Saturday, April 28, 2007
FUNDS FOR GOOD PROGRAM DENIED--FUNDS FOR BAD PROGRAM APPROVED
This appears to at least some portion of the General Appropriations Budget approved by the South Carolina Senate Finance Committee for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. We note that it provides for $800,000 to be given directly to Heritage Community Services although, to our understanding, DHEC, which manages the Title V, Section 510 Abstinence-only programs in South Carolina, not only did not request funding for this project, but specifically requested other funding that was denied. Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee has also denied requested funding for The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families.
At first blush, these two programs may not appear to be either related or in competition for limited tax dollars. But a closer inspection shows the relationship. Among other things, The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families seeks to "provide alternatives to incarceration that allows those fathers seeking to provide financially for their children the opportunity to do so and at the same time reduce the burden on the state and the taxpayers." Among other things, Heritage Community Services seeks to reduce teenage pregnancies by teaching adolescents the negative economic consequences of having children during adolescence.
Simply put, one program (ineffectively) teaches how to avoid unplanned pregnancies and the other program teaches how to provide for children who are often the result of unplanned pregnancies.
It is understandable why Heritage would go this funding route. As a result of the recent publication of the (long overdue) Mathematica Study, Congressional funding for these pseudo-scientific "pure" abstinence sex-education programs is in jeopardy. Additionally, this development will make it more difficult for Heritage to obtain the money from the South Carolina Legislative Slush Fund. Given that 97% of Heritage's funding comes from various government entities and that the program has not been shown to be effective, it is obvious why this organization needs some insider-trading capability.
Although we have a pretty good idea of who slipped this item into the Budget (State Senator Larry Grooms), we are curious as to whether the press will "out" him. Additionally, we are more curious as to whether Governor Sanford will have the courage to stand behind his convictions and start using line item vetoes to deprive pork to some of the "prudes."
This appears to at least some portion of the General Appropriations Budget approved by the South Carolina Senate Finance Committee for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. We note that it provides for $800,000 to be given directly to Heritage Community Services although, to our understanding, DHEC, which manages the Title V, Section 510 Abstinence-only programs in South Carolina, not only did not request funding for this project, but specifically requested other funding that was denied. Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee has also denied requested funding for The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families.
At first blush, these two programs may not appear to be either related or in competition for limited tax dollars. But a closer inspection shows the relationship. Among other things, The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families seeks to "provide alternatives to incarceration that allows those fathers seeking to provide financially for their children the opportunity to do so and at the same time reduce the burden on the state and the taxpayers." Among other things, Heritage Community Services seeks to reduce teenage pregnancies by teaching adolescents the negative economic consequences of having children during adolescence.
Simply put, one program (ineffectively) teaches how to avoid unplanned pregnancies and the other program teaches how to provide for children who are often the result of unplanned pregnancies.
It is understandable why Heritage would go this funding route. As a result of the recent publication of the (long overdue) Mathematica Study, Congressional funding for these pseudo-scientific "pure" abstinence sex-education programs is in jeopardy. Additionally, this development will make it more difficult for Heritage to obtain the money from the South Carolina Legislative Slush Fund. Given that 97% of Heritage's funding comes from various government entities and that the program has not been shown to be effective, it is obvious why this organization needs some insider-trading capability.
Although we have a pretty good idea of who slipped this item into the Budget (State Senator Larry Grooms), we are curious as to whether the press will "out" him. Additionally, we are more curious as to whether Governor Sanford will have the courage to stand behind his convictions and start using line item vetoes to deprive pork to some of the "prudes."
