Here’s to all citizens hurting today as you write your check(s) to federal and state treasuries. You are not alone.

When your day is long and the night, the night is yours alone,
When you’re sure you’ve had enough of this life, well hang on
Don’t let yourself go, ’cause everybody cries n everybody hurts sometimes

Sometimes everything is wrong. Now it’s time to sing along
When your day is night alone, (hold on, hold on)
If you feel like letting go, (hold on)
If you think you’ve had too much of this life, well hang on

‘Cause everybody hurts. Take comfort in your friends
Everybody hurts. Don’t throw your hand. Oh, no. Don’t throw your hand
If you feel like you’re alone, no, no, no, you are not alone

If you’re on your own in this life, the days and nights are long,
When you think you’ve had too much of this life so hang on

Well, everybody hurts sometimes,
Everybody cries. And everybody hurts sometimes
And everybody hurts sometimes. So, hold on, hold on
Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on
Everybody hurts. You are not alone

After much resistance, I’ve finally removed the background music from “about me” website. I designed this flash movie a few years ago and I thought U2’s “Bad” loop sounded pretty cool, but ya’ll kept telling me it was annoying and demanded I take it off. So check out the link above called “about me”. This part of the site is mainly background information with general views on a variety of issues. Here’s a video of “Bad” for those of you that like one of the best songs in rock ‘n roll…

If you twist and turn away; If you tear yourself in two again
If I could, yes I would; If I could, I would; Let it go; Surrender
Dislocate; If I could throw this
Lifeless lifeline to the wind; Leave this heart of clay
See you walk, walk away; Into the night
And through the rain; Into the half-light
And through the flame; If I could through myself; Set your spirit free
I’d lead your heart away; See you break, break away
Into the light; And to the day; Oooh oooh, oooh oooh, oooh oooh oooh…
To let it go! And so to fade away; To let it go!
And so fade away; I’m wide awake
I’m wide awake; Wide awake
I’m not sleeping, oh no, no, noIf you should ask then maybe they’d; Tell you what I would say
True colors fly in blue and black; Bruised silken sky and burning flack
Colors crash, collide in blood shot eyes Oooh oooh, oooh oooh, oooh oooh oooh…If I could, you know I would; If I could, I would; Let it goThis desperation; Dislocation; Separation; Condemnation; Revelation; In temptation; Isolation; Desolation

Let it go; And so fade away; To let it go, oh yeah
And so fade away; To let it go, oh No; And so to fade away; I’m wide awake; I’m wide awake
Wide awake; I’m not sleeping oh no no

                          

Cost of posting state agencies’ spending online overstated. by Richard Eckstrom, SC Comptroller General
     State government spending has grown tremendously over the last several years, and the public realizes that personal income levels have not grown anywhere near as fast as government spending. For example, spending by state government jumped twelve percent last year, yet the average South Carolina family’s income rose by just four percent. Clearly, government spending is out of touch with the economic realities faced by ordinary citizens.
     Taxpayers deserve to know where that money is going. The General Assembly is now considering legislation that would require state agencies and local governments to post their check registers and credit card statements online. This proposed legislation, if enacted, would make it easy for citizens to see for themselves exactly where their tax money goes.
     In turn, this could expose wasteful spending and remind state agencies and employees that they ultimately answer to the people they serve. This is exactly the kind of common-sense, good government proposal that no one should oppose. Many may not realize that the comptroller general’s office has already implemented a similar system — at no cost to state agencies — that makes expenditure information for most state agencies available via an easily accessible Web site.
     Agency compliance with any additional online data posting required by the proposed legislation could be implemented in most cases without costing the taxpayers a dime. Yet a recently released “fiscal impact statement” obtained by the General Assembly dramatically overstates the cost of implementing this proposal. Misinformed or biased “number crunching” only confuses lawmakers and gives governments an excuse not to make their spending available to the public.
     According to initial cost estimates for implementing this proposed legislation, the state would need as much as $5 million to fully implement an online check register and credit card database. These estimates, provided by a few assorted state agencies, are simply not credible to me. In fact, I already provide spending information on more than 70 state agencies via a Web site at absolutely no additional cost to taxpayers. The proposed legislation would simply require local governments and the remainder of state government to follow suit.
     I am told that some officials are already using the dramatically inflated cost estimates as political cover. They are arguing that it is a waste of taxpayer money to inform taxpayers how their money is spent.
     Most state agencies are already in compliance with the proposed law, whether or not they realize it. The majority of state agencies already report their finances to my office for me to process their check payments and in turn I summarize and electronically post their spending information on the state Web site. The entire program costs taxpayers nothing.
     State agencies exempted from reporting to my office now maintain their own similar financial databases that they could make available, if they wanted to, via the Internet at virtually no additional cost, simply by using the same type search engine that we are already using.
     Otherwise, school districts and county and municipal governments would be able to comply with the proposed law simply by scanning their check registers and credit card statements onto a computer and posting their scanned files to their agency’s Web site. Keep it simple. Require each governmental entity to decide the easiest and least expensive route to comply with the proposed legislation.
     But rather than taking this common-sense approach, some are lamenting that a vast network of new computers, databases and new employees will be necessary to manage an imaginary new bureaucracy. It is the usual ploy. If the costs to implement can be inflated, they think that maybe they can make go away these efforts at implementing more and better government transparency.
     But let’s be clear — their inflated cost estimates, which are awfully flimsy, are the only thing shielding lawmakers from the justifiable anger of the voters if this proposed legislation fails.
     This typical big-government mind-set, that an entirely new bureaucracy is required to reinvent the wheel, is bogus. The real facts are clear. The majority of government agencies essentially already comply with the proposed bill. Those that don’t comply have a no-cost, or very low-cost, example to follow. Complying is simply a matter of being willing to make it happen.
     The technology exists today. The infrastructure exists today. My office will assist any state agency with the transition to transparency. State lawmakers should welcome the chance to shine the sun on state spending and to invite the public into the vaults of government data. It should not cost them a thing to do so. And if they do not, the public would be justified in asking what it is their elected officials don’t want taxpayers to see.

In our special meeting on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 SC Senate Finance removed the 2% salary increase from the budget. This pay increase did not include legislators – not to be confused with the retirement 2% COLA in S. S. 1124. If this was the last option we had to balance the budget, I might consider the cut. I did not vote for this cut because there are other areas to look first. For example, the Legislative Slush fund (competitive grants) has $18 million remaining from last year, but I’m told the law doesn’t allow us to use that money to balance the budget. Last time I checked we write the law so I’d like to explore ways to get that money. Also, we’re sending $3.5 million to the Greenwood Genetics Center whatever that does. We’re sending $24 million in scholarships to Coastal Carolina. We could expand medicaids’ prior authorization on prescriptions to save us millions, but no, we pick on our dedicated state employees. Go figure…

We won round two! I have a few thousand constituents that have been jerked around by their water company for a few months now. They are already paying the next to highest rates in the County (2nd to the outside city limit customers of the city owned water company, don’t get me started on that one). And the USSC keeps coming up with ways to ask the Public Services Commission for an increase. I’ve received correspondence from the PSC that the Utilities Services of South Carolina has been denied again for a rate increase proposal. If you are interested in past posts on this topic, click  here and here. To read the PSC’s Directive . We initially thought this saga was over for residents of Acorn Drive, Altamont Court, Arcadia Drive, Bamboo Drive, Bayshore Lane, Brown Road, Bryson Road, Clearview Drive, Club Drive Drive, Crestwood Drive, Cretewood, Driftwood Drive, Edgewater Drive, June Way, Kings Court, Lakewood Drive, Marty Court, Meeting Street, Mountain View Place, Oakwood Estates, Old Shoals Drive, Olivarri Drive, Penniger Drive, Penniger Drive, Pine Top Circle, Red Oak Drive, Shannon Drive, Town Creek Trail, Twin Lakes Circle, Twin lakes Court, Twin Lakes Drive, Twin Lakes Drive, Wallwood Drive, Walnut Way, Wellwood Drive, Whisper Lane, Wilderness Lane, Wilson Road, Windwood Drive, Woodlake Road, Woodoak Drive, and Yates Circle. The USSC came back with another attempt to increase the rates on these constituents, but yet again, it was unanimously rejected.