Published Friday, October 31, 1997, in The State -- Columbia, South Carolina.

Education funding used to excuse bad decisions

Here we go again. The latest temptation from Chem-Nuclear Systems Inc. is like the last, a promise of riches if we remain the dumping ground for low-level nuclear wastes. As we say: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

According to a newsletter for waste specialists, Chem-Nuclear aspires to down-payments on waste space into the next century. The idea: persuade waste producers to buy subscriptions to future dumping with a down payment of $3 a cubic foot. The next step would be to persuade legislators that with these subscriptions, many millions more will materialize for education if the dump remains open another 20 years. Once the legislators are persuaded, Chem-Nuclear would collect another $232 a cubic foot on the subscriptions, with a goal of selling 5 million cubic feet.

Money makes the world go 'round, the wicked sang in "Cabaret." If $200 a cubic foot of the total $235 fee were provided to education, Chem-Nuclear would be buying that space from us for around $1 billion.

Keeping the landfill open was a bad idea in 1995, when Gov. David Beasley and the Legislature suddenly abandoned years of careful, sensible policy in order to grab for the cash. It's a bad idea two years later. It will remain a bad idea well into next century.

South Carolina once belonged, as some may remember, to a Southeastern Compact. That multi-state collaboration, created after years of work and bipartisan consensus, had drafted a schedule for sharing the taint of nuclear waste. Each of the seven states would take 20-year turns at providing a receptacle for the radioactive waste generated. South Carolina's turn was up -- up for another 140 years -- when we recklessly left the compact to dive into what was supposed to be a pot of gold.

In 1995, Chem-Nuclear and Gov. David Beasley spoke of $98 million a year for school construction and $42 million a year for needs-based college scholarships. The ill-gotten gains haven't been as predicted. Instead, our state's chief economist tells us, $76 million was raised in 1996. He predicts a drop to $47 million as more facilities rely on on-site storage. The Legislature has responded by mandating Chem-Nuclear contribute $22 million to make up the shortfall in 1997, $23 million next year, $24 million in 1999.

And what is our other political solution to fund education decently? Gubernatorial candidate Jim Hodges is talking about following Georgia's suit and running a lottery. He predicts legitimizing gambling would raise $40 million a year for education.

We talk to our children about means as well as ends. Yet, here we adults go, justifying becoming a state that gambles, justifying remaining the nation's "toilet," by claiming such a good end. The philosophy seems to be, anything goes as long as the funding goes to education.

No. Common sense shouldn't be abandoned. Thoughtful government that aims for moral ground and good stewardship shouldn't be abandoned. A worthy goal -- better funding of education -- doesn't justify any means we can dream up. We can afford to fund education adequately, with common sense and good values, from taxes and growth. So why do we resist that?