Trump cardSenate GOP circumvents normal processBy Bill Davis, senior editor JAN. 29, 2010 – A recent decision by Senate Republicans to employ a little-used loophole to fast-track a bill has left some Democrats concerned the move may presage a cash-strapped session of bullying and strong-arm tactics by the party in power.
 Usually for a bill to be discussed on the floor of the Senate, it has to be subjected to relatively lengthy scrutiny and reworking in subcommittees and committees.
But if a bill has a lot of public attention or is near the top of one of the parties’ legislative agendas, it can be entered into debate almost immediately on the floor as a special order with consent from both sides.
And then there’s what happened to a bill that would require voters to show photo identification before being allowed to vote.
The end run When the voter I.D. bill couldn’t muster a bipartisan vote on the Senate floor, Republican leaders sent the measure to the Senate Rules Committee. In that GOP-controlled committee, a simple majority was enough to send the bill back to the floor for special consideration. In other words, parliamentary procedure has a loophole favorable to the majority party that allows an end-run around the regular process for fast-tracked special orders. Once back on the Senate floor, the bill passed this week after terse debate that would extend early voting periods and require I.D. from voters beginning in 2012. The House will get the bill next. While this might seem like insider baseball to some, others see the GOP caucus having a powerful tool that enables it to circumvent the rules of order in the Senate and strong-arm only the bills it deems important onto the docket. Heightening the situation was that the move came in January leading some insiders to wonder how contentious the rest of the session will be. Budget process could be rancorous With this year’s overriding concern on money, the state’s baseline budget for the 2010-2011 year is at 2003 levels. That means fights on the floor of the Statehouse could be especially bloody this year, with even former party allies projected to having to either savage each others’ bills or protecting their own pet projects. In that stalemate, anyone with even the slightest of advantages would be able to win -- and win consistently. “To put it mildly, we are not pleased with the prioritization of the Senate’s agenda,” Sen. Gerald Malloy (D-Hartsville). Malloy said he was surprised his Republican counterparts would expend so much political capital so early in the session. And on this bill, in particular, with the variety of what he said were arguably more important bills still waiting to hit the floor.McConnell says tactic won't be used muchSenate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston) said the Democrats’ worry was misplaced, as this was an isolated maneuver, and that it’s rarely been used before.“They’ve got the votes. This is their time,” said Sen. John Land (D-Manning). “Sen. McConnell’s statement that this is a rarely-used loophole is enough for me that it shouldn’t have happened in the first place.”McConnell countered that the voter I.D. bill, because of the antipathy it raised, needed to be gotten rid of first, “so we can get to the rest of the Senate’s business.” McConnell worried that extreme opposition to the bill could have blocked the GOP Senate from the rest of its agenda.Sen. Larry Martin (R-Pickens), chair of the Rules Committee that cleared the way for the bill, said he understood the Democrats’ concerns, but said the maneuver won’t likely be repeated this session. “At least, no one has said anything about doing so to me,” said Martin.Crystal ball: If McConnell was right -- that the Rules Committee loophole will be used sparingly, if at all, and the Senate’s agenda moves forward smoothly -- then all is well. But if the GOP caucus in the Senate continues to use its apparent trump card to get bills fast-tracked, look for Democratic senators to resort to filibusters -- amazingly effective in the Senate where it only takes one long-winded member to ensnarl the process from behind the podium -- or loading up bills with hordes of amendments in an attempt to bog them down. To quote Spider-Man, with great powers come great responsibility. We’ll be watching. RECENTLY IN NEWS
|
Busy week aheadWith scads of bills already reported out of committees, more time in the Senate will be focused on floor debates. With the House focused on budget making, there will be a handful of other important subcommittee meetings held next week.
Tuesday, Feb. 2:
- Judiciary. The House Constitutional Laws subcommittee will meet an hour after adjournment in 516 Blatt to discuss a state restructuring bill.
- 3M. The full House committee will meet at 2:30 p.m. in 427 Blatt to discuss a host of bills, including ones governing tattoo parlor regulations.
- Judiciary. The full House committee will meet in 516 Blatt an hour and a half after adjournment to discuss a host of bills that include proposed changes to state election law.
Wednesday:
- Judiciary. The full House committee will meet at 9:25 a.m. in 433 Blatt to discuss bills relating to technical; colleges and other issues.
- Ag. The full House Ag Committee will meet at 2 p.m. in 410 Blatt for a full agenda that includes bills that would protect archaeological sites.
Thursday:
LCI. The full House committee will meet at 9 a.m. in 403 Blatt with an agenda that may include discussions of offshore drilling.
|
Darker days aheadHouse Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Cooper (R-Piedmont) this eek predicted a very, very tough budget process for the coming session.  Already down a half-billion dollars going into crafting the 2010-2011 state budget, Cooper said in an exclusive interview that he has dialed back the revenue expectations for the coming fiscal year to that of 2003-2004. In short, the state is back to the same General Fund budget numbers it “enjoyed” seven years ago.
“And that’s if the Board of Economic Advisors doesn’t hand down another suggested cut,” said Cooper, the lights in his office as muted as his mood. By comparison, the current year‘s budget, one of the toughest in recent history, was dialed back to 2005 numbers. The calendar may be going forward, but the state’s finances are going backward. Drastic measures, like furloughing state public school teachers to make up for a $563 million budget shortfall, may not be enough, said Cooper; it may be just the start if the economy and tax revenues stay as they are. Senate agenda. With voter I.D. out of the way, next up will be reforming the Employment Security Commission. The following week will see a return of debate over a proposed increased per-pack cigarette tax. House agenda. Budgeting and provisos will continue to dominate subcommittee work, but with Speaker Bobby Harrell’s economic development act finally having been introduced, look for a host of “distracted drivers” bills to merge next week as tales of texting drivers causing accidents sharpen debate. Tort reform is coming to a head in Judiciary, and the following week may be enough time for a complete ESC reform bill to be introduced on the heels of last week’s “immediate action reforms.”
|
Machiavellian move?Some South Carolinians want to bury Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer for recently likening feeding stray animals to feeding kids free and reduced lunches. One Statehouse legislator, a Democrat speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out the potential upside for Bauer’s crass comments. His point was that a lot of people across the state will likely side with the content of Bauer’s comments, as well as his allegedly inferred intent. “That could get him to a plurality” in his run for the governor’s office, said the legislator, “and that could get him to a run-off. I think the comments were planned.” Meeting Gresham Barrett  This week, the state’s Baptist convention hosted a barbecue luncheon on the Statehouse Grounds for members of the General Assembly. One who attended the luncheon was U.S. Congressman Gresham Barrett (R-S.C.), who is running for governor.
Approached by a reporter from this news service, Barrett was asked if he enjoyed the luncheon. He said he did, but did not dine. Whew, said the reporter, who pointed out that had he eaten the food and not paid for any of it, he would have been a recipient of a free and/or reduced lunch program, and, according to the state’s lieutenant governor, on par with a stray dog. Barrett laughed and offered no comment. Also offering no comment in the chow line was Rep. Tim Scott (R-Charleston), who is running for lieutenant governor. When asked if he would continue Bauer’s rhetorical “tradition,” Scott laughed, said “no comment,” and asked for some veggies. Speaking of Tim Scott Rep. Tim Scott (R-Charleston) confirmed this week that he is “seriously considering” leaving the race for lieutenant governor and running for fellow GOP Henry Brown’s seat in the U.S. Congress. Brown has announced he will not seek reelection.  Separate polls reportedly have placed Scott as low as third in the congressional field, and as high as first.
“I plan to make a final announcement within the next seven days,” said Scott, who must decide which race he has a better chance in. Scott’s fundraising abilities would serve him well in a crowded Congressional field, with so much giving focused on the gubernatorial race’s nine candidates. So far, Scott said he’d raised somewhere close to $275,000 for the statewide race. “I think a targeted approach in the congressional race will do well,” said Scott, who now has to find out if his supporters would be interested in backing him for a run a national office.
|
Bauer should drop out of gubernatorial raceBy Andy Brack, editor and publisher JAN. 29, 2010 – Let’s give a big hand to gubernatorial candidate Andre Bauer: He’s wrapped up the intolerant, racist, elderly vote with recent comments linking stray animals to people on government aid. Maybe all the lieutenant governor now has to do to garner the GOP nod is expand his base by speeding more cars, crashing more planes and punching more walls.
 What he really should do is save the state from four years of being the continuing butt of national jokes. How? By dropping out of the governor’s race. Regardless of your political party, South Carolina just can’t afford Bauer’s immaturity to get in the way of where the state needs to go.
After years of bad behavior with planes and cars, Bauer’s mouth has finally caught up with him. At issue is his deplorable comment last week on taking away government assistance for people who didn’t pass drug tests or attend PTA meetings. At an Upstate political gathering, Bauer recalled his grandmother telling him to stop feeding strays: “You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better.”
In a Sunday story in The Greenville News, Bauer said he didn’t regret the comments, but said using the “stray animals” comment probably wasn’t the best metaphor. By Tuesday, the spin was in full control. He told The State in a story printed that morning that he regretted the comment because it was being used as an analogy, not a metaphor.
Bauer after a hunting trip
|
By Tuesday afternoon, he was throwing more gas on the fire by “explaining” his comment about strays to the S.C. Radio Network: “If you can’t take care of them, take them to the animal shelter. But what happens when you feed them all the time and they become dependent of the food and you go on vacation? They’ve learned how to not take care of themselves. They’ve become dependent on you, so what happens to them? I should have never used that metaphor. I never dreamed people in the media would try to turn this thing around instead of saying ‘hey let’s have an honest discussion.’”
Bauer’s words have been roundly criticized and are, as the Times and Democrat of Orangeburg wrote, “not some kind of Democratic overreaction.” The Rock Hill Herald said he was reckless and used “spectacularly insensitive language.” Bauer was “not only cruel and derogatory, but counterproductive,” according to the Myrtle Beach Sun-News. And Warren Bolton at The State, who wrote he ate free lunches when he was in school, noted Bauer’s remarks were “an affront to every parent and child who might not come from financially stable homes.”
What’s bothersome with Bauer’s cycle of telling the comment to a friendly Upstate audience followed by not regretting it, regretting it and then saying it again, is the very real possibility the whole shameful episode was a calculated political move to inject some life into a dull, somewhat sputtering campaign.
Like him or not, Bauer long has been a determined, savvy campaigner who shouldn’t be underestimated. Just ask Sen. Phil Leventis or former Rep. Robert Barber, both of whom narrowly lost to Bauer in statewide races.
Bauer’s throwback brand of unenlightened, retail politics isn’t what will move South Carolina forward. Leaders of all political stripes are calling for real leadership in wake of the disaster of the Sanford years. And real leadership is not something that Bauer has shown while in office. Instead of governing, he’s been the eternal candidate who runs his mouth.
South Carolina deserves better from its next governor than someone who kowtows to the lowest common denominator. After the last week, it deserves just about anybody but Andre.
|
Electrical Cooperatives of South Carolina The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring SC Statehouse Report to you at no cost. This week's spotlighted underwriter is the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina. More South Carolinians use power from electric cooperatives than from any other power source. South Carolina’s 20 independent, consumer-owned cooperatives deliver electricity in all 46 counties to more than 1.5 million citizens. As member-owned organizations, cooperatives recognize their responsibility to provide power that is affordable, reliably delivered and responsibly produced. More at www.ecsc.org or www.livinginsc.coop.
|
Point-of-sale and tax code tinkeringBy Dr. Don Schunk
Research economist, Coastal Carolina University
JAN. 29, 2010 -- Act 388, passed by the General Assembly in 2006, was an ill-conceived piecemeal change to our tax system. That Act 388 has turned out poorly is widely accepted. It is unfortunate to hear so many critics of Act 388 deride the legislation’s “unforeseen consequences,” especially when many of those consequences were in fact completely foreseen.
 The problem is not that Act 388 has had “unintended” or “unexpected” consequences; the problem is that the warnings were not heeded. Act 388 has tied more of our education funding to an inherently volatile revenue stream in the sales tax. Act 388 shifted the tax burden toward business and rental property. And now, as the effects of Act 388 play out in ways that were predictable and foreseen, the negative effects are conveniently labeled as “unforeseen.”
The adverse effects of the piecemeal changes to the tax system within Act 388 have led to the following responses: the creation of the Tax Realignment Commission (TRAC), which itself cannot even directly consider the provisions of Act 388, and the urgent calls to revisit the point-of-sale (POS) provision. So, in order to deal with the negative effects of a previous piecemeal change to the tax system, we are seriously considering making even more piecemeal changes to our increasingly fragmented tax system? If we do, we will likely spend the next few years talking about the “unforeseen consequences” of the next round of tinkering with the tax code.
In terms of point-of-sale, let me briefly visit a few issues. At the heart of the debate is the claim that the POS provision is adversely affecting real estate transactions. There may be anecdotal evidence that some deals fall through after prospective buyers are surprised to discover that their property tax bill will be higher than expected, even though it is now incredibly straightforward to estimate that tax bill as soon as the purchase price is agreed upon. But is there any solid statistical evidence demonstrating that this effect is either statistically or economically significant, especially in light of the fact that we have been experiencing a nationwide real estate market crash of historical proportions?
"Particularly in the current crisis atmosphere, we need to be very careful about making additional hasty piecemeal changes to our increasingly convoluted tax system." -- Don Schunk
|
Let me concede the argument that parties are unwilling to close some transactions because of unexpectedly high property tax bills. To an economist, the solution to this situation is simple – prices should adjust to clear the market. The POS provision has the effect of informing buyers of the real cost of purchasing and owning property. If that cost is deemed to be too high, then the economic adjustment should occur not through reducing property taxes but through a downward adjustment in prices. Indeed, if the POS provision had been in place between 2003 and 2006, it likely would have worked to curb some of the speculation and rampant price appreciation that contributed to the real estate crash.
Given the macroeconomic realities, eliminating the POS provision will not have a significant impact on the real estate market or the overall economy. Real estate markets are weak everywhere because of underlying weakness in the economy, and this will continue until we see a true improvement in both labor markets and credit markets. Eliminating POS is clearly not going to solve these incredibly large underlying problems.
Ultimately, POS is but one piece of the larger story. The big picture involves our approach to tax policy and the need to end our practice of making rapid, piecemeal changes to our tax system, especially in the midst of a budget crisis. We need truly comprehensive tax reform, and it needs to be more comprehensive than what the TRAC is currently allowed to consider.
We also need to recognize that the tax system is just one side of the equation. We also need to take a deliberate look at the spending side. We continue to face budget crises in part because we let tax collections determine spending.
Making sound public policy decisions is an incredible challenge and a tremendous responsibility. Changes to tax policy will create both winners and losers. However, it is possible to gauge the effects of policy changes through careful study of the issues so that the consequences are indeed “foreseen.” Particularly in the current crisis atmosphere, we need to be very careful about making additional hasty piecemeal changes to our increasingly convoluted tax system.
Dr. Don Schunk is a research economist at Coastal Carolina University. RECENT MY TURN COMMENTARY
|
1/27: Punishment bill at odds with court decisionTo the editor:
Giving teachers and principals immunity from civil and criminal liability when it comes to paddling students, as proposed by Sen. Jake Knotts, is at odds with Ingraham v. Wright, the Supreme Court's decision in 1977 upholding school corporal punishment. That decision was based on the assumption of available civil and criminal remedies that would keep the severity of physical punishment in check. Yet the sponsors of S.1042 seek to take away these safeguards.
The proposed exemption from criminal prosecution, particularly, would make schoolchildren easier targets for abuse or exploitation. Deferring to local school districts in determining teachers' criminal liability invites inconsistency of child protection standards within the state. Granting such immunity to school personnel while not to parents themselves, furthermore, creates a curious double standard implying that parents should have less discretion than teachers when it comes to the discipline of their child.
Incidentally, have there actually been any teachers or principals in South Carolina prosecuted for child abuse relating to corporal punishment?
-- Tom Johnson, Nashville, Tenn.
NEED TO VENT or mad about something we wrote? Send us a letter to the editor and we'll print it (as long as it isn't libelous!). Please include your name and town for identification purposes.
Send up to 200 words to feedback@statehousereport.com.
|
Up, down and in the middle USC biz. USC’s Darla Moore School of Business was ranked as the best business school in the world for "international experience" in the newly published Global MBA Rankings by the heavyweight Financial Times. More.
J.V. Martin. Feds will pony-up $25 million to rebuild a new J.V. Martin Junior High School in Dillon after President Obama cited it in an address to Congress last year. Perhaps the new library should be named in honor of Ty'Sheoma Bethea, the student who sent a letter to Obama asking for help. More.
 Cig tax. Statehouse leaders wanted to wait until the feds figured out national health care reform before tackling increasing the state’s lowly per-pack cigarette tax rate. National health care is sputtering, for the moment, but the state Senate will move ahead in the coming weeks in floor debate.
 Bauer. First you liken poor kids to stray dogs. Then you defend it in Thursday’s GOP gubernatorial debate saying it was a media-generated controversy. Lame. More.
Senate GOP. Playing a procedural trump card to push through a race-card bill like demanding voters have photo I.D. the year after Obama’s election was way too obvious; it was even worse that the state is facing far worse obstacles. (see story above.)
ESC. The state’s unemployment office may soon be cutting checks to many of its own workers, as fallout from a recently released Legislative Audit Council report on the beleaguered, broke agency. More.
|
|
|