A production of the South Carolina Educational Television Network.

♪ Tom Fowler> And tonight on Carolina Journal, our series of programs with the candidates for governor of South Carolina continues tonight.

Carroll Campbell, the Republican candidate, is with us.

And good evening, everyone, I'm Tom Fowler.

Carroll Campbell has served in the South Carolina House of Representatives before being elected to Congress, and has served from the fourth district, which covers Greenville and Spartanburg counties.

He is stepping down from that post.

He's running for Governor of South Carolina, and at this point is the only Republican candidate.

Congressman Campbell is with us right now.

Let's start off with the basic question of why you would step down from that seat in Congress, from the seniority and the influence that you have there.

Why you want to become governor?

> Tom, I think it comes back to the fact that when I first went into politics, it was by accident.

I stayed in part time in the state House and Senate, and I didn't go to Washington to serve 20 years and get a federal retirement.

I went up there to try to do some things.

I have done as much as I think I can do in the minority.

I've been a major part, obviously, in the Reagan effort, in his campaigns and in the legislative program.

Particularly in 1981, '82.

And as we have tried to turn back to the States, some of the responsibilities and their control over their own future.

Then I think that, it is almost logical that if that's what you're interested in and the state that you represent is one that you love, that you want to go back and try to move your state forward to take advantage of some of the things you've helped to bring about in Washington and try to improve things for the people that you represent at home.

And that's what I see this as, an opportunity to come back to serve.

I'm not looking for a career in any position, and if I can't be of service, then it's time to quit.

Tom> How big a change is this for you?

You have been successful in your career in Washington.

You have been reelected from your district, sizable margins.

What about this change for you?

Congressman Campbell> Well, it's obviously a change.

But you have to remember that I served in both the South Carolina House and the South Carolina Senate.

And I also served for 18 months as executive assistant to the governor.

And so I have done an awful lot of work at the state level, not to mention the boards and the commissions and the things that I've worked with part time, particularly in areas of aid for the handicapped fund and things of this area.

And as I've worked in these areas, I've built up a wealth of experience.

Everybody today, if they don't know it, should, know that the federal and the state governments have an inner relationship.

They work together.

The programs that we have in our state, many of them are joint federal state programs.

We're trying to move more responsibility to the state, but there is a relationship.

And if you don't understand the relationship and you don't understand, what goes on in Washington as well as what goes on in Columbia, then you are not prepared to do the job.

Also, we also must recognize that the state and federal government impacts the private sector and the private sector is what I'm interested in.

Expanding the opportunities, creating the jobs, improving the economic climate, not only in South Carolina, but the entire nation.

And that's been where my career has been all along.

And so, I believe coming out of the business world, which I did, I owned my own businesses for a number of years, still own part of some of them.

And then working part time in politics and then serving for eight years in the Congress, has pretty well given me the background that's necessary to give a shot at trying to help move South Carolina forward.

Tom> What do you think, from your point of view, would do that?

Talk a bit about what you see as the critical problems for South Carolina facing the next governor of the state.

> Critical problems with South Carolina facing the next governor, are paying for all the new programs and the things that this governor has implemented.

The Education Improvement Act is something that was probably long overdue.

It is only an add on, though, and I think people need to recognize that the Education Finance Act came out of the Edwards administration.

I happened to be working in that administration.

Roger Kirk, helped to draft that.

It was the first thing that was done to try to improve education.

Then, of course, we did the Educator Improvement Act.

And, as we did these things to improve teachers, to improve opportunities for young people, cut down the size of the classroom, then the Education Improvement Act, the big one, essentially funded teachers, and it put in a formula for funding that brings them up to the south eastern average, hopefully to help us get and keep qualified teachers.

But these things cost money and a penny sales tax that was put on to pay for it, was put on at a time that this state had a surplus, a rather substantial surplus, and the legislature, went on a spending spree.

And when they did, they spent an awful lot of money in areas that might have been better to not spend as much on.

And now we're in a little bit of a slack time.

They're talking about having to cut things.

They haven't been able to fund the education programs that they want to fund, and they all of a sudden are facing reality.

The reality is this... that we have the highest taxes per capita in the southeast, in the state and local taxes combined.

Our gasoline taxes are higher than our sister states.

Therefore, we're losing business.

As we look at these things, if you're going to continue to improve, and the only road you're gonna follow is one of increasing taxes, you're going to hit a point of diminishing return.

We're now doing that.

The projections for South Carolina are not as bright as our sister states.

Our growth is not as strong.

We're losing industries such as Fort Howard Paper across to Georgia, selling these out of Greenville, over to North Carolina because of the business climate in this state.

We need to improve that.

If we'll improve our business climate, if we, in fact, can get South Carolina competitive, in the fields of taxes and insurance costs.

We're also very much out of line in the cost of insurance, particularly liability insurance.

As we recognize these problems and correct them, we have the climate.

We have the people.

We have the geographic location on the East Coast to be a tremendously prosperous area.

We are growing in tourism.

Our manufacturing has been shrinking, and we must recognize the causes and cure them.

Then we have to go out and sell the state.

And you have to sell it, to the expanding companies.

You have to try to sell it in the state.

Within South Carolina particularly, we've got to pay attention to our existing companies.

Too often we want to go to Japan and Germany and bring in a new company and not worry about a company that's down here in South Carolina looking for help in its own expansion.

They create jobs, too.

Those are the kinds of things that need to be done in this state.

Tom> Just a few seconds ago, you were speaking of the General Assembly going on a spending spree, Around the same time as a penny sales tax was put in.

Specifically, what would you count in that?

> Well, in a number of the programs that they upgraded, a number of specific projects, individual projects that they funded, at that time, were expanded, stepped up spending on projects that had been, already been on the books for a set period of time, the advanced spending.

All of these things caused us to increase.

Now we have some things we have to do in South Carolina.

We have to educate our children.

We had better educate our children.

An educated population is our salvation.

And that's the number one priority.

But we also have some other things to deal with.

Our prisons are overcrowded.

We're turning criminals back on the street because we haven't met the problems there.

And how are we gonna do that?

Are we going to continue to build prisons?

Are we going to continue to deal with the problems there in the same way we have?

Tom> Well, let's take that.

What would you propose with that?

Because we're facing a situation where the governor, every few months he's being presented a list by the Department of Corrections saying that they're at their limit, with the federal court settlement.

And they have to lower the number of prisoners in the state system.

What should be done?

Campbell> I think there are quite a few things that should be done.

First, I think that you should have more determinate sentencing.

And second, I think that as you look at the use of parole, you should use parole only for a short term, getting people out of prison.

This thing that's telling people they're sentenced to 25 years in jail, and then they serve four years and they're out on the street, but they're still clogging it up.

It's not the deterrent that an absolute ten year sentence would be.

People worry about that.

And we have to put the deterrent factor back into sentencing.

I think that's an essential.

Second, I think that we need to look at the use of probation in a different sense.

Today, we don't have a what we would call an intense probation.

That is where someone can literally be confined between certain hours to house arrest.

Other states have done that, particularly I believe New Mexico has gone into that and several others.

They have the ability to monitor a person at home, by that person has to consent.

In other words, if you were sentenced, say, for like a nonviolent crime, to a period of time in jail or a monitored parole where you had to be at home, between six o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning and the ability to monitor you there electronically, is something that is available today.

Then you can utilize, a type of deterrent, a type of probation, rather than an incarceration of a nonviolent criminal that will work and let them work and pay their own way and keep up the, keep up the cost of their family and others that we're now buying, You know, carrying as a as a cost of incarceration.

The violent criminal should have a determinate and sure sentence.

We should not shy away from privatization in the construction of prisons.

Other states are doing this.

They're using the probation, they're using the private sector, in the prisons, particularly in the construction and some of the services.

They've cut costs.

And that's what it's all about.

And I think that you have to be innovative to deal with the problems that we're facing today.

What has to be in South Carolina is, that if you break the law that you know that you're going to jail, that you know you're going to go for a pretty doggone long period of time, if it's a violent type crime or a very serious crime or that, you know, that even if it's a lesser crime, that you're not going to just be put on probation and call in by telephone once a month and say, "Hey, I'm okay."

But you're going to be monitored and that it is going to be a punishment.

I think we need to recognize those things.

Tom> But in terms of the number of beds and where you put those criminals, that the state's system, by law has passed by the General Assembly, tried in the courts, sentenced, that those people are sent to jail and you put them in there.

What should the state's position be?

What would you feel if you were elected governor, with the present that Governor Riley has of releasing prisoners early from their sentences because there are no beds in the inn?

Campbell> Well, we have, as you know, two authorized new penitentiaries, we have to build 'em.

We have to build the four that we were talking about building.

They have to be built.

We have to recognize that.

The question is, how do you build them?

Do you build them if they're a medium security facility or a minimum security facility, do you build those with the taxpayers money or do you look for another way to do part of it?

And I think we need to look at all of it.

And I think you do have to build them.

There's no excuse for putting a criminal on the street because you don't have a bed.

It is not something that I want to see happen in South Carolina and would not see.

But what I'm saying is, is that you don't have to spend all of the taxpayers money on brick and mortar, incarcerate and keep up the criminal.

You have to do a lot more than that.

And you have to be innovative in this day and time.

But let's look at the other side of it.

Why did your crime increase?

Your crime increases, in many cases, because there are a lack of job opportunities and the lack of job opportunities in certain areas, are really causing problems for us.

That's what I'm talking about, about economic expansion in the state.

The way to fund education programs, because the education system itself is a deterrent to crime as we improve it.

And what we need to do is we need to expand the economic base to create the opportunities for people to go to work.

And that expands the tax base that can help you fund the excellence that you're seeking in South Carolina.

And we've got to be careful how we do it.

It's kind of like laying brick, you have to do it one step at a time.

If you get it totally out of kilter, then the whole thing can come falling down on you.

Tom> In your view, what hasn't been done right to land the big industries that have slipped to other states?

Georgia, Kentucky, other states in the last year?

What has not been done properly in this state to land those industries?

Campbell> Well, first, I think the governor himself has to be the number one ambassador of the state.

I don't think you can delegate the responsibility of going to talk to the chief executive officer of a fortune 500 company to the development board.

That shouldn't be done.

We have not had a good development board in the state.

As a matter of fact, it has been sorely lacking.

Now, they're making some changes now.

I welcome those changes.

I think they're long overdue.

They should have been done years ago.

The other thing that we need to recognize is, is that our laws are not the same, and we can't offer what other people do.

Why don't we push the enterprise zones in South Carolina?

Why don't we try to make the special incentives available to take people, to bring companies in to where people need jobs to match the workforce with the industry?

Why don't we have the ability in South Carolina to negotiate with major companies if they spend so much money, that their cost to this government would be a set rate over a certain period of time?

Other companies, I picked up a magazine on the airplane the other day in Louisiana, was advertising, "Come to Louisiana, negotiate a ten year flat rate payment to the state."

Now, we can't do that.

If you're going to spend 100 million dollars and locate in South Carolina, and you're a business person, then you want to look at what your costs are.

And you worry when a government has been like ours and raise taxes three years in a row, you begin to back up and say, "Wait a minute.

We go down there, they may double or triple our taxes in the first two years.

Let's go to Tennessee because we can negotiate a flat rate with them, at least for a period of time.

We know our cost of business."

The return to the state is tremendous.

We create thousands of jobs we don't have.

We get taxes we don't have now.

And you better make the same thing available to your domestic industry, those that are here, If they're going to expand, have the ability to give them an incentive to expand in South Carolina instead of going into North Carolina and to Georgia, let them stay home.

Give them the same thing.

We also need to, in the governor's office, and in state government itself, have an ability to coordinate all of the parts of state that business has to deal with coming in.

In other words, help cut through the red tape.

The regulatory burden of South Carolina is heavy, and it needs to be looked at.

It needs to be monitored and it needs to be revised.

Where it's not competitive.

But if you were a business person and you were looking to bring a job in to put a thousand South Carolinians to work, and you had to go to 18 different state agencies to deal with them, it would be discouraging if you could go to another state and they would say, "Come in.

Come in to the office of the governor.

We have a coordinating office here that will work with all the agencies, and we will help you come through and work this out."

These are the kind of things that have to be done in South Carolina.

And they just have been neglected.

Tom> The textile industry in the state has traditionally been the backbone of our manufacturing in this state.

Our state is, surprisingly to many people, one of the more heavily manufacturing states in the country, much less in Southeast.

Every month, jobs are lost.

What about this?

What about that trend?

And can anything be done to turn that trend around?

Of the loss of jobs?

Campbell> Tom, the textile industry is in transition.

It is being buffeted right now, as you know, by imports.

We have also the problem of the dollar being out of kilter in the international currency market.

But beyond that, the textile industry is modernizing.

It's one of our better industries.

It's made the effort in America.

It's not like the steel industry or others who just sat back.

They have invested the money.

But as they modernize, skills are replaced.

Jobs are no longer required.

It becomes less labor intensive, it becomes more capital intensive.

South Carolina will have a textile industry.

It will be strong.

The jobs will require different skills, some higher skills.

The pay will be more, But, we won't employ as many people.

So we need to diversify.

We need to have other industries come in.

We need to support our textile industry as much as we can and diversify at the same time.

Tom> What about the people who lose the jobs?

People who've been working 20, 30 years.

What can be done to make their remainder of their careers productive in this state, but yet not add to the state's expense?

Campbell> Well, that comes into the retraining.

And there you ought to build your technical schools into, and we have in many instances, to certain federal partnership programs, Job Training Partnership Act, to teach people to make a transition, to teach them new skills.

But we also need to do something else in technical schools, and that is to match the technical schools to the needs of the industry coming in and have the flexibility to change in the programs to meet those needs coming in.

Be the information society needs or be the industrialized industry needs.

But the people that are coming out of one industry and making that transition should have the support facilities available to them.

The jobs, the counseling, the retraining should all be made available.

And we have to have the flexibility of, in some instances, moving temporary programs into particular communities that have been devastated as they come through this type of transition.

Tom> You mentioned several times, the tax load in the state.

Talk a bit about that.

What taxes recently do you feel are not necessary?

And what would your stance be toward the taxes that are currently on the books?

Campbell> The question is not a matter of what's necessary and not necessary.

It is where you stand, comparatively speaking.

And in the Southeast, we stand at the highest in our taxes.

That doesn't mean that you can't go out and justify every program.

You have to low in government.

This is the thing.

Everybody comes in and says, "Cut the budget, balance the budget just like the federal government, but don't cut my program because it's special."

Well, we need to stop funding every program in South Carolina from last year's level.

We need to examine every program periodically to determine whether it ought to be cut out completely, cut back, or revamped, or merged with another program.

We're not doing that.

We really should be doing more of that.

As we look at the taxes themselves, we have to look at what the return is.

Now if we continue, let me give you a for instance, we're a 13 cent gasoline tax and we're debating going to 15 cents.

We could be almost double the tax on gasoline as one of our sister states.

Now, what is that going to do to people that are traveling through South Carolina?

Is it, in fact, gonna increase the revenue that we anticipate, or is it gonna cause people traveling through to buy gas elsewhere?

That is something that we start, we need to start looking at, and we need to be more innovative in our funding approaches.

We need to look at the tax burden, borne not only by our citizens, but our businesses to see whether, in fact, we are doing the job.

And a case in point, we are attracting an awful lot of retirees to South Carolina.

Many of them tell me I can't afford to die in South Carolina because of the mess that you have in your inheritance laws and the tremendous cost to my spouse.

If I die, they lose part of it, or my children lose it, or the costs are too great to die there.

So what happened?

A lot of them move here, keep a residence somewhere else, and keep their money somewhere else.

We need to change the laws to get them here.

To make this their home, to make this the place that they invest their money, to make this the place that if they're going to die, which we all are, that they want to die in and know that they can without losing.

That's the kind of change that's needed because long term it's going to give you more revenue.

It has to give you more revenue.

If people are keeping money out of here, if businesses are moving across the line because of your taxes, sometimes you need to make adjustments and those adjustments bring in more revenue.

It's just like you going downtown to park somewhere.

If you went down to a parking lot and they had the rate set at ten dollars an hour, that lot's probably not gonna take in a whole lot in Columbia, South Carolina, But if it was set in at 50 cents an hour, it's sure gonna take in a lot more than it did at ten dollars an hour.

The same principle applies.

Tom> What would you as governor, you've been in the House and the Senate, served on Governor Edwards administration.

What would you do that hasn't been done by Governor Riley in that process of the budget consideration, when the budget each year is looked at by the budget control board, they present their plan for it, the Ways and Means Committee considers it, goes to the House, the Senate, and then finally to governor.

What about that process can call out the moneys that you're describing need to be cut out?

Campbell> Well, I think that you should inject into that process some of the State Reorganization Commission.

They've done a pretty good job.

We're running a test program, as you know, in South Carolina now, one stop services in human services.

That was born out of an effort we made in the Edwards administration to consolidate the budgets in the health and human service agencies.

Not to combine them, but to look at the budgets simultaneously to see where the duplication was.

And out of that, we started a little pilot effort through Clemson University, at that time.

Later in Washington, I got it into a federal pilot effort.

The state of South Carolina proceeded at the same time in York County to do a test project.

And now South Carolina is testing a complete program, now that combines services.

You don't need to look at each budget of each agency separately.

Sometimes you can look at the entirety.

What are the economic development agencies?

What are the human service agencies?

What are welfare?

What are health?

Group them, look at them, look at the areas of overlap in this process and as you look at them you'll find duplication.

Then you will find areas that you can combine and cut.

It's not gonna be easy.

Every agency guards its turf.

They fight awfully hard for the same thing.

But if we will start looking at things this way with an idea of efficiency, we can in fact bring about savings and we can improve service.

Case in point, York County, South Carolina, cut $90,000 out of the human service transportation system in one year by combining it.

Didn't cut services, matter of fact, improve services.

That's what you have to do, because what they had was a lot of different little agencies all running their own transportation system.

It was ridiculous.

Tom> We have about two minutes left.

There have been proposals from time and time and state to consider either a lottery or parimutuel betting, or both, as sources of revenue for the state to supplement some of that tax revenue.

What would your position be?

Campbell> Well, you know, if people wanna gamble, that's their business.

I don't any.

But it's a copout to say it's gonna save your state.

It doesn't create jobs.

I don't know any state that's had a creation of a new job.

I know Maryland has had to put in a gamblers support program, much like we have an alcohol support program in South Carolina, to take care of the habitual gamblers that they have in Maryland.

So that does bring some problems.

I just think that your long range solution in South Carolina is not to take a quick fix and say, "We'll throw in a lottery, we'll get 80 million more dollars from our people."

That's fine.

If they wanna do that, good.

Don't sell it as a panacea.

It's not.

It doesn't create jobs, it doesn't expand the economic base of this state, it doesn't expand the true wealth.

Let's go into economic development.

Attract the industries and the jobs.

Let's don't try to sell a quick fix.

Tom> We have about a minute left.

What, do you foresee for the campaign?

Is this going to be a particularly tough one, for you?

At this point, you have no primary opposition.

Campbell> Well, at this point, and of course, the filing is open, as you know, once it starts, only until April 15th.

And so I'm not, you know, certain that I won't have opposition.

Then, of course, the Democrat primary's going on, they have four candidates.

There may be more to enter that.

I would assume that they may even have a runoff.

And certainly it will be a tough campaign.

The one thing that we're trying to talk about, are the things I know about.

The experience I have, happens to be unique.

I have the private sector, the state government, the governor's office, and the federal government.

And that's what I have to offer.

Tom> Okay.

Well, we appreciate you taking the time to be with us tonight.

<I enjoyed it.> Congressman Carroll Campbell, the Fourth District, the Republican candidate for governor.

And as we've told you, watch the newspaper listings and the TV guide for our continuing series of programs with the candidates for governor of South Carolina.

Thanks for joining us, good night.

♪ ♪