State House Report May 18, 2009

"I'd give real credit to Rep. Garry Smith and his colleagues in the House who
supported a budget alternative that would have been a far more constructive
starting point in this conversation about debt repayment." said Gov. Mark
Sanford Wednesday, May 13, 2009

I think that everyone would agree that today times are tough and we should all focus on what is important. We have all had to set priorities in our family and business, and I do not know anyone who is looking to spend money they are not sure they are going to receive.

These are traits that the citizens of South Carolina expect from their legislative representatives, also. However, when it comes to spending your money the South Carolina General Assembly to often prefers smoke and mirrors.

This Tuesday just around 1:00 PM the South Carolina House was presented with the “compromise” budget by House leadership. We were further told that we were expected to vote on the “compromise” budget at 2:30 PM.

For those not familiar with the “compromise” budget process, a process that is nowhere to be found in either the House or Senate Rules, here is how it worked. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee meets with the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and decides what is to be in the “compromise” budget behind closed doors with their staff.

The “compromise” budget included $348 million in federal stimulus funds called the “budget stabilization” funds. You may recall that these are the same funds that the federal government just used to blackmail California into not laying off workers to try and balance their budget because that action would result in union jobs being lost.

The “compromise budget also included an additional $48 million in “increased enforcement collections” by the Department of Revenue or what I call “increased harassment of taxpayers” funds.

The “compromise” budget included an additional $1.38 million in tourism promotion funds to specific groups above and beyond the $13.9 million in funds allocated to the South Carolina Department of Parks Recreation and Tourism.

The “compromise” budget removes successful Greenville businessman, Bill Masters, from Chairmanship of the South Carolina Research Authority. Why? I think it is because he was asking tough questions about this program similar to what another Greenville businessman Tee Hooper did with the Department of Transportation which resulted in a major overhaul of that Department.

You and I have been told that this “compromise” budget drastically cuts state spending. The fact is that this budget increases state spending by $730 million. While the General Fund portion of the budget is cut to $5.7 billion the overall budget increases to $20.7 billion from the $19.9 billion in the present budget.

Given all of this, did we have to settle for the ‘compromise”? No.

Several of my colleagues and I had teamed up to offer a budget alternative to the “compromise’ budget that we felt met the priorities of our fellow South Carolinians: public safety, education, and spending money we were assured of receiving.

The budget we proposed raised the base student cost to $2,228 as opposed to the Senate budget of $2,028 without the use of federal stimulus funds which we are not assured of receiving.

The recommendation fully funded the deficits for corrections and juvenile justice without the use of federal stimulus funds, unlike the budget that was adopted.

The recommendation increased funding for law enforcement by almost $3 million, and restored funding to prosecution which was cut by $2 million, and again did not use any of the $348 million in federal stimulus funds, which we are not assured that the Governor will apply for.

The recommendation included $200 million for payment of debt service. And did I mention that this was without the federal stimulus funds which we are not assured of receiving.

In addition, we asked our colleagues to take a day and review both proposals thoroughly. I did not like having to vote on such a major issue as the budget for South Carolina without adequate time to review it, and I was certainly not going to force my fellow house members to do the same with our proposal.

While this seemed like a prudent approach, and one that reflected the priorities of South Carolinians, we were voted down by our fellow representatives.

Am I disappointed? Yes.

Do I think that the South Carolina House should take more time in making decisions that spend billions of your hard earned tax dollars, and embarrasses a successful Greenville businessman? Yes

Do I think that the peoples’ business should be done in a more transparent manner? Yes.

Do I regret the effort? No.

As Abraham Lincoln once said “The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not deter us from the support of a cause which we believe to be just.”