Other Views Jan. for 29

South Carolina Superintendent of Education Mick Zais and the State Board of Education got off to a bad start, but now say they are committed to patching things up.

That is encouraging because they need each other, and the state's schools need both the board and the superintendent to make wise decisions.

The board's job includes setting academic standards, approving courses of study and adopting rules for teacher certification. Zais, who was elected by the people of South Carolina, holds the purse strings.

Voters knew, or should have known, that Zais' intent was not to pursue federal Race to the Top funding. He said regularly that federal programs use valuable time and, when they run out, leave the equivalent of unfunded mandates.

But it is understandable that the body charged with making decisions about academic programs, which cost money, wanted the superintendent to hear their case for seeking federal money - particularly in such lean years.

The issue got contentious, and the board threatened to sue the superintendent after he refused their demand to inform them of any big grants that he decided not to pursue. He said the board didn't have the authority to make such a demand.

The board, under new leadership, agreed not to sue. But while it is unlikely the board will ever see eye-to-eye with Zais on this issue, we can hope that the truce signals a willingness to deliberate together on other issues that arise.

Both the superintendent and the board will be more effective if they put aside their uncomfortable history and try to respect and learn from each other, and even cooperate on shared goals for public education.

- From the Post and Courier of Charleston

State ethics reform should not be partisan

If politics (as the saying goes) makes strange bedfellows, then perhaps seething political frustration makes for even stranger ones. An alliance of Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and the Tea Party Patriots would seem, on the surface at least, strange indeed.

But frustration over the unabashedly cozy symbiosis of public servants and private interests in Georgia has been seething for some time. It was seething two decades ago when citizens learned how often even a short career in elective office resulted in lifetime sinecure on the payroll of some lobby or private business. It's been seething through years of wining and dining and luxury-box sports tickets and jet-setting for lawmakers, at the expense of interests with high-dollar business under the Gold Dome. And it's seething now that times have gotten harder for everybody - except, it seems, for public officials and their private patrons.

It's always the party in power that enjoys the most special-interest largess, and the "outs" who do their own seething by calling for reform. In fact, the only two lawmakers on the GOP side of the aisle to advocate sterner ethics rules are state Sen. Josh McKoon, R-Columbus, and state Rep. Tommie Smith, R-Alma.

The issue shouldn't be partisan, but it is - just as it was 10 years ago when Democrats wielded a heavy political hand and Republicans were the would-be reformers. ...

House Speaker David Ralston, R-Blue Ridge, says disclosure alone is sufficient: "Let the people be the judge about what is acceptable and what's not acceptable. I trust their judgment."

That sounds almost noble, and almost makes sense. Except that no matter how candid and complete the disclosure of special-interest largess, most citizens can't possibly compete with it. A working Georgian with such humble concerns as a fair tax system and affordable health coverage can't take a limo full of lawmakers to Big Canoe for three days of golf, lobster and liquor. Yet it's that working Georgian whose interests those lawmakers are supposedly sworn to represent.

It's simple math: If only the frustrated minority ever supports reform, it never happens. And nothing ever changes.

- From the Columbus (Ga.) Ledger-Enquirer

U.S. manufacturing coming back

It may not feel so good to us still struggling to pull out completely from the 2007-09 recession. But from a foreign perspective, our recovery, especially in manufacturing, looks pretty darn good. In fact, the major foreign economies regard us with a touch of envy.

"The U.S. has added more net manufacturing jobs since the start of 2010 than the rest of the Group of Seven developed countries put together, with only two other economies - Germany and Canada - increasing factory employment at all," noted the London-based Financial Times. In fact, manufacturing has grown faster in the U.S. than in any other developed economy.

Cynics might say that this is only a sign of how bad things were, and not how good they are. "However," said the Times, "hopes are rising that the U.S. is entering a sustained manufacturing revival."

The U.S. is still 2 million manufacturing jobs short of pre-recession levels. Not all of those jobs may return, but the indicators are positive. The Times notes that, since the start of 2010, manufacturing employment has increased 2.9 percent in the U.S. compared with 2.4 percent in Germany and 1.9 percent in Canada.

In the other nations of the G-7, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, it has fallen. Productivity growth, a weak dollar, anemic wage increases and a strong decline in unit labor costs, while perhaps not the happiest developments domestically, strengthened the U.S.'s global competitive position.

Meanwhile, rising labor and energy costs, in traditional havens for fugitive American manufacturers, are prompting some companies to start bringing production back home or expand domestic facilities. The Times says that wages in China have been rising by 15 percent or more for most of the past eight years.

What else can we say to these companies, but welcome back. The U.S. manufacturing sector is on the mend and it's not just us saying that.

- From the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal