Tea Party doing some good despite the Koch's?

[FooFa]

Nikki Randhawa Haley was elected the 116th Governor of South Carolina on Tuesday, November 2, 2010.

One of the strongest fiscal conservatives in state government, Nikki was first elected to represent the 87th District in Lexington County in 2004, when, as a virtual unknown, she beat the longest serving state legislator in a Republican primary. In 2008, Representative Haley was sent back to the Statehouse with 83 percent of the vote  -  the highest percentage earned by any lawmaker facing a contested South Carolina election that year. She won the Republican Party nomination for governor on Tuesday, June 22, 2010.

Her time in Columbia has been marked by conservative leadership and an unwavering commitment to the taxpayers’ bottom line. She has fought wasteful spending at every turn, pushed for smaller, more efficient government, and led the fight for accountability and transparency that, before her arrival, was sorely lacking in the Legislature.

For her efforts to cut taxes and slow the growth of government spending, Nikki was named “Friend of the Taxpayer” (2009) by the S.C. Association of Taxpayers and a “Taxpayer Hero” (2005) by Gov. Mark Sanford. She has lifetime “A” ratings from the South Carolina Club for Growth, the Palmetto Family Council, and the National Rifle Association. Nikki has also received the Palmetto Leadership Award from the S.C. Policy Council for her expertise on policy matters and the Strom Thurmond Excellence in Public Service and Government Award from the S.C. Federation of Republican Women for the outstanding constituent service she provided to her district.

Born in Bamberg, S.C., the daughter of Indian immigrants, Nikki’s first job was keeping the books for her family’s clothing store  -  at the age of 13. She went on to graduate from Clemson University with a B.S. degree in accounting and, following her graduation, worked as Accounting Supervisor for the Charlotte, N.C. based corporation FCR, Inc. and five of its subsidiaries. Nikki then went back to the family business where she helped oversee its growth into a multi-million dollar operation.

Nikki and her husband Michael, a full time federal technician with the South Carolina National Guard and an officer in the Army National Guard, attend Mt. Horeb United Methodist Church in Lexington.

Nikki and Michael have two children, Rena, 12, and Nalin, 9.
http://www.nikkihaley.com/about-nikki

April 14th, 2011
Dear Friends,
On Tuesday, we forever changed the face of South Carolina when we signed into law a bill to put legislative votes on the record. Take a moment to watch our video of a historic day at the Statehouse!

Greenville News (Editorial): S.C. residents win with roll-call votes
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20110406/OPINION/304060016/State-wins-with-roll-call-votes

South Carolina state government took a gigantic leap forward last week when the Legislature approved a bill that will require an on-the-record, roll-call vote for virtually every piece of legislation that comes before the Senate and House.

Much credit for the passage of this bill goes to Gov. Nikki Haley who made roll-call votes the centerpiece of her brief legislative career. Haley started campaigning for on-the-record votes after a 2008 report by the S.C. Policy Council showed the state House of Representatives held recorded votes on just 8 percent of the bills it approved. The Senate was worse, conducting roll-call votes on just 1 percent of its bills.

Those numbers are shocking, and Haley was absolutely right when she began crusading for more transparency in state government, a fight that contributed greatly to her victory in last November’s gubernatorial election.

That victory certainly helped send a message to lawmakers that state residents were serious about wanting more transparency from their elected representatives. What’s astounding is that earlier this year some state senators maintained that their existing system was transparent enough to keep voters informed of legislators’ actions.

That system, however, more often than not left state residents in the dark about how individual senators voted. It depended upon the motivation of senators to ask that the legislative journal reflect their opposition to a measure, and it provided an easy way for senators to duck accountability on a given issue.

Constituents should not have to undertake the tedious and often confusing task of poring over House and Senate journals to figure out where their representatives stand on issues.

South Carolinians will benefit tremendously when Haley signs this bill into law.

Haley previously pushed for rules changes that required both houses to take roll-call votes on nearly every bill they consider. After those rules passed, the next logical step was codifying that requirement to show lawmakers were serious about transparency and to make it more difficult for future General Assemblies to change the rules.

Sen. Larry Martin said in a recent report in The Greenville News that he will pursue a constitutional amendment to further entrench the new rules. Such an amendment would ensure all future legislative votes are on the record and intensify the sunshine created by the just-passed roll-call voting bill.

The bill that was passed last week requires roll-call votes on the third and final reading of each section of the state budget; second readings of bills, resolutions or amendments by the other body of the General Assembly; the third reading of any bill that has been amended; and any report of legislative negotiating committees.

Those requirements should assure that a vote on virtually every bill is on the record. That’s essential for South Carolina residents who now will be able to easily see how their elected representatives have voted on every issue.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell aptly summarized the power of this new law recently in The News. The law will “give our citizens a powerful and permanent tool to hold government officials accountable for the decisions they make,” he is quoted as saying. He also said, “A well informed public will produce a more restrained and responsible government.”

State residents pay the taxes that fund state operations. They also elect the representatives who decide how those taxes will be spent. They deserve to know exactly where that elected government stands on major issues, and there’s no better barometer of that than an on-the-record, roll-call vote on all legislation.

Date   Bill Title   Vote   Outcome
02/26/2009   24-Hour Waiting Period for Abortions
H 3245   Y   Bill Passed - House
(87 - 24)
02/24/2009   Exempting Cases of Rape from Abortion Waiting Period
Amdt 2   Y   Amendment Tabled - House
(69 - 45)
02/24/2009   Prohibiting Employment Termination Due to Abortion Waiting Period
Amdt 5   Y   Amendment Rejected - House
(54 - 60)
03/21/2007   Pre-Abortion Ultrasound
H 3355   Y   Bill Passed - House
(91 - 23)
05/25/2006   Penalties For Harming An Unborn Child/Fetus
S 1084   Y   Bill Passed - House
(81 - 18)
05/25/2006   Inclusion of Unborn Child/Fetus in Definition for Civil Suits Amendment
Amdt 3 to S 1084   Y   Amendment Tabled - House
(65 - 31)

Governor Haley voted NO

Project Vote Smart's Synopsis:

Vote to adopt a conference report that appropriates funds for fiscal year 2010-2011.

NOTE: THIS VOTE RECONSIDERS A PREVIOUS VOTE.


Link to Legislation: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/...

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=30698&can_id=47879

I'm pressed to find anything I disagree with her on. Pro Life is not a deal breaker for me.

[lil mike]

So whats the South Carolina skinny on her?  Does she seem to be doing a good job?

[Howey]

So whats the South Carolina skinny on her?  Does she seem to be doing a good job?

From what I hear from my brother, a Tea Party pub, the state's over her and there's a recall petition pending.

I read somewhere that she's lied on employment applications, put a lot of unqualified campaign donors in jobs in her administration, and got into a very public and nasty feud with a rich female philanthropist.

But she is purty and screws around a lot like any good Republican!



Source for the above information is my brother and something I read.

[lil mike]

Source for the above information is my brother and something I read.

For which part, that she's purty or screws around?

Hey what can I say, some Republicans are really horny.

[FooFa]

So whats the South Carolina skinny on her?  Does she seem to be doing a good job?

My answer is yes based on the record and local news. While just about anyone would have been an improvement over Mark Sanford and his affair, I think she is what she say's she is. I didn't personally care about Sanford breaking his wedding vows. I did follow the story closely and the bold faced lies that he told were the problem. It's against the law to leave the state and not inform your next in command which is what he did. There's a lot of old fashioned red necks here which is why Obama didn't carry this state so I'm sure Haley caters to them to an extent.

[FooFa]

What did state gain by saying ‘no’ to Amazon?
Independent Mail

Monday, May 2, 2011

Last week, when S.C. House lawmakers turned down a five-year exemption on sales tax collections for online retailer Amazon.com, the company reacted quickly to the 71-47 vote. It stopped construction at the Lexington distribution center site, canceled $52 million in procurement contracts and removed S.C. job postings from its website.

Only three area House members supported the exception: Reps. Dan Cooper and Mike Gambrell, both Anderson Republicans, and Pickens Republican B.J. Skelton. They showed courage in doing so. Giving the company a sales tax exemption (for only five years, not in perpetuity, by the way) would have put more than 1,200 people back to work — in Gov. Nikki Haley’s home county — and represented an estimated $100 million investment in our state.

Haley is on record as opposed to the deal, one brokered by her predecessor, Mark Sanford, and Joe Taylor, former director of the state Commerce Department, but said she would allow it to go into law without her signature if lawmakers approved the proposal.

Alas, lawmakers fell prey to pressure from small merchants organized by national retailers and Tea Party activists. There was also public pressure from Haley, who, during an appearance in Aiken, called the incentive “a slap in the face to every small business we have.”

We are on record as supporters of small business. In editorial after editorial over almost a dozen years, we’ve encouraged people to shop locally, to deal with people they know, to find that special item here instead of online or out of town. But here we must point out an incredible irony: According to numerous reports, it was Wal-Mart that convinced smaller business owners to join them in opposition to the proposal. And after all those years of hearing some of these same small business owners say that Wal-Mart, like other big-box, one-stop shopping giants, would run them out of business, the opposition made for some strange bedfellows indeed.

We’ve covered this issue repeatedly, and favored South Carolina keeping its word, although giving more careful consideration to any future deals of this kind. Incentives are a fact of life and if we don’t give them, some other county or state will. And Amazon had numerous incentives over and above even a limited-term exemption from collecting state sales tax.

But Amazon is not the only company that doesn’t collect state sales tax. Federal law doesn’t require that any online retailers collect it from their customers and forward it to the state. And until that issue is settled nationwide (which, for the record, we believe it should be, with online retailers not getting that advantage over brick-and-mortar operations), paying sales tax is still the purchaser’s legal obligation, not the seller’s.

So here’s where we stand: Amazon is pulling up stakes. More than 1,200 much-needed jobs will go to another state and millions of dollars in payrolls, construction contracts and other benefits that go along with a new player in the state will be collected by some other state government.

It’s not like online shopping is a new phenomenon that will take over the entire market of shoppers. The people who shop at Amazon and other online retailers instead of their local stores will continue to do so. Whether they do it for no sales tax or pure convenience or a wider range of choices, they will keep the same shopping habits. The people who, like us, prefer to support local retailers, will continue to do so.

So what have we gained?

It’s hard to see the upside to this supposed victory for South Carolina.

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2011/may/02/what-did-state-gain-saying-no-amazon/?print=1
***********
I can't even blame the tea bag gubna since she would have let it pass. I seldom agree with everything in an editorial but this is one. I can only imagine that it had more to do with one party showing the other whose thing was bigger. It makes absolutely no sense for this state to reject Amazon based on the reason's given. I'm for keeping online shopping the way it is, tax free although some of the shipping claims are ridiculous at times.

But I can understand some people wanting that changed however, today, it is the way it is. Do you think that part of it could be that some in this state are so antiquated and out dated in their thinking that they just don't understand or use the new fangled internets...Could they actually be so stupid that they don't see that what they did was cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[FooFa]

Posted on Thu, May. 19, 2011
S.C. House approves Amazon tax break deal

Clif LeBlanc
The State (Columbia, S.C.)

After a dramatic turnaround Wednesday in the House, the battle to win a prized tax incentive to lure Amazon.com moves to the state Senate, where the online retailer’s support has not been tested.
A 97-20 tally — aided by 49 legislators, mostly Republicans, who switched their vote — handed the Seattle-based company a real shot at receiving a five-year exemption from collecting state sales tax on each purchase by South Carolina shoppers. Last month, the House refused to grant the incentive on a 71-47 vote, which halted the project.

The vote came after Amazon sweetened its offer Tuesday night with an additional 751 jobs and $35 million more in investment, said Rep. Kenny Bingham, R-Lexington, who became the House point man in the high-stakes battle.

Amazon has committed to at least 2,000 jobs and a minimum of $125 million investment, Bingham announced on the House floor just before the vote.

One of the tipping points in the outcome was a private meeting between Gov. Nikki Haley and the House Republican Caucus just before Wednesday’s vote, according to several members who attended.

The legislators, who requested anonymity, said Haley and Commerce Secretary Bobby Hitt told them that Amazon’s decision to stop building a distribution center in Lexington County was not hurting the state’s economic development prospects. Amazon backers have contended the state reneged on a promise to adopt the sales tax exemption, which sent a message that South Carolina’s commitments were unreliable.