The new location is 1203 N Main St, Anderson, SC 29621 and it is adjacent to the Wachovia bank. There is a map on available on our website at http://andersonteaparty.wordpress.com. The protest rally will be from 5-7PM this Thursday, the 16th.
for more information, call Jonathon Hill 864-245-5885
By KEVIN BRYANT Guest Columnist The State Newspaper
The education establishment in South Carolina is running scared, because it’s running out of excuses.
Despite more money, more “accountability” and more government programs, South Carolina still has the nation’s worst graduation rate. Our SAT scores are still at the bottom of the barrel.
People are tired of failure, of rhetoric that ignores the facts, of irrational defenses of our state’s failed status quo and the steady barrage of misinformation accompanying those defenses.
And they are tired of choice in name only. They are ready for real change.
Several colleagues and I recently introduced the 2009 Educational Opportunity Act, which will provide tax credits for parents to send their children to any school of their choice. This is real school choice, and detractors are attacking it by saying it “won’t help poor kids” because there is “no guarantee” private companies and individuals will support scholarships for low-income, mostly minority students.
There are no guarantees in Pennsylvania either, but since its inception, the Educational Improvement Tax Credit Program has seen more than 3,200 companies pledge donations, and sent more than $350 million to some 600 scholarship-granting organizations. A key provision of the S.C. legislation is modeled after this successful program.
In the current school year, this investment in academic freedom has funded more than 50,000 scholarships to poor, at-risk students in Pennsylvania.
That’s 50,000 students getting a fresh start — and $300 million freed up within the public system to educate a smaller number of students.
In 2007, 62 corporations gave $14 million to student tuition organizations in Arizona, and 20,000 scholarships were made available for low-income students in Florida.
But the defenders of our state’s failed status quo aren’t just ignoring these success stories; they are impugning the motives of parental choice supporters, even playing a subtle but every bit as despicable race card.
Calling us “suburban Republicans,” they are implying that anyone supporting this legislation is only interested in making choice cheaper for those who can already afford it.
They are correct in presuming that this legislation would benefit “suburban Republicans.” It absolutely will. But it also would benefit “rural Democrats,” “urban independents,” “lakeside liberals,” “coastal conservatives” and all kinds of parents in between.
This bill will help all children.
State Sen. Robert Ford — a Charleston Democrat whose impassioned advocacy on this issue has stirred the African-American community in our state to action — is being attacked by the education establishment and prominent members of the NAACP.
I wonder if his detractors feel the same about the African-American mayors of Washington, Newark, N.J., New Orleans, Atlanta, and Jacksonville Fla. — all of whom support parental choice.
Critics don’t want to talk about these leaders, though, because they want you to believe that Sen. Ford is all alone among African-Americans in supporting a parent’s right to choose.
Our bill isn’t about black or white. Nor is it about rich or poor, rural or urban. It is about providing better academic options for each and every child in this state.
Supporters of the status quo want you to believe that this bill won’t help anyone, and yet in the same breath they contend that it will destroy public education.
The truth is this bill will free thousands of children stuck in failing schools — and will improve our public schools in the process by freeing up more money per student.
Mr. Bryant represents Anderson County in the S.C. Senate.
Today, Larry Reeves, pointed out an interesting correlation from the New Testament and the Old Testament. In Leviticus the high priest is instructed to leave behind his linen clothes after submitting a sin offering. In the Apostle John’s narration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ he points out the linen clothes left in the empty tomb left by the highest priest after His ultimate victory over sin and death.
Leviticus 16:3-4 & 23 – Thus shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram for a burnt offering. He shall put on the holy linen coat, and he shall have the linen breeches upon his flesh, and shall be girded with a linen girdle, and with the linen mitre shall he be attired: these are holy garments; therefore shall he wash his flesh in water, and so put them on. And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there:
John 20:4-7 – So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
My friend, Keith Munson of Greenville penned an interesting letter in Sunday’s Anderson Independent Mail:
Gov. Mark Sanford’s opposition to spending the $700 million dollar stimulus money is simply that taking on debt because you have an addiction to debt is ludicrous. Only an addict would suggest otherwise. But does that mean the only solution is to use the stimulus money to pay off debt?
For years, the governor has been harping on the fact that “government in South Carolina costs 130 percent the national average.” Why? Because it is inefficient. Because it decentralizes traditional executive powers into quasi-legislative agencies, into numerous boards and commissions, and into inconsistently elected statewide constitutional officers. Because it follows a budget process that promotes “fairness” only by spending more money. Because it was crafted in 1895 for racially discriminatory purposes.
If the General Assembly could create just 15 percent efficiency in a $5 billion dollar budget, they could save $750 million. Gov. Sanford has argued that efficiency can be achieved through the governmental structural changes he was been advocating in both his terms. If the General Assembly would pass the governor’s restructuring measures, it could pave the way for Gov. Sanford to accept and use the stimulus money while maintaining his “debt-neutral” commitment. This would allow South Carolina to address the short-term exigency while achieving long-term dividends.
