Funding Our Court System by Cutting Entitlements

On Wednesday, South Carolina had a front-row seat to the ideological differences between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.

The debate began with a simple dilemma: How do we adequately fund our state judicial system so that both criminal and civil cases can continue to move quickly. Budget cuts to the system over the last several years have left our courts with very few reserves and staffing has been cut to the bone.
On Wednesday, South Carolina had a front-row seat to the ideological differences between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats.

The debate began with a simple dilemma: How do we adequately fund our state judicial system so that both criminal and civil cases can continue to move quickly. Budget cuts to the system over the last several years have left our courts with very few reserves and staffing has been cut to the bone.

The legal community wanted the state to raise fees for filing motions, depositions, and many other court filings, in a controversial plan that was originally approved by the General Assembly.

When the governor vetoed the fee increase, the vast majority of support for the fees evaporated.

So, Republicans were left with the classic choice: Raise taxes or cut government.

The South Carolina Republican Caucus leadership found $50 million in entitlement programs to cut in order to provide funding for the judicial system, the Highway Patrol and our Department of Natural Resources officers.

The House has slashed the state general fund budget by more than 30 percent over the past two years in order to continue to pass balanced budgets each year. With nearly all state agencies cut to the bare minimum, there are really only two major places where we could find the $50 million we needed for our police and courts:

Education and healthcare entitlements.

The House Republicans were adamant about not making any more cuts to our public schools. First, we need quality public schools to continue our successful efforts at economic development. Businesses that come to South Carolina need an educated workforce, so further cuts to education were unacceptable. In addition, any more cuts to education would have put federal funding in jeopardy, which would have made the situation exponentially worse.

So our budget writers turned to several healthcare entitlement programs. Many of these programs are worthwhile in good times, but when choices need to be made between entitlements and public safety, the choice is clear.

We cut $50 million out of several healthcare entitlement programs in bitter votes along party lines. Along the way, Democrats proposed several amendments that would have increased the state sales tax, increase the state corporate income tax, and put a new tax on the food we feed our families.

As our economy recovers, taxing the basic necessity of food is a ridiculous idea that will dramatically hurt the less fortunate among us. As our economy recovers, raising the corporate income tax will kill job creation at a time when we need it the most. As our consumer economy recovers, increasing the sales tax will dramatically hurt small businesses across South Carolina.

Democrats voted to grow government and stifle our economic recovery. Republicans voted to reduce entitlements to promote public safety. The Democrats asked people to remember our votes in November. I certainly hope you do.

As always, thank you for the privilege of serving you in Columbia. If I can ever be of assistance to you, or if you have ideas on issues you want me to share with the rest of the General Assembly, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 963-0337 or in Columbia at 803 734-3045.