How would you vote, if it were up to you, on whether taxpayers should supply a driver/security guy for Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.
If almost anyone else — Nick Theodore, Bob Peeler, whoever — were the current Gov Lite, I would say "no way." Probably half the people I know need security more than the lieutenant governor of South Carolina. And I don’t know anyone outside the Oval Office who needs the army of armed guards Nick took with him to the 1988 Democratic Convention.
But Andre Bauer? One doesn’t have to be facetious to say that it might be in the public interest to keep him from behind the wheel. Our roads are deadly enough as it is.
In the end, I would probably have voted to sustain the governor’s veto, though, in the name of erring on the side of thrift.
Here’s how legislators who had the power to decide this actually did vote. As you know, they overrode the governor, so let’s just hope he gets a good, safe driver:
First the vote in the House, followed by the vote in the Senate.
A "yes" vote is to fund the driver. The amount is more than $90,000 because the driver was included on the same line in the budget with another item, so the governor had to veto both or neither:
House
VETO 39– OVERRIDDENPart IA; Section 57; Page 264; Lieutenant Governor’s Office; I. Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $112,173.
Rep. COOPER explained the Veto.
The question was put, shall the Item become a part of the law, the veto of his Excellency, the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding, the yeas and nays were taken resulting as follows:
Yeas 92; Nays 16
Those who voted in the affirmative are:
Agnew Allen Anderson
Anthony Bales Ballentine
Bannister Barfield Battle
Bingham Bowen Bowers
Brady Branham Breeland
G. Brown R. Brown Chalk
Chellis Clemmons Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter Coleman Cooper
Cotty Davenport Delleney
Edge Frye Gambrell
Govan Gullick Hamilton
Hardwick Harrell Harrison
Hart Harvin Haskins
Hayes Herbkersman Hiott
Hodges Hosey Howard
Huggins Jefferson Jennings
Kelly Kennedy Knight
Leach Loftis Lowe
Lucas Mahaffey Merrill
Miller Mitchell Moss
J. H. Neal J. M. Neal Neilson
Parks Perry Pinson
M. A. Pitts Rice Rutherford
Sandifer Scarborough Scott
Sellers Simrill Skelton
F. N. Smith G. M. Smith G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith Spires Stavrinakis
Talley Taylor Toole
Umphlett Vick Weeks
Whipper White Williams
Witherspoon YoungTotal–92
Those who voted in the negative are:
Bedingfield Crawford Duncan
Funderburk Hagood Haley
Kirsh McLeod Mulvaney
E. H. Pitts Shoopman D. C. Smith
Stewart Thompso Viers
WhitmireTotal–16
So, the Veto of the Governor was overridden and a message was ordered sent to the Senate accordingly.
————————————————————–
Senate
VETO OVERRIDDEN
R. 175, H. 3620–GENERAL APPROPRIATION ACTVeto 39 – Part IA; Section 57; Page 264; Lieutenant Governor’s Office; I; Administration; Other Operating Expenses; $112,173.
The veto of the Governor was taken up for immediate consideration.
Senator LEATHERMAN moved that the veto of the Governor be overridden.
The question was put, "Shall the Act become law, the veto of the Governor to the contrary notwithstanding?"
The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
Ayes 39; Nays 6
AYES
Alexander Anderson Ceips
Cleary Drummond Elliott
Fair Ford Gregory
Hawkins Hayes Hutto
Jackson Knotts Land
Leatherman Leventis Lourie
Malloy Martin Matthews
McGill Moore O’Dell
Patterson Peeler Pinckney
Rankin Reese Ritchie
Ryberg Scott Setzler
Sheheen Short Thomas
Vaughn Verdin WilliamsTotal–39
NAYS
Bryant Campsen Courson
Cromer Grooms McConnellTotal–6
Thanks for the info. It’s good to know just which members of our legislature have gelatin for brains.
What a joke.Give him a bicycle and free bus tokens.
and a hang glider.
Any problem with spending $250K on a security detail for the Hunley? A yes vote on that one was probably related to a prior or future “quid pro quo” arrangement with a certain legislator. I know.. I know.. I’m just a crazy Libertarian who thinks spending other people’s money on a hunk of junk is ridiculous. It’s not like taxpayers have anything else to spend it on. Take it all!
This one is fun to talk about, but it’s not cut-and-dried by any means. I think I would have voted for the driver in the interests of public safety, but there’s a good case for both sides.
Oh, there’s no way I’d spend a dime on the Hunley. I think they ought to put the thing back where they found it — especially if they had any reverence for the crew that they made such a fuss over. And a quarter mil to protect it? That one’s such a no-brainer (to everyone but our Legislature) that the vote breakdown didn’t intrigue me the way this one did.
But I’ll go look that one up if you’d like.
Ok…all the serious things that went on over the last two days…and this is the veto you highlight.
7.4 billion dollar budget…hundreds of vetos…and this is it?
What happened to a serious 4th estate?
>> .hundreds of vetos..
The hundreds of vetos amounted to about 2% of the total budget. We waste more than that on pig festivals.
Why does he need a Body Guard? He already has a police radio and a gun. Now a body guard? He acts like a gangsta!
From a coldly political POV it would seem to be in the Dems’ interest to sustain the veto.
Andre would keep getting into trouble with his irresponsible behavior. Could be political hay to be made.
You’d just have to keep your fingers crossed that no one else got seriously injured in the next incident.