Sure, it’s McCain/Palin v. Obama/Biden.

Then, you’ve got your House and Senate races.

Some county races in parts of the state.

Some local bond referendums/school boards.

What else?

Here’s this year’s SC Constitutional Amendments. Do yourself (AND OTHERS) a favor and read these BEFORE you go vote and KNOW how you’re gonna vote. Inevitably, several voters don’t know these are on the ballot and then require several minutes to read/understand/determine/vote.

(If you can’t click the link above, below is a cut/paste from www.scvotes.org)

Amendment 1

Must Section 33, Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to delete the provision that no unmarried woman shall legally consent to sexual intercourse who shall not have attained the age of fourteen years?

Yes []

No []

Explanation of Above:

This amendment deletes the section of the Constitution which says an unmarried woman must be fourteen years old or older in order to consent to sexual intercourse. Deleting this section would allow the state legislature to set the age of consent. Currently, the state legislature has the age of consent set at sixteen for most cases.

A “yes” vote would delete the section from the Constitution and let the state legislature set the age of consent.

A “no” vote would leave the section of the Constitution in place.

Amendment 2

Must Section 16, Article X of the Constitution of this State relating to benefits and funding of public employee pension plans in this State and the investments allowed for funds of the various state-operated retirement systems be amended so as to provide that the funds of any trust fund established by law for the funding of post-employment benefits for state employees and public school teachers may be invested and reinvested in equity securities subject to the same limitations on such investments applicable for the funds of the various state-operated retirement systems?

Yes []

No []

Explanation of Above:

“Post-employment benefits” are benefits, mainly health insurance, provided to eligible state government and school district retirees.

To comply with a change in accounting standards, the state has created trust funds to pay for these post-employment benefits. This amendment relates to how the money in these trust funds may be invested.

A “yes” vote would give the state government the option to invest these funds in equity securities (stocks).

A “no” vote would mean that state government is not allowed to invest these funds in any kind of equity securities (stocks).

Amendment 3

Must Section 16, Article X of the Constitution of this State relating to benefits and funding of public employee pension plans in this State and the investments allowed for funds of the various state-operated retirement systems be amended so as to provide that the funds of any political subdivision of this State that have been set aside for the funding of post-employment benefits for the political subdivision’s employees, including those invested in independent trusts established for that purpose, may be invested or reinvested in equity securities of the type permitted for investment by the various state operated retirement systems, as provided for by the General Assembly?

Yes []

No []

Explanation of Above:

This amendment is the same as Amendment 2 except it applies to local governments’ post-employment benefits (instead of the state government’s post-employment benefits).

In case you’re not sure, we’re less than a month away from one of the “most important elections” ever.

I’m reminding you because, since SC is seen as a state that’s not really in play (McCain should carry the state), you haven’t seen too many ads flooding the airwaves like the folks are seeing in the “swing states”.

I put the phrase “most important election” in quotes because….well….it seems like every election is labeled like that. At least this year, I think we have an election that will certainly change history. Whether Republicans win or Democrats win, our country will either have the first African-American President or the first female Vice-President. Both are pretty big news, if you ask me.

But tonight’s post isn’t about labels like black/white, male/female, Republican/Democrat though. We have enough labels in the world that separate us already.

One label I had to write about though is the ever present record-label and the music industry. I mean, forget the issues! Don’t we all just really listen to the songs that play when candidates walk out on stage and base our decision then who our guy (gal) is?

I mean, I’m the biggest Boston fan you’ll find; so when Huckabee played “More than a Feeling”, that was it! He was my man! But wait….then Tom Scholz got upset and told Huckabee to stop playing and using his song. Huckabee couldn’t really be my man if Boston didn’t like him, right? [Read more...]

While the folks at AIG are spending bookoo dollars on luxury trips - weeks after a nice tip from Uncle Sam – folks in the “real world” are finding times a little bit tougher than they have been in the past.

With my paying job being with Wachovia Mortgage ….ummm….Citigroup?….ummm….Wells Fargo?……I certainly see the effects this housing market/crisis is having on builders, contractors, subcontractors, electricians, plumbers, realtors, lenders, real estate attorneys, title insurance companies, etc.

As an elected official, I’m witnessing first hand the budget shortfalls of our state and the inevitable emergency-session coming our way in a few weeks.

Well, closer to home, in fact – at home – we’re exploring new ways to help out the budget. We’re thinking Karen may be heading back to work next year (note: PAYING WORK, she certainly works her butt off at home like all the other mothers who sacrifice careers to be with their kids during the early years). But it’s not just the grown-ups pitching in here.

Tonight, our four-year old, J.C. has pitched in and is doing his share! As I type this, he’s anxiously waiting on a “Tooth Fairy Bailout” that (based on the number of times he keeps getting up) can’t come soon enough!

I hope you and your family are enjoying the (slightly) cooler weather as it appears fall is in the air!

If you have events you’d like me to share on the website, please contact me directly through NathansNews.com and I’ll be happy to see how I can help pass along the news.

STATE HOUSE

As folks in Washington are passing bailouts to “help” our economy (editor’s note: Dow down 1,000 since passage), we officials here in South Carolina are looking at the strong possibility of returning for an emergency session to address revenue budget shortfalls. Wednesday, the SC Board of Economic Advisors will address revenues and, should they be 4% lower than original estimates, the General Assembly needs to be prepared to return and address these issues. It won’t be pretty but I personally would rather us revisit the budget than just pass “across the boards” cuts.

As I have since day one, I look at the state’s budget much like I do our personal budgets back home. With that in mind, if your income dropped 5% one year, would you cut all your budget expenditures by 5%, across-the-board? Probably not (I hope). Instead I believe you you would cut things like “going to the movies” or “entertainment” before you would cut savings, or groceries, or other more pressing matters. This is what we’ll have to do in the emergency session. If we do it “right”, we’ll have floor debate and carefully consider where to cut more and where to cut less. I’m afraid though that the cuts are already being decided by 3 or 5 individuals and their staffs. See, that’s usually how the budget works. “The plan” gets rolled out and the “default vote” from the floor is to vote against any amendments. Trust me, I know. If you have any suggestions of where to cut more/less, I’m listening. I want to take your views to Columbia and, if possible, impact change instead of just accepting what a small few present.

YOUR MONEY

See above. The budget is the biggest legislation we pass every year. I want to be sure we’re spending money wisely but sometimes folks are more willing to just vote and get back home that there really isn’t much debate.

At least with an emergency session, I hope most folks will forego the income from the state since others are also having to make sacrifices. To be fair, it’s easier for me to make this statement because (a) I return my salary to worthy causes anyway and (b) I live 10 miles from Columbia. What are your thoughts? Should my colleagues accept income? One could say “we didn’t get the job done to begin with” while others could say “they shouldn’t have to pay for gas, mileage, and lodging just because revenue estimates are off”. Which would you say? [Read more...]