As outrageous activity goes, this isn’t nearly as much so as the failure to overrided Sanford’s veto on the cigarette tax. It’s just sort of run-of-the-mill pitiful, what you come to expect from our General Assembly.
This note sent to me by Cindi describes how Senators failed to keep alive the modest Vincent Sheheen proposal to sorta, kinda move in the general direction of rational structural (and functional) reform of state government:
Here’s Tuesday’s Senate vote on a motion to set the legislative restructuring/Department of Administration bill (about which we wrote this morning) for special order. It needed a two-thirds vote but fell short. The bill will not be debated unless it is set for special order.
THE CALL OF THE UNCONTESTED CALENDAR HAVING BEEN COMPLETED, THE SENATE PROCEEDED TO THE MOTION PERIOD.
MOTION FAILS
H. 3590 <http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10.exe?bill1=3590&session=117> ( Word <http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess117_2007-2008/bills/3590.doc> version) — Reps. G.R. Smith, Bowen, Duncan, Haskins, Littlejohn, Lowe, Bedingfield and Stavrinakis: A BILL TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA RESTRUCTURING ACT OF 2007" INCLUDING PROVISIONS TO AMEND SECTION 1-30-10, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE AGENCIES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT BY ADDING THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION; BY ADDING SECTION 1-30-125 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AS AN AGENCY OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF STATE GOVERNMENT TO BE HEADED BY A DIRECTOR APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO TRANSFER TO THIS NEWLY CREATED DEPARTMENT CERTAIN OFFICES AND DIVISIONS OF THE STATE BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, AND OTHER AGENCIES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE ABOVE; BY ADDING CHAPTER 8 TO TITLE 1 SO AS TO CREATE THE OFFICE OF STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS A SEPARATE DIVISION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL MUST BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PURPOSE, DUTIES, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND AUTHORITY OF THE STATE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF "EXECUTIVE AGENCIES" FOR PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS RELATING TO IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY WITHIN EXECUTIVE AGENCIES OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT; BY ADDING ARTICLE 6 TO CHAPTER 3 OF TITLE 1 SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE DIVISION OF THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION TO BE HEADED BY THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, TO PROVIDE THAT THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR UPON THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE DIVISION; TO CREATE A JOINT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY REVIEW COMMITTEE, AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUSINESS CASE REVIEW PANEL, AND AN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARCHITECTURE OVERSIGHT PANEL AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE FUNCTIONS, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMITTEE AND PANELS; TO AMEND SECTION 11-35-1580, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROCUREMENTS, SO AS TO DELETE CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OFFICE; TO AMEND SECTIONS 1-10-10, 1-11-20, AS AMENDED, 1-11-22, 1-11-55, 1-11-56, 1-11-58, 1-11-65, 1-11-67, 1-11-70, 1-11-80, 1-11-90, 1-11-100, 1-11-110, 1-11-180, 1-11-220, 1-11-225, 1-11-250, 1-11-260, 1-11-270, 1-11-280, 1-11-290, 1-11-300, 1-11-310, 1-11-315, 1-11-320, 1-11-335, 1-11-340, 1-11-435, 2-13-240, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 3; 10-1-10, 10-1-30, AS AMENDED, 10-1-40, 10-1-130, 10-1-190, AS AMENDED, CHAPTER 9 OF TITLE 10, 10-11-50, AS AMENDED, 10-11-90, 10-11-110, 10-11-140, 10-11-330; 11-9-610, 11-9-620, 11-9-630, 11-35-3810, 11-35-3820, 11-35-3830, 11-35-3840, 13-7-30, 13-7-830, ALL AS AMENDED, 48-46-30, AS AMENDED, 48-46-40, AS AMENDED, 48-46-50, 48-46-60, 48-46-90, 44-53-530, AS AMENDED, AND 44-96-140; AND TO ADD SECTION 1-11-185 ALL RELATING TO VARIOUS AGENCY OR DEPARTMENT PROVISIONS SO AS TO CONFORM THEM TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO THE NEW DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION OR TO SUPPLEMENT SUCH PROVISIONS.
Senator MARTIN moved to set H. 3590 for Special Order.
Senator MARTIN explained the Bill.
Senator MALLOY spoke on the Bill.
The "ayes" and "nay" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows:
AYES
Alexander Bryant Campbell
Campsen Ceips Cleary
Courson Cromer Fair
Grooms Hayes Jackson
Lourie Martin Massey
McConnell Peeler Rankin
Reese* Ritchie Ryberg
Scott Setzler Sheheen
Thomas VerdinTotal–27
NAYS
Anderson Drummond Ford
Hawkins Hutto Knotts
Land Leatherman Leventis
Malloy Matthews McGill
O’Dell Patterson Pinckney
Short WilliamsTotal–17
*This Senator was not present in the Chamber at the time the vote was taken and the vote was recorded by leave of the Senate, with unanimous consent.
The necessary two-thirds vote having not been received the motion failed.
Related Posts
You know, if your newspaper actually covered these bills BEFORE the vote, you wouldn’t have to post them after they were defeated.
Amen, Lee. But why should The State actually cover the state? 🙂
It was mentioned in this morning’s paper… and the issue (sometimes in detail) has appeared a number of times over the past few months.
Jake Knotts votes like a Democrat again. No surprise there I guess.
Yes, the bill was “mentioned” this morning, a few hours before the vote, without any details. The paper rarely prints the details of bills, never explains the spending plans. Worse yet, they peddle the untruths about “budget cuts” instead of printing the actual spending, which increases every year. There are no cuts.
“The paper rarely prints the details of bills, never explains the spending plans.”
Good point there.
” they peddle the untruths about “budget cuts” ”
Didn’t Cindi just have a column on that?
What I’m looking for is the list of the governor’s budget vetoes… wasn’t that supposed to come out at 2:00 today?
“The paper rarely prints the details of bills, never explains the spending plans”
On second thought… I think they had the details on a previous version of it. I guess I’d want to think a bit about how many revisions of the bill its worth them giving all the details of in print… and how much of it should be them notifying people that some changes were made and check on-line to see them.
I mean, we have to leave room for the romance novel reviews and the like 😉
Cindi Scoppe is a big peddler of bogus information on state spending. She talks about “budget cuts”, without mentioning that the state received over $3 BILLION in extra windfall revenue due to the booming economy in 2005, 2006, and 2007. Instead of paying off debt, they increased the spending plan so there would be no “surplus”, and blew it all on pork.
Cindi and Brad provided cover for this drunken spending spree.
Some more bogus lingo for bogus concepts
“state budget” – there is no budget
“budget cuts” – means spending more than last year, but less than they wanted to spend
“paying for tax cuts” – as if any tax cut requires some other tax increase, instead of a reduction in spending
“trust funds” – there is no real State Retirement Trust Fund. There are billions of unfunded IOUs for future promises.
“investment in our future” – government rarely invests; it spends
“human capital” – as if they were “investing” taxpayer money in “the children” or the drunks and dopers down at the job training centers. Capital is cash and machinery.
Why doesn’t The State routinely show the votes in the General Assembly on bills in the newspaper? I find it so frustrating that this is not done. Not everybody has a computer or the internet or has the time or desire to look for this information online. The State does not do its part to help SC citizens be more informed so that they can make better choices in elections.
I thought the Sheheen bill was a good thing.
How come Brad and THE STATE were all in favor of this piecemeal reform proposal, but oppose any piecemeal tax reform, no matter how good it is, under the ruse of holding out for “comprehensive tax reform”?
“but oppose any piecemeal tax reform,”
Because, historically, there are only two types of piecemeal “tax reform” that get passed: tax cuts (and its impossible to get a counterbalancing tax increase later) or moves towards more regressive taxes.
The former isn’t tax reform, its backdooring in smaller government (which may or may not be fine to the individual posters here, but it isn’t “tax reform”). The later may or may not suit individual agendas here, but is patently unChristian in any case.
Why does every tax cut require a “counterbalancing tax increase”? That’s foolish.
The economy has been so good that state revenues increased 16% SURPLUS REVENUES over the spending plan, so they could have afforded a 16% tax cut. But they blew all the windfall on pork.
The Bush tax cut of 1% of GDP produced an extra 30% in federal revenue, yet Congress spent it all on welfare, and ran up a huge deficit, to boot.
“Why does every tax cut require a “counterbalancing tax increase”? ”
I didn’t say it did if you were marketing it as a tax cut. I was saying you did if it was legitimately “tax reform” — at least as the term is commonly used.
“so they could have afforded a 16% tax cut. ”
No. Assuming the numbers are right, they could have afforded a one year 16% tax rebate. It’s an important distinction. The 16% tax _cut_ would have crippled those programs in the next economic down turn.
What’s wrong with crippling or abolishing new programs which never should have existed and were not in any budgets or spending plans? They were just corrupt pork programs by legislators looting the surplus.
Responsible legislators would reduce the tax rates as economic growth produces surpluses, and they should be retiring debt early to reduce interest costs.
A well-run governmnent should be able to reduce the tax rates as the society becomes more prosperous, as America has for the last 100 years. When the tax rates keep increasing, and the government is growing much faster than personal incomes, it is ipso facto proof of a mismanaged and corrupt government.
“it is ipso facto proof of a mismanaged and corrupt government.”
Not necessarily. It could be that the democratically elected government has chosen to take on new missions. Now, you may not agree with those missions, but that doesn’t make them necessarily mismanaged and corrupt. (It also doesn’t mean I am in favor of many of the programs… I just think that even after cutting all the ones I think are fluff, the ones that aren’t fluff [like prisons and mental health care] would still be underfunded.)
Isn’t the federal tax rate a lot lower today than it was at its peak? Isn’t it possible that some of the lowering since then outpaced that paying off the debt you mentioned [which I completely agree with]?
Good legislators don’t “take on new missions” outside of their budget (or spending plan, since SC doesn’t have budgets).
Good legislators don’t expand government faster than the incomes of taxpayers.
Good legislators don’t spend windfall revenues when they have billions in illegal (unConstitutional ) debt, plus billions more in unfunded promises to retirees.
The federal tax rates are lower than they were at their peak, but 50% higher than they were in 1992.
Taxes on middle income working people are 5 times what they were in the 1950s, which is why people today cannot save money.
I’ll agree with you on the spending of windfall revenues. I used to think one time money should go to one time projects, but they usually don’t stay that way, so I think the one time money is best used to 1) pay off debts, 2) put as carry-over for possible future shortfalls (to a reasonable amount), and 3) refund to the taxpayers. And don’t cut the taxes based just on the good economic years, look at the whole picture. Beyond that, though:
“Good legislators don’t “take on new missions” outside of their budget.”
Damn those interstate highways and national parks and medicare and NASA and Manhattan Project and NIH and … oh wait, I like all of those.
“Good legislators don’t expand government faster than the incomes of taxpayers.”
They fight wars on debt?
“which is why people today cannot save money.”
I’m more inclined to blame that on people today having twice as many cars, spending stupid amounts on TV and phones, having houses 1,000+ square feet larger, flying on vacations everywhere, and doing all kinds of things people in the 50s didn’t do.
The war on terror is paid for in cash, with the new revenues from the economic recovery brought by the tiny (1% of GDP) Bush tax cuts.
The deficits, both the $1.4 TRILLION in new debt under Clinton, and the 7 deficits of Bush, have all been due to new social welfare programs. Without those, the budget would be balance, and we would be paying off the national debt at $300 BILLION per year.
Hmmm, I forgot that we were in the midst of a recovery.
The economy, even in its flat state after the recovery of 2001-2002, produces a much higher GDP and tax revenues than it did as Clinton left office in full recession, after 2 years of very little growth, and huge losses in the stock markets which eliminated all that income tax revenue for 3 years.
Wasn’t the median family income adjusted for inflation in 2001 still higher than every year from 1987 through 1998, and about the same as 2002-2005?
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/images/b2040_chart1-lg.gif