Joseph C. Ellers was born in West Virginia and has lived in South Carolina since 1965. In 1974, at age 15, he founded a political consulting firm and began working in and managing political campaigns. In 1975, he held his first public service job when he headed up the Investigative Council for the City of Clemson, SC. Over two years, this group conducted over 20 studies for the city government on a wide range of issues. While continuing his education, Ellers stayed active in campaign management and also served as the Administrative Aide to State Representative Edward W. Simpson, Jr. in 1976. In 1981, Ellers was selected as the Administrator for the Town of Central, SC where he served for almost three years. He served on the Criminal Justice Advisory Board of Tri-County Technical College in Pendleton, SC and also as the Public Information Officer of the Pickens County Emergency Preparedness Agency for Pickens County in the mid-1980s. In 1990, Ellers was elected to the Pickens County Council. He served until 1998--as Chairman from 1993-96 and as Vice Chairman from 1997-98. Professionally, he is the Director of Palmetto Associates--a management consulting firm in Clemson, SC--a position he has held since 1985. Ellers is a graduate of Central Wesleyan College (now Southern Wesleyan University) in Central, SC where he received a BS Degree in Human Resource Management. In 1995, he received a Doctor of Humane Letters Degree from the Technical University of Kutaisi in the Country of Georgia for his work with their economy and in 1996 he was elected to the Academy of Quality Problems in Moscow, Russia. Ellers has written three books: Getting to Know Clemson University... (1987) Market-Driven Manufacturing (1990) with F. Paul Clipp Strom Thurmond: The Public Man (1993) He has also written numerous articles for professional publications such as Tradeshow Week, the PT Distributor and Quality Digest. He has also written columns for several newspapers including The Messenger and Creative Loafing.
Since the beginning of our nation, there has been a debate over the roles of the different levels of our government. Sometimes, during a national crises, the balance of power swung to the federal government. Most of the time, however, at least through the first hundred and seventy years of our republic, the balance of power remained in the hands of the state and local officials--those closest to the people.
Beginning with the era of the Great Depression, however, the pendulum swung far to the left and Washington began to be regarded as the place where problems should be solved.
Before we begin the process of understanding what happened, we need to reflect briefly on the differences between the conservative and liberal positions and their impact on our lives.
Based on the way that they ran the national government since the Great Depression, liberals believe all problems can be solved by creating a well-funded national bureaucracy. The underlying belief is that things will get better if everyone is dependent on the federal government. This system of relying on the federal government has produced many consequences; among them: a huge tax burden, over-regulated industries that now flee our country, a loss of a sense of community and alienation from our neighbors, a loss of individual responsibility and a tax system that punishes thrift and productivity. These are not the only problems. Our tax system takes problem-solving dollars out of local communities and transfers them to Washington. This tax system also creates conditions where class warfare is encouraged. Another problem of this transfer has been the creation of a huge national bureaucracy. This bureaucracy is nearly indivisible and has been granted vast rule-making powers.
A critical question faces the American people: Do you really believe that compassion is determined by the number of bureaucrats assigned to deal with a problem?
Conservatives believe that competition is good. When government provides services, it needs to do so in a competitive arena where it faces some of the issues faced by other service providers.
Conservatism also believes that people should have more say in their own destinies. This does not mean that we have no compassion for those unable to care for themselves, but we seek to empower the vast majority of Americans who chose to pursue happiness in their own way--unfettered by unnecessary rules and regulations.
Conservatism relies on an old-fashioned sense of community. This means that the first people to respond to a person in need in Charleston should be the people in Charleston and not the people in Wyoming--via Washington. Local delivery is the ultimate success story. One of the reasons is that local people have compassion with a purpose--they know the local values and they know the people they are helping.
The government should provide a climate that breeds success for all Americans without attempting to dictate outcomes or stifle the desire to compete. We do not believe that the country can prosper when success and failure is determined by the federal government.
We believe that evidence of failure of the liberal agenda is always in front of the people. Ask citizens to cite a government program that produced the desired result in the desired timeframe at the budgeted cost: in fact many of these programs have been dismal failures. Poverty actually grew during Lyndon Johnson s "War on Poverty."
The other partner in this effort, however, must be state and local leaders who need to act decisively when they see problems. The conservative answer is to reduce the size of the federal government and make it more difficult to grow it back. This process starts with empowered state and local governments.
The federal government should also encourage the growth of public-private partnerships. Billions of dollars are raised and spent through local organizations. Coordination of these efforts with local service agencies could greatly reduce the suffering in our country.
Another conservative initiative is to reform the tax code. We need to drastically alter the way Americans pay their federal taxes so that everyone pays their fair share but healthy habits such as saving are encouraged.
We must also curb the federal bureaucracy. They wield too much power. We need to ensure that no new regulations are enacted without Congressional approval. Further, all regulations should have "sunset" requirements.
There is also a need for "term limits" on appointed office holders. To this end, we support term limits for elected officials as well. No one needs to make a career as a Member of Congress. We need a government of citizen-legislators who demonstrate a proficiency in the real world--then serve a few terms in Congress and move on.
Finally, we encourage more citizen participation in the decision-making process. When people do not get involved, it makes it easier for the special interest groups to dominate the national agenda.
Ultimately, as citizens, we have some tough decisions to make. Do we want more or less control of our lives? Do we want the necessary controls to be administered by people we know or by nameless, faceless bureaucrats controlled by Washington?
And one final question, who do you trust to deliver true and lasting change? Unaccountable bureaucrats or your elected officials? We believe that the answer is clear.
Government can do only so much. The rest is up to us.
