Faced with a projected $1 billion shortfall for the 2011-12 General Fund budget, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Cooper (R-Piedmont) confirmed this week that he’d met and discussed the plan with representatives from three different schools; Coastal Carolina, the Citadel, and his alma mater, Clemson University.

The outline of the nascent plan is this: in exchange for “regulatory relief,” the schools would agree to give up significant chunks of state funding.  “Regulatory relief” is the buzz-phrase for allowing schools more latitude when making programmatic and building decisions.

State money is tight and getting tighter. This week after a marathon, night-long session, the Senate approved a budget package for the 2010-11 fiscal year that dropped the total General Fund amount to just over $5 billion, down from a projected $7 billion in 2008-09.

The Senate’s version of the state budget, which still needs to clear the House and Gov. Mark Sanford, includes cuts of about $100 million from higher education.

Public higher education has already suffered big cuts in recent years. Since 2008, legislators have reduced public support by a whopping 44 percent. In real dollars, a Clemson official this week said the university had taken a $75 million hit alone over the past two years in state funding reductions.

Not first flirtation with privatization

Cooper’s idea is not the first time public institutions have considered going private. The Citadel looked into the idea in the mid-90s, according to Fred Sheheen, former head of the state’s Commission on Higher Education.

With the budget back in the hands of the House, Senate floor debate next week will focus on a bill requiring sprinkler systems in all new construction homes and duplexes, as well as two bills that would cap governmental spending, tying it to 10-year averages.

In the House, Speaker Bobby Harrell (R-Charleston) has said he would like to end this year’s session by May 20. That means a focused and limited agenda for the coming weeks. After tomorrow, any bill needs a two-thirds vote from the authoring chamber before it can cross over to the other chamber.

As such, pending Senate bills will dominate the House agenda, with a bill that would require permits before water could be drawn down from state rivers and lakes likely hitting the floor in the House by Wednesday, as will the always-contentions Voter I.D. bill.

Also on the agenda: 

• Abortion. Members from both the House and Senate will meet Tuesday, May 4 at 10 a.m. in 209 Gressette in conference committee to craft a bill favorable to both chambers that would require a woman wait 24 hours after having an ultrasound to have an abortion. More.
  
  
• Roll call votes. A Senate Judiciary subcommittee will meet Wednesday at 9:30 a.m. in 308 Gressette to discuss a bill that would require a recorded roll call vote on each bill before the House and Senate.  More.
  
  
• Handguns. The House Judiciary committee will meet on Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. or an hour and a half after adjournment to discuss a full agenda, which includes a bill that would allow for gun owners to carry their weapons under their seat in their cars. More.
  
  
• 3M. The House 3-M committee will meet on Tuesday at 2:30 p.m. or an hour and a half after adjournment in 427 Blatt to discuss a relatively light agenda. More.
  
  
• Galivants Ferry Stump. The biannual political event will be held Monday at Pee Dee Farms in Horry County, beginning at 4:30 p.m.  More.

The budget passed by the Senate in the wee hours of Friday morning is a clear indicator that the legislature intends to rely more and more on fines and fees to cover the tax collection shortfall in the coming years.

That could mean citizens paying through the nose for state services that aren’t considered “core” services. And considering the cuts in this year’s budget, it could mean that any service, other than the core of the core, could become increasingly expensive.

The House overrode this week a gubernatorial veto of a bill that will now give law enforcement the ability to search convicts out on parole without having to get a warrant from a judge.

Democrats in the House, especially members of the Black Caucus, took to the rostrum to decry the bill. They called it racist, a slippery slope to a police state and a violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

So enraged by the bill’s success, one black House member stormed into the antechamber between the lobby and the floor and yelled at a fellow Democrat, “This is why I’m done with our party; we’re not even an opposition party,” said the legislator, who upon spying a reporter from Statehouse Report, immediately said that his comments were off the record.

On the boob tube

This week’s Senate debate dragged on into the early morning hours of Friday. But anyone could watch it online or some cable systems, thanks to cameras put in and maintained by SCETV.

Senate Democratic Caucus spokesman Phil Bailey watched it from his couch, and cracked that so many of the Republicans who have clamored for “transparency in government” have championed pulling the plug on the television network.

Ten years ago, the state’s court system received funding almost exclusively from the state. Of its $46.55 million budget, $46.49 million came from state appropriations. Just over $66,000 came from fees and there was no federal money in the pot.

But things started to change. State dollars dropped. Fees started making up more of the budget. Federal grants added more. In the current year budget, for example, state appropriations are $22.6 million – less than half of 10 years ago – while fees are $18.1 million, an exponential increase. Had there not been an infusion of $6.2 million in federal funds plus $4 million in short-term stimulus money, the courts this year would have had almost the same overall budget as 10 years ago.

So it’s clear the state’s fee-for-service attitude is a reality in funding for courts. Through the years, there’s been a shift to fees as courts struggled to keep running as efficiently as possible.

In December 2005, Chief Justice Jean Toal signed an order that called for new fees for people who wanted their criminal records expunged. Some in the legislature apparently thought there was some overstepping of boundaries. 

By last year, the legislature updated expungement laws and how the state dealt with them. In a complicated process, the legislature passed a law that essentially required expungement of records of anyone found not guilty of a ”criminal charge” or if the charge had been dismissed or discontinued. 

When the matter was discussed on the floor by members of the House, Rep. Garry Smith, R-Simpsonville, recalled members did not intend the expungement revisions to apply to traffic cases – misdemeanor speeding charges and tickets that didn’t cause points for a driver’s license.

Unfortunately, the legislature wasn’t very clear in the law it passed. Everyone apparently just assumed its intent – that traffic cases wouldn’t be impacted – would be carried out.

Not so fast. Soon after the law went into effect, the South Carolina Court Administration interpreted the new law as applying to all cases because it found “criminal cases” was broad enough to include traffic offenses.  About that time, Smith asked for an attorney general’s opinion.  On Aug. 12, 2009, the Attorney General’s office also concluded that the two words in the new law meant the automatic expungements included traffic and wildlife offenses.

That resulted in paperwork headaches for magistrates’ and clerk of courts’ offices across the state. Court workers across the state had hundreds of new expungements to process every week. Charleston County Clerk of Court Julie Armstrong said her office processed 1,745 expungements in 2008 before the law went into effect. Last year, it processed 7,697 expungements in the half year the new law was in effect. 

“It’s killing us,” she said. “You’re just pulling staff from everywhere to do this. My staff hasn’t increased, but my workload has with this.” 

This year, Armstrong’s office is on track to have more than 14,000 record-clearings unless something is done.  

Fortunately, Smith filed a bill in November to fix the new law and make it clear it didn’t apply to minor traffic and wildlife offenses. After the original law passed, he and other legislators started hearing from magistrates and clerks around the state about paperwork nightmares.

Smith’s bill to fix the 2009 expungement law passed the House on April 16 and got Senate approval the following week. The measure is now headed to the governor to be signed into law.

So two words – “criminal cases” – led to thousands of hours of unnecessary work in the court system.  A conservative estimate of the amount of money spent across the state to process these automatic traffic expungements: at least $400,000.

There are three lessons to be learned. First, legislators need to be specific in their crafting of laws. Second, taxpayers need to pay attention during the process of lawmaking to guard against unintended consequences. Third, even though the legislature caused problems for a year, it responded quickly to the problems it created and created a fix. And that shows, albeit painfully to court workers, that the process works.

4/23:   Time has come on cigarette tax

4/16:   Keep guns from under seats

4/9:   Let's learn from the Civil War

By John R. Polito
WhyQuit.com

APRIL 30, 2010 -- Governor Mark Sanford's brain dopamine pathways pound a drumbeat of "wanting" when he reflects upon his goal of completing his term without once raising taxes. Additionally, he anticipates a dopamine "aaah" accomplishment explosion upon leaving office and achieving his goal, that "yes, I did it" feeling. The problem is that the price of Sanford's natural dopamine “aaah” sensation is the permanent chemical enslavement of the brain dopamine pathways of thousands of South Carolina youths. Sadly, it's a price he appears willing to pay.
 
On April 23, Andy Brack [Commentary] did his best to awaken Sanford to the reality that over the past 7 years he'd cut taxes by $2.3 billion, vastly offsetting the 50 cent per cigarette pack tax increase legislation now headed his way, an increase he's threatened to veto. Core values aside, reflect on gubernatorial parenting willing to tease S.C. youths with the cheapest nicotine in America, including youths residing on Sullivan's Island.
 
Values? Where were Sanford's values when in 2006 he accepted campaign contributions from Philip Morris USA, Lorillard Tobacco Company and R.J. Reynolds? With roughly 90 percent of all smokers getting hooked while children or teens, how many of those dollars were paid by nicotine-dependent youths?
 
History must never permit Sanford to forget the price of his “aaah.” Research shows that a 10 percent increase in the price of a pack produces a 6.5 percent reduction in youth smoking. Raising the pack price from $3.50 to $4.00 may not sound massive but youth only have so much disposable income and it means a whopping 10 percent fewer youth smokers. History must tax Sanford's legacy with those 10 percent, including the smoking-related health care burdens they'll generate.
 
But his veto won't only be about how one-third of youth smokers will die up to 14 years prematurely, but about the quality of life his no tax increase “aaah” compelled them to live.
 
According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, nicotine addiction is a mental illness and disease. Smoking nicotine is extremely addictive. An alarming 26 percent of youth report signs of loss of control over continued smoking after just 3 to 4 cigarettes, rising to 44 percent after 5 to 9 cigarettes. There's growing consensus among experts that nicotine dependency is as permanent as alcoholism, that it hijacks the same brain dopamine pathways as illegal drugs, and that successfully arresting nicotine dependency is as hard or harder than quitting heroin.
 
Nicotine activates, saturates and desensitizes dopamine pathway receptors, which is followed by growth or activation of millions of extra receptors, a process known as up-regulation. One cigarette per day, then two, then three, the longer nicotine is smoked, the more receptors become saturated and desensitized, the more grown, and the more nicotine needed to satisfy resulting "want" for replenishment.
 
Imagine sitting in class and trying to concentrate while badly wanting a fix. Imagine getting suspended for attempting to satisfy constantly falling blood-serum nicotine levels during school, falling behind and eventually dropping out. Imagine trying to support your addiction while earning minimum wage. Imagine living with a brain priorities disease where satisfying endless “want” for more nicotine becomes your most important goal, more important than life itself.

Sanford may satisfy his goal, but at what price?  Addicted to nicotine, imagine spending your entire life living a lie. Imagine the whole world screaming you should quit when hijacked dopamine pathways scream even louder that smoking nicotine is as important as eating food, that quitting would be akin to starving yourself to death.

The cost, stink, stigma, loss of self esteem, disease, medical bills and early death, and for what? So a politician could feel good? Let history record that Governor Sanford's “aaah” came with a tremendous price.

John R. Polito is a nicotine cessation educator and director of WhyQuit.com. He lives in Goose Creek.

4/23: Ulbrich:  Dealing with the Index of Taxpaying Ability

4/16: Walker: Unhealthy male obsession with abortion politics

4/2: Gasperson:  No middle ground on education

To Statehouse Report:

Thanks, Andy, for that good positive editorial on the Governor and the cigarette tax. I certainly share your view that increase tax on cigarettes would be good for all.

-- Susie Goss, Greenville, S.C.

Gun proposal overreaches

To Statehouse Report:

I read today your column in one of our small local newspapers and apologize for not reading the article sooner.  The first part of the column was about Rep. Bakari Sellers desire to amend the conceal weapon law to include under the car seat.  I gather that Rep. Sellers believes that responsible gun owners should be given the choice of where they conceal their weapons and to a degree, I concur.  However, the operative part of this is the word responsible. 

A number of years ago, I was a police officer for the city of Charleston and am aware of the limitations put on carrying a gun in a vehicle.  When the State decided to allow people to carry concealed weapons, they put a series of laws into effect to provide guidance and some limitations on what was possible.  The law includes a requirement of training before issuance of the permit.  According to a Web site I found, http://legallyarmed.com/southcarolina.htm:   If you possess a South Carolina Concealed Weapons Permit, it is your responsibility to know the rules and regulations in any state you carry your weapon. 

Now, I’m sure that you are aware of all the information above, but my reason for providing it is that if you are a responsible gun owner, you would know that it’s illegal to put a gun under the front seat so as a person of responsibility, you wouldn’t do that.  This being the case, there would be no need for such a change to the law and I hope there isn’t one.  If the police are hearing this excuse, its only because someone was irresponsible and the gun should be confiscated.
 
I plan to send a copy of this email to Rep. Sellers.  I looked him up on the States Web site and I am impressed.  This is a young man, who will turn 26 this year.  While he’s young and, in my opinion, slightly naïve about the prevalence of responsible gun owners in our state, I find his potential to be exciting.  Imagine the amount of good he can accomplish in his lifetime.  I am so glad that we have him in South Carolina because it shows the caliber of leadership we have to look forward to. 

I hope that he'll reconsider his position on this.  I support his goal of avoiding the possibility of over-legislating, but I’d like to point out that if responsible people were a dime a dozen on every street corner, hair dryers wouldn’t have warning labels against using them in the bathtub and toasters wouldn’t warn the user against sticking a knife in to dig out the toast. 

-- Mary Grady, Charleston, S.C.

 

Want to send us a letter?  We love getting letters to the editor, which are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity. We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less.

Please send to: feedback@statehousereport.com

Air. The National Lung Association reported this week that several South Carolina counties have improved air quality. More.

Airfare. Cheap-o Southwest is considering servicing the state. More.

Transparency. Senators voted to open the books of political caucuses to public scrutiny. More.

State $. This year’s state budget fight is two-thirds over, but will be nothing in comparison to next year’s bloodbath. Yecch.

Jenny. Ms. Sanford, you were such a bad guest host on The View this week, we cheated on you, too … by watching Ellen.