SC House Speaker Bobby Harrell addresses the Columbia Rotary Club Monday. At far left is Joel Sawyer, who introduced him. It struck me as ironic for Mark Sanford's former press secretary to introduce the former governor's nemesis.
Trying to remember how long I’ve been pushing for comprehensive tax reform in South Carolina. It’s at least two decades. Maybe a year or two past that.
The eerie thing about it is that almost every politician I’ve talked to during that period, especially those running for office, have earnestly assured me that they’re all for it. But somehow, it never happens.
Many, many committees and blue-ribbon panels have been set to coming up with a plan that will be rational, equitable, and adequate to meeting the state’s revenue needs. And all have either wandered off into a swamp somewhere, never to be heard from, or have filed plans that have promptly been dumped in the trash. And whenever enough of a hue and cry arises — such as the one from business leaders over the execrable Act 388 — lawmakers have sworn to deal with it, and appointed another panel to study the matter yet again, etc.
Speaker Bobby Harrell has apparently decided to end the farce by abandoning the concept of comprehensive tax reform altogether.
That’s the gist of what he told us at Rotary yesterday.
He said that when you try to get rid of all the irrational bits of our tax code — such as the $300 ceiling on the automobile sales tax, or the tangle of other exemptions that lead us to exempt more in sales tax than is actually paid — then everybody comes out of the woodwork and opposes you, and you fail.
So he proposes to pass bits and pieces of reform. On the grounds that that’s doable.
Which means, in South Carolina, business as usual. Because that’s what our lawmakers always do — pass a new law affecting some small piece (or for that matter, large piece) of our overall tax system, with little regard for how it affects other parts. So we get, for instance, multiple “reforms” that essentially remove the burden of supporting public school operations entirely from the backs of homeowners (that is to say, on the home that they live in), which means that businesses — including owners of rental property — are forced to pay much more in property taxes to make up the difference.
At least on the most recent such massive shift, some of the burden was put on the sales tax — which is now too high, really, especially considering that we don’t tax everything, or even close to everything, meaning that the things we do tax are taxes disproportionately. Which is not fair; nor is it a sustainable way to finance government.
So here’s what’s going to happen, based on knowing the guys who have been running the General Assembly (and especially the House) since I’ve been watching them (and no, Doug, term limits are not the answer, because if anything newer members have a greater propensity to do this, in my experience — largely because of their greater ignorance of the effects of what they do)…
We’ll see bills to cut more taxes, narrowly defined aimed at whichever categories of taxpayers are hollering the loudest at a given moment. And most likely, nothing will be done elsewhere in the tax code to offset that hole in the general fund. Or if something is done, it won’t be sustainable, and/or will create a new injustice that will later be addressed by more piecemeal “reform.”
What should happen instead? The following:
- Lawmakers should figure out, from scratch, what state government needs to do (build roads, run schools, enforce laws, keep air and water clean, etc.).
- They should then determine what it will cost to do those things.
- They should devise a tax system for raising that amount that is rational, fair, and sustainable. One that places no more restriction on economic activity than absolutely necessary, with the burden spread as widely as possible, and yet raises the needed amount reliably, with a minimum of peaks and valleys.
That’s what should happen. It is lawmakers’ duty to make those things happen. Because snipping here and putting on a patch there has never worked.
How many times have I written that now? I don’t know. Lots and lots…
Related Posts
Maybe the legislature should figure out that if everyone yelps then they must be doing something right?
And thanks for defining 388 that way; it’s exactly the kind of thing that roundhouses everyone, yet most can’t see the punch and just stand there, smiling smuggly at their perceived “good” fortune. They have no idea of the economic cost of this folly.
He also said with a straight face that SC was under assault from the federal government. I guess using the Haley model that if you repeat it enough it must be true.
He was the least impressive of the bunch I’ve seen so far, which surprised me. I figured he’d have to have more going for him to be the most powerful man in the state, or whatever. It was as if he did give a fig and didn’t care if we knew it–he was going to do, or rather not do, whatever. A huge chunk of his speech was about the Obama administration’s purported misdeeds–what a great vision for the powerful leader of our state! He was proud that they socked away the surplus, instead of using it to offset the affects of the recession, for example. His opener was about the NLRB suit–which is moot, for one thing, and not his bailiwick for another. Deflect much?
In my opinion, term limits are not the answer for any branch of our government. The lack of continuity in policy, both domestic and foreign, is one of the major problems we have, and it is only exacerbated by term limits.
The imposing of term limits on the executive was an ill-conceived, knee-jerk reaction to FDR’s administration, coming as it did in a time when they could hide the state of a president’s health from the general public. The result has been a consistent loss of effective executive governing in lame-duck administrations.
And I’m really for six year terms for presidents, if for no other reason to put off these irritating election year media circuses.
Whoever is in charge of hanging banners and flags needs to be transferred to the chair stacking crew.
Any speech, by any Republican in whatever forum that insults the POTUS should automatically be ignored.
You’re three pronged approach to tax reform is what I think most pro-growth economic conservatives want. I know you are not a partisan, but what you said is what every Republican should be saying: Zero-based budgeting. Figuring out what the necessary functions of government to fund are. Simply, broad based and equitable tax structure that raises the necessary funds without carve outs here and there. Being mindful not to hinder free markey economic activity.
This reads like what every Republican voter wants that I’ve ever known. I guess what’s concerning is that in a state with a government that is so Republican as this one, we are not doing all this stuff already…
And what would have been different under a Sheheen administration? Nothing.
Bobby Harrell, Glenn McConnell, and Hugh Leatherman control the fate of South Carolina.
And there is nothing that can be done about that as long as they are in office.
“Any speech, by any Republican in whatever forum that insults the POTUS should automatically be ignored.”
Any speech, by any Democrat in whatever forum that insults the POTUS should automatically be ignored.
Fixed it for you.
@Steven–the banners are hung by the able folks at Seawell’s, the same people who prepare the tasty cuisine! How Seawell’s stays in business is beyond me–it’s the K-Mart of events places.
@Kathryn – The person on the right must be taller.
Seawells… “tasty cuisine”? Sure if you into military mess hall cuisine.
@ Brad – The problem hinges on defining what the “neccessary” functions of government entail. Most of us can agree on some of them, I’m sure. It’s when you get a little further down the list that disagreements start to pop up. Should the state operate 12 public four-year universities? Should taxpayers pay for beach renourishment? Should the state operate a port? The list of things that are likely non-core functions of government could get pretty lengthy.
@ Steven– I were joking. Read my comment again.