The editor,
In a recent Chronicle, you expressed your concern that at some point you might lose the right to vote. Should you become physically challenged, you fear state lawmakers will still DEMAND you walk into a polling place and show an ID or two before you cast your ballot.
I am pretty confident you should not lose sleep over that. The use of accommodative mail-in and absentee ballots worked fairly well in pre-Covid elections. If this pre-Covid common sense returns to the election process you will be ok. Or even if your Democrats have their way, you should be able to vote and vote often. You will win either way.
But I am concerned that the votes I cast in the future will not count nor even matter. Never a group to let a good crisis go to waste, the power drunk Democrats are now on the verge of taking control of all federal elections if their proposals in H.R.1 pass. You and many progressives seem to have a concern with the requirement of a photo ID to obtain a ballot and vote. I have never been able to understand why an individual should not have to demonstrate their citizenship and their right to vote by showing some form of photo ID. In 2021, it is not difficult for any citizen of the United States to obtain a legal photo ID if they want or need one. One of the most disingenuous arguments is that photo identification disenfranchises minorities and is an attempt to suppress their right to vote. That's malarkey!
In fact, The Chronicle is including notices that beginning October 1, 2021, everyone will need a Real ID in order to board a plane or ENTER certain federal facilities. Why then is it unreasonable to require a Real ID or some form of legal photo ID in order to cast a ballot in a federal, state, or local election? After all, we are electing individuals to represent us in these federal, state, and local government facilities and many require a photo ID for us to access their services. Come on man!
Sam L Howell,
Cross Hill.
The editor,
I have been reading the articles written by the Post & Courier of Charleston where they speak of corruption in small towns of South Carolina. It appears that they largely focus in their articles on the special purpose tax districts of the State.
This leads me in further thought to the corruption and/or the abuse of
the hard earned tax payers dollars of the Laurens County citizens by appointed board members of county governmental entities.
The Frivolously spending of our tax dollars are also used as perks in
traveling, lunches and dinners and having paid memberships to the elite golf courses that most living in Laurens County can not afford much less get in the front doors. I just don’t understand why this extravagance bleeds over to some of the county employees who are allowed to play golf on especially on Wednesdays and Fridays on county time? That’s a three day work week and the rest for pleasure at our expense.
I guess all these benefits are considered normal practice by those who
write the bylaws. This is still our tax money being used for personal pleasures. I would recommend for the present County Council to review and correct the abuse.
The thing now is transparency and I do not see any financial data or audit postings on the agency websites. We the people deserve to know how our monies are being spent within elected / appointed offices.
Jayhue Weisner,
Gray Court.
The editor,
I am writing this open letter in support of the city of Clinton’s potential
sale of 40 acres on the SE side of Highway 72 to East Main, LLC. After
reading the minutes of the previous council meeting, I was dismayed to read that some members were not supportive of this housing development. As a current (renting) resident of Clinton who will need decent, affordable
housing in the near future, I am keenly aware that this type of mid-range
housing is lacking in our city. I do not want to be forced to move to
Newberry, Fountain Inn, or somewhere else when I begin my permanent housing search. I moved to Clinton from Newberry because I wanted to be closer to my place of employment, Presbyterian College, but also because I enjoy the city.
My support of this Ryan Homes-led housing development — which from what I understand has both solid plans and solid financing — is not only related to my personal needs, but also the needs of the city.
As a scholar, teacher, and former practitioner of local governance, I know
that it is difficult for a city to socially and economically thrive in this
competitive city-versus-city environment. One of my favorite books dedicated to city governance, City Limits by Paul E. Peterson, argues that the primary interest of cities is economic development, and that leadership should do whatever they can to attract labor and capital to their cities. A mid-range, quality housing development like the one that East Main, LLC and Ryan Homes propose for this property would go a long way in attracting the type of professional, middle-class labor force that Clinton will need in the future as development continues down I-385. It will also increase local own-source revenue (i.e., through increases in property tax and CNNGA revenue), and will lower energy and water costs per household. This will make Clinton an attractive place to locate for both families and businesses, and provide a more solid financial-foundation for the city’s future.
I would also argue that by approving this sale and filling our mid-range
housing shortage, the council will enable Presbyterian College — one of the largest employers in the city — to attract more graduate students and
faculty, benefiting both the college and the city. Too many of our graduate
students and junior faculty members have to commute from the Greenville or Columbia areas simply because the quality housing market in Clinton is too limited and too expensive. I, for example, cannot afford many of the quality homes currently for sale in Clinton, and I am not unique. In sum, the fates of both the college and the city depend on reversing the economic decline that has plagued former mill towns like ours, and this is another concrete step the council can take to push us further down the right path.
Sincerely,
Daniel “Ben” Bailey,
Proud resident of Clinton, SC.
The editor,
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our economy has lost over 22 million jobs. Congress has spent over $6 trillion on various forms of “stimulus,” but most sectors are now struggling more than ever to find applicants for good-paying jobs. Questionable federal policies and too many obstacles make it ever-more challenging for businesses to hire Americans.
Arbitrary or antiquated government restrictions block some qualified Americans from earning a good middle-class living. Some fixes are slowed by unelected bureaucrats sitting on policy up-dates.
South Carolina’s 1st District Congresswoman Nancy Mace is tackling one major challenge, by focusing on one hurdle which has a huge impact on our economy and our daily lives: the trucking industry.
Rep. Mace has introduced the “DRIVE Safe” Act, which would allow truck drivers who can drive within a state to cross state lines and operate “in interstate commerce” with a federally-sanctioned, state-issued Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL). This dinosaur of an old federal rule says a CDL driver must be 21 years old before they can operate these medium or heavy-duty vehicles in “interstate commerce.” That means a CDL driver at 18 years old can drive from Hilton Head to Clemson, but can’t drive from Hilton Head to Savannah until he turns 21.
As bizarre as it sounds, that is currently illegal under federal law.
That stifles job prospects for qualified prospective movers of freight. The American trucking industry is facing a shortage of over 60,000 presently, and that grows quickly to 100,000 drivers in just less than two years. Trucking companies are offering average salaries of $50,000/year with full benefits to try and attract new drivers. Many make more, a lot more, with major fleets paying $70+.
Fleets are now paying for qualified prospects to get the CDL training, or doing the training themselves, so they can safely expand and serve their customers. With more and more people depending on online shopping for their everyday needs, we’ll see growth in demand for medium-duty regional and local deliveries. These are the perfect proving grounds for young workers who can’t afford or need a liberal arts degree.
These are careers in one of the most vital and high-demand industries in our economy that don’t require being stuck in classrooms, coming out years later with a piece of paper and decades of debt.
Washington’s fix seems to be $1.7 trillion of student loan forgiveness. Like Mike Rowe, former host of Dirty Jobs once said: “We are lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist. That’s nuts.”
Mace’s bill would encourage jobs, while providing a safe worker by requiring that before 18-20 year old drivers cross state lines (go long-haul), they operate at least 400 hours of on-duty time and 240 hours of driving time – both with an experienced trainer. Additionally, their truck must be equipped with active braking systems, video monitoring systems, and speed limiters. Most equipment will have even more safety and driver-assist technology than even this.
This solution would get the government out of the way and let industry and would-be workers more quickly pave the way to their own future.
Rick Todd, President & CEO,
South Carolina Trucking Association.The editor,
Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our economy has lost over 22 million jobs. Congress has spent over $6 trillion on various forms of “stimulus,” but most sectors are now struggling more than ever to find applicants for good-paying jobs. Questionable federal policies and too many obstacles make it ever-more challenging for businesses to hire Americans.
Arbitrary or antiquated government restrictions block some qualified Americans from earning a good middle-class living. Some fixes are slowed by unelected bureaucrats sitting on policy up-dates.
South Carolina’s 1st District Congresswoman Nancy Mace is tackling one major challenge, by focusing on one hurdle which has a huge impact on our economy and our daily lives: the trucking industry.
Rep. Mace has introduced the “DRIVE Safe” Act, which would allow truck drivers who can drive within a state to cross state lines and operate “in interstate commerce” with a federally-sanctioned, state-issued Commercial Drivers’ License (CDL). This dinosaur of an old federal rule says a CDL driver must be 21 years old before they can operate these medium or heavy-duty vehicles in “interstate commerce.” That means a CDL driver at 18 years old can drive from Hilton Head to Clemson, but can’t drive from Hilton Head to Savannah until he turns 21.
As bizarre as it sounds, that is currently illegal under federal law.
That stifles job prospects for qualified prospective movers of freight. The American trucking industry is facing a shortage of over 60,000 presently, and that grows quickly to 100,000 drivers in just less than two years. Trucking companies are offering average salaries of $50,000/year with full benefits to try and attract new drivers. Many make more, a lot more, with major fleets paying $70+.
Fleets are now paying for qualified prospects to get the CDL training, or doing the training themselves, so they can safely expand and serve their customers. With more and more people depending on online shopping for their everyday needs, we’ll see growth in demand for medium-duty regional and local deliveries. These are the perfect proving grounds for young workers who can’t afford or need a liberal arts degree.
These are careers in one of the most vital and high-demand industries in our economy that don’t require being stuck in classrooms, coming out years later with a piece of paper and decades of debt.
Washington’s fix seems to be $1.7 trillion of student loan forgiveness. Like Mike Rowe, former host of Dirty Jobs once said: “We are lending money we don’t have to kids who can’t pay it back to train them for jobs that no longer exist. That’s nuts.”
Mace’s bill would encourage jobs, while providing a safe worker by requiring that before 18-20 year old drivers cross state lines (go long-haul), they operate at least 400 hours of on-duty time and 240 hours of driving time – both with an experienced trainer. Additionally, their truck must be equipped with active braking systems, video monitoring systems, and speed limiters. Most equipment will have even more safety and driver-assist technology than even this.
This solution would get the government out of the way and let industry and would-be workers more quickly pave the way to their own future.
Rick Todd, President & CEO,
South Carolina Trucking Association.
The editor,
So, I heard on Fox News that President Biden may be banning meat to combat global warming. Then I remembered that Colorado Democrat Governor Jared Polis had issued a similar proclamation last month.
My first reaction was, what kind of cockamamie idea will the Democrats cook up next. But then I read the article they quoted, and it made a bit more sense.
Apparently, a University of Michigan research report found that replacing 50% of animal products with plant-based foods would prevent more than 1.6 billion tons of greenhouse gasses by 2030, which is Biden’s target date for a 50% reduction in emissions.
Another article I found in The Guardian, argues that animal farming is a major driver of climate change, as well as air and water pollution, soil
depletion, and destruction of wildlife habitats.
It’s possible that, in an environmentally sustainable world, we may
eventually need to replace meat and other animal products with vegetables, fruits, and grains, just as we replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources.
I may look and see what the internet and my local supermarket have to offer in terms of plant-based meat products.
Sincerely,
Chuck Cicero,
Laurens.
