Public relations professional, community volunteer, Dad, avid Appalachian State sports fan, cyclist. Those are just a few words that describe a community neighbor, Patrick Cobb.

Patrick and his family, Merry – an instructional assistant at Oak Pointe Elementary- Madison 7th grader at DFMS, and Allee 3rd grader at OPES, live in Chestnut Hill Plantation.

By day he is the Communications Director for AARP South Carolina . He enjoys working with the South Carolina media and developing campaign strategies. As part of the AARP driven Divided We Fail effort, he met all 19 presidential candidates as they campaigned in the state for more than two years. One of his latest endeavors is driving the AARP SC blog.

Patrick also likes to give back to our wonderful community.

He has been involved in numerous District 5 committees and School Improvement Councils at Riversprings Elementary, Oak Pointe Elementary, and Crossroads Middle School. He’s a member of church council at Ashland United Methodist Church.

For fun, Patrick enjoys following Appalachian State sports or cycling any chance he gets! He is a graduate of Appalachian State and is also a member of the Appalachian State Alumni Council. This past summer he spent a week in Iowa with AARP colleagues participating in RAGBRAI (Register’s Annual Great Big Ride Across Iowa) a seven day 473 miles bike adventure. He also enjoys riding the back roads of Irmo and beyond with the great cyclists in our area!

Patrick is currently raising funds as a member of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society’s (LLS) Team In Training. The Team In Training raises funds to help stop leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma and myeloma from taking more lives. Learn more about Patrick’s Training and donate to this worthy cause by going his website.

Signs, Signs, everywhere Signs.

Last session, the House approved a bill that would restrict the “naming of bridges/roads/intersections” to only those people that were deceased.That bill, however, was D.O.A. in the Senate.

Last week, a similar bill was up for debate and, for some reason, it hasn’t even got out of the House. H.3084 seemed simple enough but, in this ever-so-partisan year, it turned into a “rich v. poor” debate. Simply put, the bill would only allow state funds to be used to pay for signs named in memory of serviceman or law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty . What is wrong with that?

Well, colleagues quickly argued that there may be other justifiable times when recognition of a road would not be for a serviceman or law enforcement officer killed in the line of duty. One example given was a situation young child killed by a drunk-driver. Officials wanted to remember this loss and (I imagine) let the sign serve as a reminder to others about the tragedies of drunk-driving. In that instance, I would agree a sign could be appropriate. However, why not have private funds pay for this? I’m sure a school or organization could raise funds (estimate $500) for such a worthy cause. But the debate went further. It soon turned into something about “poor folks” who deserve recognition not being able to pay the money like “rich folks” can. Then examples of war heros (still living) not being able to be recognized because….well….they were still living.

That bill failed on Tuesday. Was reconsidered Wednesday and amended to say that if private funds were used, it could be named after an individual (living). An amendment also passed that would add firemen to the group (with serviceman, law enforcement) that would end up having the state pay for their signs. The bill was not approved though as debate was adjourned.

Then on Thursday, it was adjourned again.

You may be asking “Really? They can’t be spending this much time on something like this can they?” Well, we can. That’s the political process. Even a “minor bill” can sometimes become a “major battle” about the merits or….about other things. [Read more...]

Next Monday the House floor-debate begins on this year’s draft of our state’s budget.

The draft was printed and placed on all House members’ desks yesterday and discussions among the 124 members are underway in earnest. (PS. I’m wondering where the Earmark List is this year, maybe there are none. At least that’s my hope.)

Place your bets folks, because if we take the $350 million “Budget Stabilization Funds” for this budget (and $350 million in the following year’s budget), that’s exactly what we’re doing: betting that the economy will be better in two years.

Is that a bet we should make?

We’d also be betting the economy improves AFTER the 2010 elections are over and if not….well…we’ll just deal with the problems then, right? Is that ok with y’all?

I know, I know you’re thinking “…but Nathan, we’re gonna have to pay for the stimulus whether we take the money or not! Don’t let California get the benefit and we don’t.”

Yes, I’ve heard that said by many folks who want the feds to bail us out (even heard it today in discussions) but; remember folks, there is still $7,000,000,000 available to SC for other “stimulus” projects whether elected officials vote to spend this $350,000,000 this year to “stabilize our budget”.

Yes, we’ll be paying for the $1,000,000,000,000 stimulus for a lifetime (or two, or three) but if we take the $350 million and put in our budget, and in two years we’re not up to speed, we’ll be facing worse cuts than now AND may even have to look at tax increases to help the STATE budget. That’s why I believe that accepting the $350 million could actually lead to SC citizens’ paying MORE than “our share” now if we just said “no” to the $350 million for this budget and the next one.

Speaking of tax increases, do we look at passing those this year?? Don’t laugh. It’s on the table.

The budget, as drafted, takes the “stabilization money” and cut (among other things) aid to local subdivisions in order to meet some of the federal mandates required to actually GET the stabilization money. What does aid to local subdivisions mean? It means “local governments”. So, Nathan, what does THAT mean? Well, get ready for the possiblity of severe cuts in LOCAL services and, wait for it….increased taxes.. If we take those funds designated to help local governments (and right now it’s a huge chunk), local governments will inevitably raise taxes to cover the losses. Now remember, if that happens, WE didn’t raise those taxes on you. Or did we (indirectly)?

What about increasing the cigarette tax by 50 cents and using those funds to lessen other cuts in the budget and then…in two years….watch those cigarette tax funds go OUT of the general fund because….the economy will be better, right?

As someone who has (and does) support a cigarette tax increase, I don’t believe it has a place in the budget, just to fill holes in the short term.

I mean, y’all probably don’t know this, but for the past several years that’s the line we always hear inside the chamber: “Don’t deal with the cigarette tax in the budget. It needs to be a stand alone bill. Inside the budget it’s a year-to-year thing instead of a state law.” We also hear “We don’t want to grow Medicaid” but apparently these directives in the past now don’t mean anything and we can look the other way.

Heck, there’s been rumors that we may see several tax increase proposals presented during debate. Some would put back the sales tax on groceries (that we removed in the past) or even lift the local caps we placed via Act 388 (Property Tax) to allow local governments soften the blow from our actions.

You may be asking – surely there’s other options being discussed? Well sure. Somehow we have to get 63 votes to keep state government going.

What about REFORMS so that IF we “have to” end up taking the federal “budget stabilization funds” we can at least make sure the money gets spent wisely? What about making sure our colleges don’t raise tuition? What about making sure K-12 money goes to the classrooms? What about reforms to the entire budget process? How about zero-based budgeting for state agencies? What about stipulating that these budget funds can only be used for one-time programs?

Or what about the option to go with the “devil-we-know” and DON’T ACCEPT the “stabilization funds” for the budget. We tighten our belts by cutting agencies another 8% to 10% and then we won’t have to worry about artificially inflated spending items in the budget (propped up by two year’s of “Budget Stabilization Funds”) to have to continue to sustain when those two years of “stabilization” are yanked out from under us.

Remember, even if the House next weeks votes “no” to the “budget stablization funds”, our state still is in line for the $7 BILLION portion of the federal plan. In essence next week we’re really only saying “give us” or “don’t give us” 5% (10% in total, after 2 years – thanks for correction today by colleague) of the money coming our way.

It’s what that .5% can end up costing you and our state in two years when we don’t have the funds to keep the money train going that is really giving several of us concern.

If the bet on the economy doesn’t pay off, you better believe many agencies and folks will say “you gotta keep that spending going (inflated next two years with $350M from stimulus) because you have been doing it for…. the past two years!”

I’ve heard a lot already from my community and am working to represent your wishes and what I (and many of you) feel is best for our state.

Are these easy decisions? No.

Will any current option being discussed get a consensus 63 votes on the House Floor next week? Not sure. But 63 will be needed to pass the budget.

Will many officials have to “hold our noses” and choose the lesser of the evils presented? Most likely.

Many feel the “easy” vote (or I guess the “less painful” vote) is to just take the money; buy two more years to get the economy “stimulated”; and put millions back into education, health services, and other agencies. The million dollar question (or in this case 700 million dollar) is – will our state’s economy be “better enough” in two years to sustain these new levels of spending or not?

Is this a bet you’d make?

Sorry for the “pause” on the playback button for last week’s highlights. I usually try to get these up before the weekend but wasn’t able to earlier. Since it’s now Monday night, with a new legislative week starting tomorrow, I’ll give you some quick highlights.

It was again a light week ( except for Thursday ).

On a personal note, the House mourned the loss of Representative Herb Kish’s wife of 59 years! Rep. Kirsh (D-York) has served in the House since 1979 and he is loved and admired by many. We adjourned early on Wednesday so that members and staff could attend the funeral service.

Many of you know that it’s customary for members to bring State Champion Teams to the House Floor so that they can be recognized for their accomplishments. This week we got to recognize one of our own, Representative (and Coach) Jackie Hayes (D-Dillon) , who led the Dillon Wildcats to the 2008 Class AA State Championship Title in football. His two sons also played on the team so you know this was a very special moment for our colleague….as a coach and as a father.

On the business side of things, we had two guests give their annual addresses to the Joint Assembly this week: one from the American Legion and the other, SC Supreme Court Chief Justice, Jean Toal.

On Tuesday, we passed the Abortion/Ultrasound Bill (H.3245) which now heads to the Senate. By the way, anytime I saw “we passed”, y’all know it means we (the House) passed it, right? Legislation still has to clear the Senate (killing fields for several House bills in the past) and then the Governor before it becomes law.

Thursday’s “major legislation” dealt with the way we vote for our officials in our state. After much debate, bills passed that would: not along a candidate to be listed by more than one party; remove the option of straight-party voting; and require photo identification in order to vote. (For more details, click here)

Closer to home:

Tuesday night, I held another Constituent Service Night in our community. Past events have been held mainly at Ballentine Park or at Gatsbee’s Famous Soda Fountain . This one was held at the Northwest YMCA on Kennerly Road . Video of the event is up on the main page of NathansNews but can also be seen by clicking here .

I also worked this week with my Democrat and Republican delegation members (Richland County) to gain enough support to FINALLY have our community represented on the Richland County Recreation Commission. Hopefully, Richard Ouzts (Chapin) will be the newest member and hopefully can work to improve this very disfunctional entity.

Constituents that stopped by to visit at the State House this week were: Stan O’Brien, Mike Lowman, Thom Chumney, Ralph Bell, Matthew Deans (8th grader, Irmo Middle) and Jerome Singleton, Jr. along with his mother and father. By the way, Jerome is a Gold and Silver Medal Winner at the 2008 Paralympic Games in Beijing, China.

Looking ahead: Expect another light week in the chamber in preparation of an expected lengthly (and partisan) budget debate which will begin Monday morning, March 9th at 10:00 a.m. If you’re one of several in our state that is against taking federal funds and mandates , let your Representative know!