this November.

    Bush's best shot at a quick jolt upward in his approval ratings is among conservatives in his own party, who are already more inclined to support him than anyone else and might come home in response to a presidential tilt rightward. But Rep. Chris Shays, a moderate from Connecticut, noted that many of the House Republicans most endangered in this fall's election -- himself included -- are moderates who would be hurt if his party and his president moved farther right.

    "His going to the right to move up from 35 percent is not going to help us out," Shays, speaking for his fellow moderates, said in an interview. "It doesn't help me out for him to appeal to his conservative base."

    Shays, who is at the top of Democratic target lists, was reelected with 52 percent of the vote in 2004 and faces the same opponent, Democrat Diane Farrell, this year. Shays is the one being judged this fall, not Bush. "Obviously, he should be true to himself and his principles," Shays said of the president, "but if he is looking for issues, he should be looking for issues that are helpful to those of us who are targets."

    On the other hand, many of the House's staunchest conservatives -- such as Mike Pence of Indiana and John Shadegg of Arizona -- want Bush to emphasize conservative themes, including deep domestic spending cuts. But a frustrated Shays notes that conservatives urging the president to appeal to his base represent solidly Republican districts.

    "Pence's election isn't in jeopardy," he said. "Shadegg's election isn't in jeopardy."

    Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, one of his party's shrewdest political strategists, keeps a sharp eye on the attitudes of moderate and moderately conservative suburbanites of the sort he represents. Davis sees a potential contradiction between one of the GOP's strategic imperatives -- to fire conservatives up enough to get them to the polls this fall -- and the other imperative of stopping defections among middle-of-the-road voters.

    "Harder-core Republicans are disillusioned right now, but they're not going to vote for Democrats and Nancy Pelosi," Davis said in an interview, referring to the House Democratic leader. "It's your softer, more moderate Republicans who are now jumping ship."

    Davis never likes to bad-mouth his party's electoral chances, and he notes that the six months between now and Election Day "are an eternity." He worries, though, about issues that could boost turnout in the base but drive away less-ideological voters. "To move right may fix part of the problem," Davis said, "but it could exacerbate the other problem."

    Bush prospered in 2004 by turning out the Republican base. But the times are very different in 2006. Machiavelli noted that the successful politician "adapts his mode of proceeding to the qualities of the times" and warned against politicians who "remain obstinate in their modes." In 2006 one could imagine Machiavelli counseling moderation to the Republican Party. You wonder how Machiavellian the Republicans' conservative wing will let the party be.

    Pence,Hensarling,Barrett,Inglis,and Wilson fight the good fight

    House conservatives see wins in budget
    By Amy Fagan
    THE WASHINGTON TIMES
    May 19, 2006


    House conservatives say they scored key spending reform victories in the $2.7 trillion budget approved early yesterday, but major changes are needed to achieve the fiscal discipline promised when Republicans took over the chamber more than a decade ago.
    "The budget, while not visionary, was an important first step," said Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC).
    "There's a huge way to go," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican. "It takes time. ... It's like turning a battleship."
    The House approved the blueprint for 2007 spending by a vote of 218-210 after weeks of negotiations between conservative and more liberal Republican factions. Twelve Republicans and all 197 House Democrats who voted opposed the bill, as did the one independent member. Four Democrats and one Republican did not vote.
    Mr. Pence said conservatives' greatest victory was holding the line on President Bush's $873 billion limit for discretionary spending, despite what Mr. Pence said was "overwhelming pressure" from the more liberal wing to spend more.
    "We stood firm; our leadership stood firm," he said.
    Conservatives also highlighted "significant" victories secured from leaders during negotiations, including the promise of votes on line-item veto authority, inclusion of earmark reform in a recently passed lobbying reform bill, and a hard-fought provision that would define and limit "emergency" spending, making it more difficult to add pet projects to such legislation. For 2007, the budget sets that emergency level at $6.4 billion.
    Mr. Bush praised the move in the House, and Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, called the budget "a major demonstration of Republicans' commitment to return fiscal discipline."
    Conservatives said spending was still too high, that cuts to massive entitlement programs were inadequate and that the plan will raise the national debt.
    The bill increases discretionary spending for defense and homeland security while holding other discretionary spending flat. It assumes $228 billion in tax relief and culls $6.8 billion in savings from entitlements programs over five years.
    "Even though this budget still spends too much," the reform victories represent "a turning point in the battle over spending," Mr. Hensarling said.
    He called the emergency spending item a crucial tool. "There is now at least a stoplight on the road to spending," he said.
    Mr. Hensarling this week offered an RSC alternative modeled after the budget House Republicans approved in 1995. Called "Contract With America Renewed," it would have balanced the budget in five years, trimmed $358 billion from entitlement programs, capped annual Medicare growth, eliminated 150 federal programs and restructured three federal agencies. It was approved by 94 Republicans and opposed by 134, including 32 RSC members, even though nearly half of them supported the 1995 budget.
    "There's been a shift" in the party since 1995, Mr. Pence said, but he was encouraged that House Republican leaders backed the RSC plan this week.
    "This was truly an effort to return to the bold and visionary leadership of the '94 revolution," he said.
    Democrats, meanwhile, argued that the budget approved by the House shortchanged key social programs to allow more tax cuts for the rich and increase debt.
    "The misplaced priorities demonstrated in this budget are astounding," said Rep. Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrat.

    Thursday, May 18, 2006

    Andre Bauer will not run in 2010

    Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said Wednesday that if he's renominated and re-elected this year, he'll walk away from politics and will not run for governor or any other office in 2010.

    Bauer, 37, told the GreenvilleOnline that a second term as lieutenant governor would be his last because "at some time, I want to go back, make a good living, I'd like to meet somebody and start a family. This stuff wears on you; some people get a big drive out of it."

    "I'm an average person, I didn't get a political science degree, I got a business degree, I didn't go to law school. I'm a small business owner and contrary to what a lot of people think ... I don't aspire to have any big dreams of holding big political office and carrying on some legacy."

    Bauer is facing a strong primary challenge from Mike Campbell, a Greenville native, Columbia businessman and son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell. Henry Jordan of Anderson is the third candidate in the June 13 primary field. Robert Barber, a Charleston businessman, is the unopposed Democratic nominee.
    (For more on this race and all the big contests in 2006, visit News19's campaign page.)

    The money involved is a turn-off, Bauer said.

    In 2002, Republican Mark Sanford, the eventual winner, and Democratic Gov. Jim Hodges raised and spent more than $7 million each. Some analysts have said Sanford's re-election campaign costs may hit the $8 million to $9 million range.

    "You're going to be looking at a David Wilkins, Bobby Harrell and Gresham Barrett race, and it's going to cost millions and millions of dollars. That just isn't my fight. I'd love to go out as the lieutenant governor who really changed the lifestyles of seniors in South Carolina."

    The state's Office on Aging now is under the lieutenant governor although an executive director administers it.

    Noting the thwarted aspirations of a string of lieutenant governors who have failed to win the governorship over the last three decades, Bauer said, "This is not the highway to the Governor's Mansion."

    "If I'd wanted to run for governor, I'd have stayed in the Senate where I'd now be a committee chairman, my staff would be as big as the lieutenant governor's, (there would be) a much smaller district to work with and (the election) would be in the middle of my term."

    But Bauer said any absence from politics might be temporary.

    "I wouldn't say that sometime later on in life I wouldn't look at another office, but I don't think it would be governor. There are other areas than governor I'd rather serve," he said without elaboration.


    Tony Santaella, Producer

    S.C. hurricane plan ready, agencies say

    By Zane Wilson
    The Sun News
    COLUMBIA - State officials say they have adapted some plans to the lessons of Katrina and are as ready as they can be if a hurricane strikes the coast.

    The hurricane season opens June 1 and runs through Nov. 30, but last year's season was so active that a hurricane formed late in December and was still alive Jan. 1.

    The outlook is for an equally active season this year with a higher probability of a hurricane striking the East Coast, and less for one to hit the Gulf Coast, a state weather expert warned.

    Gov. Mark Sanford met Wednesday with top officials of agencies that will be involved in hurricane response, trying to gauge whether everything is in place or when it will be.

    "This is a chance, one last time, to get together to compare notes and walk through our plan," Sanford said.

    He said "it is vital" that the state be prepared, but just as vital that individuals make their own plans for evacuation and for providing for themselves in case of shortages of food and water.

    The main thing people need to remember is to evacuate early if a storm is approaching, Sanford said.

    Should a massive evacuation have to occur in the height of tourist season, supplies and equipment are pre-staged or ready to arrive quickly, said Department of Transportation Director Betty Mabry.

    U.S. 501 is one of a handful of roads from the coast that will have lane reversal, meaning westbound traffic will use all lanes.

    Informational signs, portable toilets and drinking water are ready for use along the evacuation routes if needed, she said.

    "We've trained quite often," Mabry said.

    The agency is also prepared to clear roads quickly after the storm passes, she said.

    State Emergency Management Director Ron Osborne said it is critical that roads be cleared enough so that emergency response teams can enter to assess damage and needs.

    Sanford asked about security for the evacuated areas if there is a massive evacuation.

    State Law Enforcement Division Chief Robert Stewart said 200 agents will stay in evacuated areas to provide security, and that some wildlife officers also will help.

    While there are fewer shelters than in past years, the ones that are left have more capacity, Osborne said. The shelters are being moved farther back from the coast, out of possible areas of harm.

    Horry and Georgetown counties recently learned they will have fewer shelters.

    But officials say shelters should be considered a last resort. People should try to make their own arrangements, such as staying with friends or relatives or renting a hotel room, before planning to go to a shelter.

    The National Guard is in better shape to respond if needed than it has been for the past few years, said Adjutant Gen. Stan Spears.

    That is because fewer guard members are serving in Iraq, and they have brought back their equipment that would also be needed, he said.

    If the National Guard is overwhelmed, the state can get assistance from the regular army if Sanford asks for it, he said.

    "Governor, I think we're OK," Spears said. "There's not one area that I'm concerned with."

    But Earl Hunter, director of the state Department of Health and Environmental Control, said authorities are still trying to make sure there is enough transportation to move all nursing home and hospital patients out of harm's way.

    Governor Sanford thanks the officers who serve and protect

    Thanks.
    Somewhere between talking about Paris Hilton and peacemakers, that was the message Gov. Mark Sanford gave to more than 250 people -- most of them police officers -- at the 11th annual Police Honor and Memorial Service on Wednesday morning.

    The service at Rock Hill's First Baptist Church on Dave Lyle Boulevard was to honor law enforcement, while paying tribute to slain officers. Some people in the audience were family members of officers killed in the line of duty.

    "It's not a job that you do halfway," Sanford said, when discussing the commitment of the job.

    Sanford said the service was about peacemakers, and cited a passage from the biblical book of Matthew. He also discussed police as role models.

    He used Hilton as an example of a modern role model, but not a lasting one.

    "Paris Hilton will be in a movie," Sanford said. "There will never be a movie about Paris Hilton."

    Sanford also discussed the courage and responsibility he said police work requires.

    "You all consistently walk the walk in what you say you're about," Sanford said. "And in the process, are an inspiration to the rest of us."

    But the governor didn't have to convince Rock Hill police Officer Ken Tallmadge.

    "It makes me proud to do what I do," said the 36-year-old rookie officer, who has been on the job for about 10 months.

    Tallmadge said he had owned his own business in Myrtle Beach, but after 9-11, he had a desire "to do something worthwhile."

    "Something was missing," he said. "This filled that void."

    Charles D. Perry • 329-4068 | cperry@heraldonline.com

    Wednesday, May 17, 2006

    Update from Congressman Barrett

    As some of you may know, members of the Anderson, Oconee, and Pickens county chambers of commerce recently traveled to Washington, DC for their annual National Issues

    Forum. I was able to speak with them about legislative issues currently being debated in Congress. They also enjoyed speeches from Susan Whitson, Press Secretary to Mrs. Bush, Charlie Hurt, Capitol Hill bureau chief for the Washington Times, Judy Schneider a specialist with the Congressional Research Service (CRS), Senator Joe Biden of Delaware, Majority Leader John Boehner (OH, 8), Chairman of House Intelligence Committee, Representative Peter Hoekstra (MI, 2), and other distinguished colleagues of mine in Congress including members of the South Carolina delegation.

    Additionally, the House acted to pass several important provisions addressing several key issues affecting all Americans.

    Ø Energy Independence:

    The House passed H.R. 5143, introduced by Representative Inglis, which will summons the imagination and creativity of the American scientist to develop hydrogen energy - a more cost-efficient and environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuel. There is no doubt that the private sector is an engine of growth that breeds innovation and ingenuity. The role of the federal government is not to come up with the idea or the science, but rather to provide incentives and promote an atmosphere that encourages such research to take place.



    We are working to find long-term solutions to our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Nuclear power is another source of power that our nation has placed on the back burner for decades, since arriving in Congress I have been promoting South Carolina as a national leader in advancing the nuclear industry. In fact, both SCANA and Duke Energy are currently exploring locations in South Carolina as possible sites to construct a next generation nuclear reactor. It makes sense for South Carolina to lead the nation - we already produce over half of our electricity from nuclear power plants, making us third nationally in nuclear generation.



    Ø Port Security:

    We passed legislation in the House that requires the

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand

    nuclear and radiological detection systems pertaining to

    incoming maritime containers, and to establish standard

    operating procedures for examining containers. Securing

    our nations ports is important to South Carolina since the

    Port of Charleston, Port of Georgetown, Port of Port Royal,

    together provide more than 280,000 jobs and pumping in

    more than $23 billion in state investment. Our ports are

    vital to the nation's economy as well, ranking as the nation's

    sixth in international shipments.



    Ø Lobby/Earmark Reform:

    The House also renewed our commitment to increased

    transparency in congressional activities by approving H.R.

    4975, the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of

    2006 - the most comprehensive lobbying reform bill passed

    in over a decade. The recent actions of a few individuals

    remind us of the importance of holding ourselves to the

    highest standards and the need to maintain the trust of the

    American people. Additionally, it seeks to curtail the

    number of Member appropriation projects by enhancing

    transparency. The new system for appropriation requests is

    already working. Appropriation requests are down 37%

    from last year. This important piece of legislation will hold

    members of Congress and those they work with to the

    highest standards while ensuring that Americans can still

    effectively petition the government - a constitutionally

    protected right.



    There can be no greater honor than to help protect our freedoms as we serve one another, and our nation. As your representative I pledge to always remember the contributions of those who have served before me and the responsibility you have entrusted to me. I will honor God and one another with my words, thoughts and actions, and pledge to always put the best interests of my constituents and the nation at the forefront of every decision by committing everyday to: uphold strong ethical and moral standards, provide excellent constituent service to everyone equally, and be your common-sense voice for local concerns and values.

    Gresham Barrett

    Barret opens new offices

    WALHALLA — U.S. Rep. Congressman Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., plans to open satellite offices in Walhalla and Seneca on Wednesday. A representative will be available for constituent service from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m. at the Oconee County Courthouse in Walhalla and from 1:30 to 4 p.m. at Seneca City Hall. For more information or to make an appointment, call the Anderson office at (864) 224-7401.

    President's plan draws mixed reaction in S.C.

    JESSICA L De VAULT

    Local supporters of the Hispanic immigrant movement and some Spartanburg residents are raising eyebrows at President Bush's plan to handle the flood of immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    South Carolina lawmakers in Washington, meanwhile, say the president is on the right track.

    On Monday evening, Bush outlined his plan to control illegal immigration and create a guest-worker program for immigrants.

    That plan includes sending 6,000 National Guard troops to protect the 2,000-mile border.

    But S.C. National Guard spokesman Pete Brooks said the Palmetto state is not being asked to send soldiers.

    "We're not anticipating any change," Brooks said. "We haven't had any indication that South Carolina will be involved at all."

    Southeastern coastal states have obvious concerns about troop availability with hurricane season on the horizon, said Joel Sawyer, spokesman for Gov. Mark Sanford.

    Though South Carolina's National Guard remains untouched by Bush's plans, many local people still have strong opinions on the president's approach.

    At the Spartanburg Mi Tierra Mexican grocery store, manager Salvador Torres said sending thousands of troops made little sense.

    "I don't think it's going to work," said Torres, 32. "It's not the way to fix the problem. They are going to spend a lot of money with all these people.

    "There are too many laws in place. They got to enforce them."

    His 27-year-old brother, Agustin, agreed, but said the guest-worker program was a good idea.

    "That'll be fine," Agustin Torres said. "They need us (Hispanics) as much as we need them."

    Spartanburg resident Steve Harvey also supports the guest-worker program.

    "I think the president is right, you can't address illegal immigration without addressing the fact that people are desperate to come here for jobs," Harvey said. "And since there are jobs available for them in this country, I think it's natural and very reasonable to set up a program to match up workers with those jobs."

    Louise H. Jones, a 61-year-old Spartanburg native, said she's fed up with what she considers to be minimal enforcement of immigration laws.

    But beefing up the border patrol wouldn't fix America's current problem, Jones said.

    "That may stop what we got coming in, but that's just a Band-Aid," Jones said. "He (Bush) has not done anything to correct what is here."

    Despite the president's comments in opposition to amnesty, Jones said the guest-worker program was granting just that.

    "That is rewarding crooks, robbers, illegals," Jones said. "If you come over here and stay hidden long enough, the president is going to say its OK."

    On Capitol Hill

    Meanwhile in Washington, Rep. Bob Inglis said he supported Bush's open-ended plan to send National Guard troops to the border, adding that an increase in enlistments is likely to follow.

    "It makes sense to use the military at the border, and to make sure to strengthen the border patrol forces that we have … many Americans would want to help with that mission," Inglis said.

    The National Guard deployment does not signal a war on illegal immigrants or a militarization of the border, he said, but a "need to control the flow" of people.

    The South Carolina Republican said he could support a guest-worker program as long as it is coupled with stricter border controls.

    Getting into the country through legal channels should be easier for those who want to work here, Inglis said. In the "heyday of Ellis Island," he said, as many as a million people a year were allowed to enter the country.

    Sen. Jim DeMint said, "Any measure to strengthen our border security would be better than what we have now." Illegal immigration, he said, is a threat to the country's national security.

    DeMint, a Republican, said he could support a temporary worker system, but would not endorse "amnesty," which rewards "illegal behavior with citizenship or voting rights."

    William Frey, an immigration expert at the Brookings Institute, said the president's decision might affect immigrants who are thinking about crossing the border, but more likely it is a "symbolic" gesture for concerned voters.

    "At some point it actually is going to make a difference, but you have to realize that a lot of the undocumented immigrants aren't people who cross the border, they're people who overstay their visas," Frey said.

    Staff writer Blathnaid Healy contributed to this report.

    Don’t use tax money to subsidize gas consumption

    SO THE GOVERNOR and the House want to give drivers a $2.50-a-week break at the tank. For three months. Just in time for the fall elections.

    Pardon our cynicism.

    When members of Congress floated a similar idea a couple of weeks ago, they were appropriately shouted down by angry constituents who saw through their pandering and were insulted that this was our leaders’ answer to rising gasoline prices.

    To his credit, Gov. Mark Sanford doesn’t pretend that temporarily suspending the state’s 17-cent gas tax will solve the nation’s energy problem. It is, he admits, just the latest way to package his plan to keep tax money from being spent on public programs.

    He needs a way to sell it because it’s a bd idea. Think back a few years, to when the economy tanked and took tax collections with it. Mr. Sanford and legislators said the state had to live within its means — just as a family would — rather than raising taxes. So they slashed the Highway Patrol, reduced the number of prison guards, laid off mental health workers and forced schools to cancel summer school and even cut back on teachers.

    And then the economy rebounded, and tax collections are up enough that the state has a surplus — which simply means the state is collecting more money than economists had predicted, though still less per person than most states. Now our governor and lawmakers no longer find the family budget a convenient metaphor. Little wonder. It’s hard to imagine that a family that suddenly came into some money after years of privation would say, “Let’s give the money back to the boss.” A smart family would invest the money.

    The governor says giving out some kind of tax rebate is the only way to stop the Legislature from spending surplus money on ongoing programs (which will cause financial problems in the future) or pet projects that are at best local responsibilities and at worst pure pork.

    We don’t want to see lawmakers spending tax money so irresponsibly or wastefully either. But there is an alternative: Use surplus money to pay for one-time needs. Actual needs. Like more school buses. Or textbooks. Or highway repairs. Jasper Rep. Rubin Rivers told the House last week that he could just hear the response from his constituents if the gas gimmick passed: “You mean you've got $100 million lying around, and you're not fixing our roads?”

    Granted, $100 million won’t make a huge dent in our state’s backlog of crumbling highways that need resurfacing or dangerous shoulders that need widening or bridges that need replacing. But whatever it could cover on that very long list would do more good for more people than putting an extra $2.50 a week in everybody’s pocket. For three months.

    At least in theory, higher gasoline prices will eventually force us to change our driving habits — to drive less, carpool more, buy more efficient automobiles, slow down. And that will mean we’re doing a little less to prop up Middle Eastern despots.

    Suspending South Carolina’s gas tax won’t have a huge effect on the global marketplace, or even on America’s addiction to oil. But investing in our infrastructure could nudge us in the direction of making our state safer and more attractive for ourselves and would-be investors. That’s what our governor and our Legislature should be doing with our tax money, instead of subsidizing gasoline consumption.

    Gas tax proposal going nowhere fast with Senate opposition

    COLUMBIA, S.C. - Plans to eliminate the state's gasoline tax for three months this fall are running on empty in the Senate even though Gov. Mark Sanford tried to rally support for the idea Tuesday.

    Even some who like the idea of eliminating the state's 16.8 cent-a-gallon tax don't want to do it between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31 because of the November elections.

    "In Louisiana, we call that vote buying," said Sen. Robert Ford, D-Charleston and a New Orleans native.

    "It's a political ploy to get votes out in November," said Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia.

    Ford introduced a resolution that would have cut the tax from July through September and tried to get the Senate to put it on a fast track for passage.

    But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence, objected. Leatherman says there's no guarantee the tax break would ever reach consumers.

    It's a sentiment that Leatherman will carry into a budget conference committee that begins meeting Wednesday. The House passed a plan for the gas tax break in its final version of the budget last week. But Leatherman and at least one of the two other senators on that conference committee would have to agree to keep it in the state's $6.5 billion spending plan.

    Supporters say growth in state revenue from a surging economy will pay for the break.

    "The big spenders in the Senate can play with the numbers until they're blue in the face," Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said. "The fact is this budget doesn't return any new dollars to the people of this state despite nearly a billion dollars in new revenue."

    Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken, made his fortune selling gas through a convenience store chain. He said retailers can be trusted to pass on the savings.

    "There's not going to be any adverse impact," said Ryberg, a candidate for state treasurer. "That's your friends back home, the retailer."

    Ryberg was one of five Senators who showed up to support Sanford's plan to suspend the tax between Memorial Day and Labor Day, which would cut $134 million in tax revenue.

    Senate Minority Leader John Land, D-Manning, says there is no guarantee that economic growth will make up the difference.

    Land also doesn't like the idea of lifting the tax and then letting it fall back in place. That happened a few years ago with a temporary reduction in grocery sales taxes. That's "unfair to the taxpayer," he said.

    Sen. David Thomas, R-Fountain Inn, is on the budget conference committee with Leatherman and Land and says there are other concerns. For instance, most of the gas tax goes into road projects and repaying bonds for that work.

    The governor's spokesman said Sanford's proposal guarantees bonds will be paid by other sources, but bondholders could get jittery about those promises.

    At the same time, reducing tax collections for a few months could become a factor in determining what the Department of Transportation can borrow for road projects in the future.

    "The bond issue is a real serious problem," Thomas said.

    Apart from those concerns, local governments get almost a quarter of the fuel excise tax - nearly 4 cents on the gallon, said Sen. Dick Elliott, R-North Myrtle Beach. Losing that would hurt those projects, he said.

    Knotts agreed.

    "We can barely find money now to repair our roads and bridges," Knotts said. "If we just set them back three months, we're going to have to make up for it later."

    Sawyer says it's not a problem.

    "The proposal we've laid out fully funds what would have been generated by the gas tax," he said. "Our proposal holds DOT and road funding harmless."

    Board delays auction plans for Sullivans Island land

    COLUMBIA, S.C. - A planned auction of land on Sullivans Island pushed by Gov. Mark Sanford is on hold for a month.

    The Budget and Control Board on Tuesday said it would delay action on the property the Town of Sullivans Island wants for its municipal operations.

    Sanford chairs the board and lives on the island. He said he would continue to support auctioning the land to the highest bidder.

    In 1949, the federal government gave the state the property for free. It had been used since 1915 as part of the Army's operations at Fort Moultrie. There are two pieces of property: a rundown dock with a dock house and a warehouse on a neighboring parcel of land........

    Tuesday, May 16, 2006

    Barrett on the President's speech

    Rep. Gresham Barrett (R.-S.C.)

    “Troops on the border will immediately help stop the flow of illegal immigrants and most importantly, increase our national security. However, this is not a long-term solution. We should not rule out other solutions like those passed by the House in December, including the construction of a fence.

    “The American people deserve to know their government is doing everything possible to secure the borders. All options should be on the table. I look forward to hearing what the President has to say this evening.”

    Monday, May 15, 2006

    South Carolina Governor: Sanford (R) With Solid Lead

    Sanford 52%
    Moore 33%