Brad Warthen's Blog

The tax on stupidity

I liked this analogy offered in a book review in The Wall Street Journal Thursday about why we so often call lotteries a "tax on stupidity:"

    'Imagine a standard NFL football field. Somewhere in the field, a student has placed a single, small, common variety of ant that she has marked with a spot of yellow paint. You walk onto the field, blindfolded, and push a pin into the ground. If your pin pierces the marked ant, you win. Otherwise you lose. Want to give it a go?"
    Thus did one mathematician describe the odds of winning a Powerball lottery. Is it any wonder that economists deride state-run lotteries as a tax on stupidity? Bad enough that the government is encouraging gambling; all the worse that it is encouraging such a bad bet.

You betcha.

'That stupid ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX!'

I just retreated up the stairs to my home "office" -- one of the rooms my kids have moved out of over the years -- because my wife was yelling about struggling to figure out "that stupid alternative minimum tax." She was telling me that if I wanted to do something useful, I could do something about that.

Mind you, this is about five minutes after we were having a conversation about how people are always coming to her with things they want ME to do something about, like the editorial page editor is in charge of the world or something. She said I have no idea how many things like that she deflects for me. I said I probably DO have an idea, because I get it all the time myself. It's weird. It's sort of like being the Godfather, with people coming to confide a problem, and you're saying in soothing tones, "What can I do for you, my old friend?..." It would be a big ego boost if I actually thought I had the power that some people seem to assume I have.

Anyway, five minutes after she's acknowledging how silly it is that people think I can do all of these things, she's asking me to do something about the alternative minimum tax. Hey, I don't even fully understand what it is. You know why? Because my wife does our taxes. Thank God.

Maybe, when things calm down a little downstairs, I should go down and think of something to do or say to express my appreciation for that, huh?

Maybe I'll tell her I gave that alternative minimum thing to one of the congressmen on the family payroll, and he's going to take care of it. That's what the Godfather would do...

Amen to letter debunking Reagan tax 'reform'

Just now remembered that I meant to say a big "Amen!" to the third of these letters that ran on Thursday:

Reagan tax policies began economic slide

I think that if I read one more letter praising Ronald Reagan’s tax policies I will be sick.

I was in the tax business when his 1986 tax reform act was passed. This act was revenue-neutral. The cut in the top brackets was accomplished by cutting numerous deductions that the middle class enjoyed. My own taxes increased more than $2,500.

The idea, of course, was that those in the top brackets would create jobs and products. The problem was the middle class had less money to purchase the products.

From that point on, the discrepancy in accumulated wealth between the middle and upper classes began to widen, and the government deficit began to increase.

If you want real tax reform, I have a suggestion: Allow those who take the standard deduction also to take their charitable deductions. This would result in churches and other charities being able to meet the increasing demands they are facing in this current economy.

WILLIAM R. GEDDINGS JR.
West Columbia

The first year that tax "reform" took effect was my first year at The State. I had taken a big pay cut to come here from Wichita (I SO wanted to be close to all of y'all and I really, REALLY wanted to get the heck out of Kansas). I mean a big one, like 25 percent. Add to that the fact that I was the first (or at least, the only) editor ever hired from out of state (in our daily meetings, pretty much everyone was a USC grad except for the guy who was ostracized for having gone to Clemson), and there simply did not exist a procedure for compensating such new hires for their moving expenses. My boss fiddled the books (legally, acting within he rightful prerogatives) to give me an extra $1,000 in my first paycheck to help me out with that. I went with the cheapest deal with the movers I could get -- we did all the packing, in our own boxes -- and we drove a lot of stuff ourselves crammed into our two vehicles like the Clampetts heading for California. With needing to stop for the kids, it took us four days to get here. And the move still cost me $1,500 out of my own pocket, which cleaned out our savings account.

We rented because we couldn't afford to buy, and we kept putting food on the table by my wife taking in other kids to care for them along with our four (our fifth was born here the following year).

And THAT year, thanks to Ronald Reagan's tax "reform," was the first time I EVER had to pay more than had been deducted from my paycheck. In fact, I think it still stands as the ONLY time, but I'm not positive; I'd need to check.

So needless to say, I didn't think much of what the Gipper had done for me. Maybe somebody benefited -- Gordon Gekko or somebody -- but it was pretty painful for me and mine, hitting me in probably the worst year of my adult life for such an unexpected expense.

Not that we should make tax policy based on how it affects yours truly. I'll leave such arguments as that to my libertarian friends. I'm just saying Mr. Geddings' letter struck a chord with me.

One Democrat fed up with tax deadbeats

So you think all this stuff about Geithner and Daschle and their taxes is a bunch of Republican spin? Well, maybe it is, but I got an earful about it from one ardent Democrat this morning.

Samuel Tenenbaum, key Energy Party think-tanker, dropped by my breakfast table this morning. This is always an occasion for me to find out what is at the top of his mind -- which can range from his 55-mph speed limit plan to endowed chairs (which were also his idea) to, well, almost anything. Samuel reads a lot, and cares a lot, about a heap of stuff.

But today he was fed up with Obama over the tax deadbeats he's been choosing for his administration. He was going on about how this was not the Change he had believed in when he supported Obama. At first, I thought he was mad because the new POTUS wasn't cutting these people loose once the news broke about their failure to pay. But no, he blamed Obama for not having sufficiently vetted these guys to begin with.

Paying your taxes is basic and fundamental, he maintained, and there's just no excuse for nominating people who haven't done that.

Anyway, Samuel convinced me of one thing for sure -- that I should at the least put up a post to give y'all a chance to sound off on the subject. Yeah, I'm a little late, since Daschle withdrew his name today, but hey, I was out on medical leave yesterday (nothing serious; routine testing).

Now, about that 'zero Republican votes' thing...

The last time they did this, I had no doubts that the Republicans were wrong. When not one of them voted for Clinton's Deficit Reduction Act in 1993, it was about as pure an example as I can recall of partisan mule-headedness and populist demagoguery. Not to mention the fact that they were wrong on the issue. Argue cause and effect all you like, the passage of that legislation WAS followed by dramatic deficit reduction. And the way the GOP went to their home districts and told everybody about how those awful Democrats had raised their taxes was unconscionable. Especially when South Carolina Republicans said it -- most people in S.C. did not see their taxes increase, unless you count the 4-cent rise in gasoline tax. And what importance can you honestly attach to 4 cents a gallon when monthly fluctuations in price are usually far more than that? (Of course, you know what I think about gas taxes.)

I remember actually watching TV news -- something you know I don't often do -- during that vote. Somebody had Al Gore on live, and Al was as stiff and awkward and priggish as only he can be as he talked about how wrong the Republicans were not to support it, with the roll call going on in the background (I'm thinking it was the Senate; in any case not one Republican in Congress voted for it). But he was right.

This time, I'm not as sure. I'd LIKE for our elected representatives to get together on anything as big as spending $819 billion, rather than splitting along partisan lines. I mean, if we're going to do it, let's do it together -- doing it divided increases the chances that it the stimulus will fail. I say that because Phil Gramm had a point -- so much of the economy is psychological. If the country sees this as THE plan that everyone agrees on, the country is more likely to have its confidence boosted. If it sees every member of one of the two major parties (for now) decry it as a waste doomed to fail, we could be looking at some self-fulfilled prophecy.

That said, I don't know but what a Republican -- or UnPartisan, or anyone else -- who says this plan isn't going to do the job doesn't have a point. After all, Paul Krugman says it won't, and he's no Republican.

On the other hand, their reason why this package isn't quite the thing is all bass-ackwards. They complain that only about a third of it is tax cuts. Well, I'm worried that a third of it IS tax cuts, and that those tax cuts will have zero effect on stimulating the economy. I haven't seen figures yet on exactly what the tax cuts will mean to the average American, but as I pointed out before, in an earlier version, the amount we're talking about would have given each worker only about $9 a week -- which is just barely enough to go to a movie. By yourself. If you don't buy popcorn.

If you're going to have a stimulus package, either SPEND enough to really kick-start the economy (and this doesn't appear to be enough), or target tax cuts to where they are likely to stimulate some real activity. Unfortunately, in trying to provide something for everybody -- and then going to woo the GOP in person -- Obama may have produced a solution that doesn't do enough of anything. And then, after all that trouble, you fail to get the bipartisan support that you were trying to buy with that $300 billion in tax cuts.

As for what you will probably hear them yammer about most on TV news (and in the rest of the blogosphere) -- what partisan political effect this vote will have -- I don't have a dog in that fight. Whether the Republicans have cooked their own goose by voting against a plan that will work, or set themselves up to be blamed for it NOT working, or are poised to recapture the House because they were the only ones to see it wouldn't work, or whatever... I don't care. I'd like to see both parties suffer in the next election, just on general UnPartisan principles. Unfortunately, I might get my wish: The stimulus could fail, and both parties be blamed -- but that be the least of the nation's worries. You know what I'd be worried about right now if I were a Republican? I'd worry that my caucus just invested its hopes in economic failure -- just as Harry Reid et al. bet all their chips on our failing in Iraq. That's not a position you want to be in -- your nation having to fail for you to be right. But that's their lookout, not mine.

For my part, I hope the stimulus works. Or that something we do soon works. And as long as it does, I don't care who gets the credit -- even a political party.

Hope springs, even in S.C. politics

By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
Last week’s column chronicled my rapid descent into a state of fuming impatience over the things that we simply refuse to do in South Carolina even though they would obviously, irrefutably make us healthier, wealthier and wiser. The proximate object of my frustration was our steadfast refusal to save young people’s lives by raising our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax to the national average. But I could as well have fulminated about our fragmented, unaccountable governmental structure, or the crying need for comprehensive tax reform, or... well, there’s a long list.
    And if I wanted to shake my fist at our fate a bit more today, I would have no shortage of cause. I could, for instance, dwell on the discouraging hour or so I spent Wednesday listening to our governor talk about his 2009 agenda: Yes, he’ll back a cigarette tax increase — a third of the way to the average — but only if he gets the counterbalancing tax cut he wants. Otherwise, he’ll veto it, again, without compunction. And yeah, he agrees that consolidating some of our smaller and less efficient school districts would be worthwhile, but he won’t spend energy pushing for that; he prefers to waste what little capital he has in the education arena in another debilitating ideological battle over vouchers. And so forth.
    Depressing.
    But that’s not what I want to do today. Today, I want to offer hope, and I’ve got some on hand. This past week, we saw some remarkable instances in which things that just were not ever going to change in South Carolina — not no way, not nohow, as they might say in Oz — suddenly change, and for the better.
    Let’s start with the sudden emerging consensus to place the Department of Health and Environmental Control — one of our biggest and least answerable agencies — under the authority of the governor. Set aside what I just said about this particular governor. The governor — this one or any other — is the elected chief executive, and far more likely and able to see that the agency is run the way we the people want and expect it to be than a largely autonomous, unelected board is.
    This is painfully obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how politics works, and has been ever since my colleagues and I started pushing for it with all our might back in 1991. At the time, though, we had few allies other than a few wonkish good-government types and the occasional governor who wanted the power, while almost everyone else in a position to do something about it or with a stake in the system was ready and able to resist the change.
    All sorts of people had all sorts of reasons to fight reform. Environmentalists, for instance, knew how to game the complicated system and lay roadblocks to polluters and other adversaries, and feared that a more “efficient” system — especially one run by a governor enamored of economic development at any cost — would make it harder to block permits they opposed.
    And in South Carolina, the status quo always has the upper hand in the Legislature. So I despaired of seeing reform.
    Then one day, just before Christmas I think it was, I ran into Sammy Fretwell — who along with fellow veteran reporter John Monk had been writing a hard-hitting series about DHEC’s failures to do its job well — and he told me a remarkable thing: A key environmental leader who had long opposed making DHEC a Cabinet agency had become a convert to accountability.
    That was wonderful, but it was just the beginning. Other conservationists started working for, rather than against, a bipartisan bill backed by longtime restructuring stalwart Sen. John Courson and Sen. Phil Leventis in the Senate, and a similar bill in the House. The stunner, the coup de grace to my lingering doubts, came in Thursday’s paper: Bo Aughtry, chairman of the DHEC board, the man at the very center of the status quo’s sanctum sanctorum, called for making it a Cabinet agency. And several former board chairs agreed with him.
    Folks, stuff like this doesn’t happen in South Carolina. But it did, and is continuing to happen. And if it happened on this issue, it can happen on others. Such as, say, transparency.
    Remember what happened at the end of 2008 to Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine, two young GOP lawmakers who were innocent enough — and guileless, idealistic and dumb enough — to confront the leadership openly and directly on the need to have roll-call votes on important action? They got crushed, as one would expect. They were handed their heads. Advocates of reform were appalled, but expected nothing different.
    Then, on Wednesday, the House voted, unanimously, to do pretty much what Ms. Haley wanted. And the Senate did much the same. And all of a sudden, it was touted on all hands — by the leadership as well as by the governor and the long-suffering reformers — as just what everyone had wanted all along. And Nikki Haley, rising like a phoenix, is the heroine of the hour.
    Stuff like this doesn’t happen, not like this, not out of nowhere, not out of the mere fact that it’s the right thing to do and there are no good reasons not to do it, not in South Carolina. But it did.
    So now I’m just seeing hope everywhere. Such as in a poll released Wednesday that showed that 74 percent of S.C. voters support raising our cigarette tax to the national average. Sixty percent favor it strongly.
    Here’s the thing about that: As I indicated in last week’s column, the arguments for going all the way to the national average are so strong, and the arguments not to do so are so weak, that only the most perverse sort of resistance to rational change can prevent it from happening.
    In the past, such perversity has been richly abundant in South Carolina. But last week, we seemed to suffer a sudden shortage of it on two surprising fronts.
    So take hope.

For more to be hopeful about, please go to thestate.com/bradsblog/.

S.C. voters back increasing cigarette tax to national average -- more than ever

The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative released its new poll today showing support for increasing the state's lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax to the national average is higher than ever:

Overwhelming Majority of

South Carolina

Voters

Favor Increase in Cigarette Tax

 

New Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Cigarette Tax

To Reduce Youth Smoking and Address the State’s Healthcare Needs

 

Columbia (January 14, 2009) – Nearly three-quarters of South Carolinians (74 percent) favor a proposal to raise the state cigarette tax by 93 cents per pack to help fund programs to reduce tobacco use among kids as well as programs to increase access to health care for South Carolinians, according to a new poll released today. A majority of voters (60 percent strongly favor the 93-cent increase.

 

The poll found that there is no difference in support between a 93-cent and 50-cent increase. Support for both specific cigarette tax increases is broad-based, and cuts across party, regional and ideological lines.

Danny McGoldrick

, Vice President for

Research

at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids noted, “From a political standpoint, it’s clearly ‘in for a penny; in for a pound.’ This is because opposition to the cigarette tax is low and essentially identical at the two levels, while the revenue and other benefits dramatically increase with the higher tax.”

 

The survey of 500 registered

South Carolina

voters, who are likely to vote, was released today by the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative in conjunction with the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Cancer Society. In announcing its results, the campaign declared the cigarette tax a win-win-win for

South Carolina

. An increase in the state’s cigarette tax is a win for public health because it will reduce smoking, particularly among kids; it’s a win for the state’s fiscal health because it will raise more than $175 million in new annual revenue for the state; and it’s a win for lawmakers who support it because of overwhelming voter support.

 

Strong voter support is evident among virtually every political and demographic subgroup of voters in the

Palmetto

State

, as large majorities of Democrats and Republicans, men and women, young and old, and residents of all parts of the state support the tax. “The cigarette tax is clearly not a partisan issue,” said McGoldrick. “The proposal has tremendous support across party lines and across the state.”

 

Tobacco-caused costs add more than $960 million per year to tax bills in the state – or more than $560 for each

South Carolina

household. “By increasing the cigarette tax,

South Carolina

will reduce smoking, save lives and help offset the health care costs caused by smoking,” said Dr. Anthony Alberg of the Medical University of South Carolina.

 

“Youth smoking is an epidemic, and increasing the cigarette tax is a proven strategy to protect thousands of

South Carolina

kids from tobacco addiction,” said Alberg. “

South Carolina

has the nation’s lowest cigarette tax rate at just 7 cents per pack and the lowest funding for prevention programs. We have failed to take this important step to fight the epidemic. Among the options that are on the table, increasing the cigarette tax is clearly a preferred solution to making sure the state can balance the budget while funding important priorities.”

 

 

In this difficult economic environment, there is no support for any type of tax increase in

South Carolina

, with one exception – an increase in the state cigarette tax. All other spending reductions or tax increases tested fall flat.

 

Support for a 93-cent increase in the state cigarette tax crosses party and ethnic lines, with 73 percent of base GOPers, 86 percent of white Democrats, and 72 percent of African Americans backing an increase in the state cigarette tax. Regionally, support for a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is also strong across the state. Support is stronger in the Lowcountry (80 percent favor) and Midlands (78 percent favor), but is also high in the Upstate (71 percent favor) and

Pee Dee

regions (67 percent favor). The “weakest” subgroups – African American women and

Pee Dee

voters, still back a cigarette tax increase by more than a 60 percent level.

 

In terms of the specific cigarette tax increases tested by Public Opinion Strategies, intensity is stronger for the 93-cent tax increase (60 percent strongly favor) than for the 50-cent tax increase (54 percent strongly favor). Both proposed increases receive strong support across party and ideological lines.

 

The poll found that a 93-cent cigarette tax increase is politically safe for legislators. More than half (53 percent) of voters are more likely to support a candidate who supports a cigarette tax increase, while just 14 percent are less likely. Support remains high among base GOPers (50 percent more likely) as well as among very conservative voters (51 percent more likely). Opposition among these groups is low – just 12 percent of base GOPers are less likely, as are just 14 percent of very conservative voters.

 

When asked to choose, a significant majority of voters agree that revenue from a cigarette tax increase should be used to reduce tobacco use, especially among children, and to expand access to health care (62 percent), rather than to reduce other state taxes (34 percent). Fully 83 percent of the electorate say they are concerned about the problem of smoking and other tobacco use among young people in South Carolina, with more than half (55 percent) of the electorate very concerned about this issue.

 

Large bodies of economic research, numerous expert panels, experience in other states, and even reports from the tobacco industry have concluded decisively that price increases effectively reduce smoking, especially among youth. The U.S. Surgeon General, in the 2000 report, Reducing Tobacco Use, concluded that raising cigarette taxes is widely regarded as one of the most effective tobacco prevention strategies and that cigarette tax increases would lead to “substantial long-run improvements in health.”

 

According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a 93-cent increase in

South Carolina

’s cigarette tax would prevent more than 63,600

South Carolina

kids alive today from becoming smokers and prompt 33,500 adult smokers to quit, saving 29,200

South Carolinians

from a premature, smoking-caused death. The additional revenue from 93 cents per pack would provide the state with an immediate boost of more than $175 million in revenue in the first year alone.

 

“The evidence is clear that increasing the price of cigarettes is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking, especially among children and pregnant women,” said Jim Bowie, Executive Director of the South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative. “Preliminary evidence confirms that every state that has significantly increased its cigarette tax in recent years has enjoyed substantial increases in revenue, even while reducing cigarette sales.

South Carolina

has nothing to lose and everything to gain from raising its cigarette tax.”

 

The South Carolina Tobacco Collaborative is a coalition of health, education, community, business and faith organizations dedicated to raising the state excise tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products to protect our kids. The Collaborative’s more than 30 member groups, including the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association of South Carolina, South Carolina Cancer

Alliance

and American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, support the 93-cent increase in the cigarette tax to help prevent kids from starting to smoke and to fund healthcare programs.

 

The survey was conducted by Public Opinion Strategies. The statewide poll has a random sample of 500 registered likely

South Carolina

voters and was conducted December 9 and 11, 2008.  The poll has a margin of error of +/- 4.38 percentage points.

So I guess I'm not the only one getting impatient on this.

Meanwhile, we had our lunch with the governor today. This subject came up, and basically he backs the idea of going a third of the way to the national average -- if it's offset with a tax cut he wants. If it's NOT offset by the tax cut, he'll veto it again. But you probably knew that without my telling you.

Lunch was nice, by the way. Joel saw to it I had a nice grilled fish fillet with salad, and that the dressing didn't do me in. I appreciate it.

Video: Ed Gomez vs. Nikki Haley

First, I apologize for the length of this video clip, but I think it gives a pretty fair glimpse of what our interviews were like with the two candidates in S.C. House District 87.

You have newcomer Democrat Edgar Gomez challenging Rep. Nikki Haley. Four years ago, Nikki was the longshot going up against a very Old School incumbent in Larry Koon. If anything, Mr. Gomez is probably a longer shot, if only because Rep. Haley is hardly the symbol of entrenched seniority that Mr. Koon was; hers is still a very fresh face on the S.C. political scene.

On the video, you will see the candidates' respective remarks about or answers to questions about several issues, starting with an open question about what they consider the top issues to be, then moving on to taxation, school "choice" and payday lending.

And yes, I will still be doing separate posts on these two interviews, just not today. In the meantime, you have the video.

Loving me some planet

Ya gotta love this: So I'm going through my snail mail IN tray, something I do every month or so whether I need it or not (please, please don't send me anything urgent or important via snail mail), and I run across this tabloid-sized publication called Environment & Climate News, and of course my usual move with anything unsolicited that is printed on something like newsprint is to toss it in the newsprint recycling bin.

But I can't, because IT'S WRAPPED IN PLASTIC.

So who in the world who's so interested in the environment be so utterly clueless as to send something so grotesquely incongruous to a crack, trained observer such as myself?

Well, once you know the answer you say "of course:" It's our old friends Joseph L. Bast and his Heartland Institute, which is an organization that, like our governor, would never ever want gummint to do anything about climate change or anything like that.

Oh, and you say the picture above is hard to read on account of the glare? Well, that's because IT'S WRAPPED IN PLASTIC!

But before you walk away chuckling, I should point out something that probably would never have struck me if not for my habit of saving up the mail to go through all at once: A few minutes before, I had dispensed with (by which I mean I had passed it on to Cindi because I noticed there was an item related to S.C. state policy) a publication called Health Care News, which as it happens is also put out by The Heartland Institute. Three guesses as to what the Institute wants us to do about health care. You got it: Nothing. (Mainly because the concept of "us" is anathema to such groups.)

This organization now has my attention. Ubiquity will do that. This group may be better funded, and operating on more fronts, than its spiritual brother Howard Rich.

Amazing the amount of money people will spend rather than pay taxes, isn't it?

Chip Huggins, S.C. House District 85

Sept. 10, 2 p.m. -- Chip Huggins has represented this Irmo-Chapin district since 1999. And folks there must like him pretty well, because in all that time he hasn't had opposition for re-election. And in that area (think District 5 school board, the battles over development in northwest Richland County), not many officeholders can say that.

Since he's the Republican in this race, given the district, I suspect he's about to get elected again.

But perhaps because he hasn't had occasion to explain or defend his positions on issues in past election years, he doesn't communicate very well where he stands, or where he is likely to stand in the future. It's difficult to tell at times for certain whether he's just not all that good at communication, was having a bad day (nervousness, which is common enough in a first interview, could account for some of the mangled syntax that kept posing a barrier for me) or he just did not want to be pinned down on anything. Unfortunately, by the end of the interview, I felt quite sure that that last explanation was most valid -- he seemed to have a tremendous aversion to taking definite stands.

The most definite thing he said to us -- the most specific, helpful fact that he provided with regard to his record -- had to do with how he voted on Mark Sanford's video of the cigarette tax increase. He indicated that he favored the tax increase (which contrasted with his general belief, also clearly stated, that he believes South Carolinians are overtaxed), and indeed voted for it. In light of that, I asked him, what were we to make of the charge by his challenger, Jim Nelson, who told us Mr. Huggins had supported the governor's veto of that legislation? He said quite clearly that what Mr. Nelson said was incorrect -- that in fact he had voted to override. He offered to get the clerk's office to back him up on that, but I said no need. Of course, Cindi will check that out to confirm, but it seems highly unlikely that he would assert that so definitely were it not the case -- especially since he was so loathe to be pinned down on much else. (Cindi speculated that this could have been an honest mistake all around, because she had noted that the VoteSmart organization, which she normally swears by, had reported that vote in a confusing way. She noted that she has informed VoteSmart, and they're supposed to be doing something about it.)

As for the rest of the interview -- well, I deeply regret that I was having multiple technical difficulties today. I had lent the camera with which I usually shoot video to one of my daughters; I didn't realize the memory in my digital sound recorder was full until after the interview started, and after shooting three still photos and three short, low-quality clips with my Treo, it refused to record any more, claiming that it, too, was full. (And my dog ate my homework.) But let me try to give you a sense of what it was like.

Early in the interview, he indicated that he favored Gov. Sanford's campaign to restructure state government, which was fine by us, of course: The governor's positions on that subject are almost word-for-word straight out of our "Power Failure" agenda. But later I asked him to be a little more specific, and ran into a wall of reluctance: He had no specific ideas about how the government's structure could be improved, beyond a vague desire to avoid "duplication." So I asked him to tell me, specifically, which of the constitutional officers did he think should be appointed rather than elected? When none seemed to be forthcoming, I started listing them: The commissioner of agriculture -- should that be appointed (that seemed like the easiest on to start with)? How about the adjutant general? The attorney general?

He wasn't saying. "There's just a lot of duplication," he said. "Going to continue to look at that. I'm not going to be specific about that." When I looked for this quote in my notes, at first I started to copy from the wrong page, because on the page before that, talking about education, he had said, "I don't have any direct answer on that... continue to look at that."

Mr. Huggins is hardly alone in his fondness for the phrase "look at that" -- it's a favorite among candidates (especially incumbents) who don't want to take a position, as in "We'll continue to look at that." It may be a defensible way to talk about a complex issue that's just come up and you haven't had time to study in adequately. But there's no excuse to answer that way about issues that you yourself cite as important, and which have lain more or less unchanged on the table before you for years on end. And Mr. Huggins did that repeatedly. When candidates do that, I tend to think What do they think this is, a weather report? I don't want their predictions of what the Legislature will continue to look at, I want to know what they think the Legislature should do.

The more frustrating exchanges, for me, were later in the interview, after my Treo was full. But I think you can get the idea if you watch the phone video clip below (again, I apologize for the quality). About halfway in, we get to the subject of the state's automobile sales tax cap. Mr. Huggins seems to want the cap changed in some way, a way that would be "fair," but when we try to find out what he believes would be fair (simply tax the full value of cars at the rate at which we currently tax the first $6,000? exempt the first $6,000, but charge the full rate on the value over that? some other approach?), but he avoids answering.

And, as I say, that was the pattern of most of the interview. I came away knowing that he disagrees with his opponent's politically suicidal assertion that we don't pay enough taxes, but not much else.

Usually I find these interviews quite helpful in forming an impression of a candidate. This time, not so much. If anyone has any further information to offer regarding Mr. Huggins or his opponent, now would be a good time to bring it to my attention. Because we're continuing, as one might say, to "look at that..."