Often when writing to an elected official, you get a form letter. This one appears to be a direct reply!

Thank you for your note of support concerning my decision to not participate in the “Green Ribbon” Schools program.

As State Superintendent, my goal is to ensure that every child in South Carolina acquires an education that provides the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to succeed in careers or college as contributing members of society.  We simply cannot encourage schools to allocate funds to initiatives that will not measurably impact student growth and achievement.  More of every dollar spent on education needs to go directly to the classroom, which is a goal I continue to work towards.

There are over 50 “Green School Objectives” specified by the evaluation framework as required by the federal government.  Some of the more burdensome requirements include the following:

• “School grounds devoted to ecologically or socially beneficial uses, including those that give consideration to native wildlife.”
• “All cleaning products in use are certified ‘green,’ or can otherwise demonstrate that they meet the environmental standards of established ecolabel programs.  Custodial program is based in the principles of effective management and ‘green’ service.”
• “All food purchased is certified as environmentally preferable (e.g., Organic, FairTrade, Food Alliance, Rainforest Alliance).”

The proposed requirements have a financial cost that will be borne by state and local taxpayers, not the federal government.  A dollar spent “greening” a school is a dollar not spent in the classroom improving educational outcomes for students.

Again, thank you for contacting me.  I hope that we can count on your continued support as we work to ensure that all of our young people reach their full potential.

Sincerely,

Mick Zais, Ph.D.
State Superintendent of Education

A tea party organizer is searching for “citizen candidates” to take on Anderson County’s two longest-serving legislators — Sen. Billy O’Dell and Rep. Brian White — in the June GOP primary. “I think we can find some conservatives in their districts who are up to the challenge,” said Jonathan Hill, a Townville resident who organized the Anderson tea party.

…Hill’s harshest comments were directed at O’Dell, the dean of the local legislative delegation who was first elected to the South Carolina Senate in 1988. O’Dell switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in 2003. “He may have changed parties, but he didn’t change the way he votes,’ Hill said. He criticized O’Dell for voting in favor of last year’s state spending plan, which Hill described as the biggest budget in South Carolina history.

…O’Dell defended his vote for last year’s spending plan. While the plan included a significant amount of federal money, he said, the size of the state’s general fund has shrunk in recent years. “If we don’t have a budget, everything shuts down and I was not going to be a party to that,” he said. “The money is being used wisely.”

I seem to remember O’Dell voting in 2007 to create a “Green Bean Museum” instead of providing an income tax credit, and voting to accept–and quickly spend–federal stimulus money. How, exactly, is that wise financial management? But, there’s more:

[Rep. Brian] White said he would welcome the opportunity to discuss his “very conservative” voting record with Hill or anyone else. “I think I’ve done a fine job,” said White. He is a 44-year-old insurance agent from Anderson who has never faced a primary opponent since he was elected to the state House in 2000.

White said he supported the state’s voter ID law that was recently rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice. He also said that he has consistently backed tax relief and tort reform legislation.

Besides helping create a state cemetery system for veterans, White said, he sponsored an amendment to the state constitution that voters approved in 2010 guaranteeing the rights of South Carolina residents to hunt and fish.

As a member of the powerful House Ways & Means committee, White helped create the largest budget in SC history: $22 billion dollars. In a recession! That’s not all: White also voted in 2011 to create a new state agency, the I-95 Corridor Authority, with the power to manage the economy, education, infrastructure, and leadership of the 17 SC counties along I-95.

If challengers for their seats do emerge, White and O’Dell both said they will need to juggle their legislative responsibilities with political events in the weeks leading up to the June 12 GOP primary. The legislative session starts Tuesday and is expected to continue until early June.

“It will be difficult for an incumbent to campaign in the way we need to,” O’Dell said.

O’Dell and White will have sizable campaign funds available to them, state records show. O’Dell has more than $84,000 in contributions on hand, according to a finance report that he filed Thursday. White filed a report in October showing he had more than $54,000 in his campaign account.

Could these gentlemen actually be political zombies? We shall see!

I have received more comments, e-mails, letters, and phone calls from constituents about the debt ceiling than any other issue during my first seven months in office. South Carolinians are concerned about our nation’s massive debt and are asking whether I’ll vote to increase the amount our country can legally borrow, a cap known as the “debt ceiling.” My answer is simple: $14 trillion is more than enough debt for one country. I will be voting against increasing our nation’s debt ceiling and against any attempt to raise taxes.

Some will ask, “Why can’t you reach some type of compromise with Democrats on this issue?” As a husband and father of three boys, trust me when I say I know the importance of compromise, but we’re at a point in our nation’s history where compromise is dangerous.

To put our debt problem in perspective, if the United States federal government were a household that made $40,000 a year, that household would be spending $55,000 a year, and have over $220,000 in credit card debt. That same household would have an additional $1.07 million in future liability that it would have to start paying in the next few years.

No bank would give a credit increase to a household in this kind of financial mess and most households wouldn’t ask for one. Washington shouldn’t get a credit increase when it won’t agree on a plan to restore fiscal sanity. That’s the fundamental disagreement I have with President Barack Obama on this issue, and why I won’t support a debt ceiling increase or vote to raise taxes.

Our government needs to live within its means like families do every day. We’re not $14 trillion in debt because we tax Americans too little; we’re in debt because we spend too much money.

Washington politicians have talked about cutting spending before, but have never been able to follow through on their promises. Even though I’ve only been in Congress for seven months, I can already tell you that Washington will never voluntarily make significant cuts to spending. That’s why I’m such a strong supporter of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forces Washington to live within its means by prioritizing the functions of government and improving efficiency.

Reforms like a Balanced Budget Amendment coupled with spending caps and significant spending cuts are the type of revolutionary reforms that can prevent our children and grandchildren from inheriting mountains of debt. These are viable reforms as well. In 1995, a Balanced Budget Amendment failed to pass by just one vote, and that was when our country was facing a $5 trillion debt, not $14 trillion like we have today.

So what will happen if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling in time? Our country will be unable to borrow any more money and will be forced to manage its cash flow. The government estimates that the U.S. will collect around $2.6 trillion in taxes this year. That’s enough revenue to ensure that our country does not default on its debts (which is important to protect the credit rating), fund our military, continue all VA, Social Security and Medicare benefits, and maintain all of customs and border patrol’s operations. After those services have been paid for, our government would be forced to make tough decisions about what it chooses to fund.

If seniors, veterans or soldiers experience any disruption in their pay or benefits, it’s only because President Obama chose for that to happen. This isn’t an ideal scenario by any means, but the alternative is continuing to travel down a path full of debt, doubt, despair and decline.

A few months ago, I had the privilege of speaking to the graduates of Lander University in Greenwood. At their graduation, I spoke about the importance of being bold. Now more than ever, our country needs to be bold when addressing this debt crisis.

The easy thing to do would be to raise the debt ceiling and let someone else deal with this problem in a few years (after all, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times since 1962). Passing off the debt problem to our children and grandchildren may be the easy way, but it’s not the American way, and certainly not the Christian way. That’s why I’m pushing for revolutionary reforms like a Balanced Budget Amendment that’ll solve our spending crisis, turn deficits into surpluses, and make a “debt ceiling” something my future grandchildren read about in a history book. I’m fighting because we can solve this problem, but it won’t happen if our country and its people aren’t willing to be bold.

Tea Party Patriots has put together an excellent full-page fact sheet by the same title, summarized here for your convenience. We need help in the following areas:

• Print the fact sheet and post it in a visible location at your place of employment, and share this page with everyone you know.
• Contact the SC congressional delegation and tell them you do not want the debt ceiling raised one penny!

1. We won’t default if we prioritize our spending.

News flash: we will still be collecting taxes even if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, to the tune of $2.2 trillion in 2011 alone. After servicing our debt, that leaves $1.9 trillion to spend on essentials (see “The Debt Ceiling: debunking the myths“).

The Toomey-DeMint Full Faith and Credit Act (S. 163) would direct the Treasury department to prioritize our debt payments to ensure that the US does not default on its obligations.

2. If they raise it, they will spend it.

Enough said. Except to remind you that the debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the past 11 years.

3. We have been warned to stop the reckless spending.

Both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s have warned us that our credit rating will be downgraded if we do not control our debt. China, our primary lender, has had enough of our spending habits. Ruining our credit score will only make borrowing more expensive — if not impossible — a fact of life many American households are already keenly aware of.

4. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel on spending.

If we roll spending back to 2003 levels, we won’t need to raise the debt ceiling, nor will we have to default or leave parts of the government unfunded. Oh and get this: the Federal Government is actually holding $1 trillion in highly liquid assets and natural resources.

We do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. There is no reason whatsoever to raise taxes or the debt ceiling except to grow government.

5. A rising national debt hinders jobs and the economy.

Government displaces private sector jobs. Government tried to create jobs in the 1930s, the 1960s, and the 1970s, and failed miserably.

Since 2009 there are 2 million fewer people employed, while government spending has increased 19%!

Raising the debt ceiling will kill jobs.

PERIOD.

P.S. How would you prioritize spending for Aug.-Dec. 2011?