South Carolina’s neighboring states have recognized that putting accountable cabinet members (appointed by the executive branch) in charge of day-to-day policy, administrative, and management decisions leads to success.  Likewise, despite recent battles between South Carolina’s current executive and legislative branches, future South Carolina governors deserve an opportunity to make their imprint on state government.

Taxpayers across South Carolina want accountable and efficient government through a true executive branch they can hold accountable for results – instead of an executive branch hamstrung by bureaucracy and competing political agendas.

Click here to FIND your Senator
Click here to CONTACT your Senator

South Carolina Club for Growth strongly urges all members of the SC Senate to sustain S. 351, R. 64, which makes detrimental changes to the State Ports Authority. S. 351, R. 64 will be the final scored vote before the Club releases its 2009-2010 Interim Legislative Scorecard.

In summary, the bill is essentially “restructuring in reverse” through increased bureaucracy and the potential for undue political influence. South Carolina needs an effective and well-managed ports system to remain competitive in the 21st century. However, S. 351, R. 64 will make much-need reforms very difficult by effectively eliminating the governor’s ability to remove board members.

South Carolina’s neighbors, including Georgia, have recognized that putting accountable board members (appointed by the executive branch) in charge of day-to-day policy, administrative, and management decisions leads to success.  Likewise, despite recent battles between South Carolina’s current executive and legislative branches, future South Carolina governors deserve an opportunity to make their imprint on our state government.

Taxpayers across South Carolina want accountable and efficient government through a true executive branch they can hold accountable for results – instead of an executive branch hamstrung with even more unaccountable bureaucracy.

—

The South Carolina Club for Growth is a network of thousands of South Carolinians, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training, and educational activity.

SC Club for Growth
PO Box 11909
Columbia, SC 29211
twitter: SCClub4Growth
phone: 803.454.1134

As we said in our Key Vote Alert yesterday:

“the amendments to the budget forcing the acceptance of $700 million in stimulus funds are in violation of our state’s constitution.  This is backed up by public opinions from South Carolina’s Attorney General, the Congressional Research Service, and the federal Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who have all argued that only the governor can apply for and accept these stimulus funds. SC Club for Growth firmly believes the legislature’s efforts clearly violate federal law and will score any associated veto overrides.”

SC Club for Growth encourages you to contact your legislator to either ask them “Why did you support violating the state’s constitution?” or to say “Thank you for defending responsible government.”

Click here to find your legislator
Click here to find your Representative’s contact information
Click here to find your Senator’s contact information

Here are those who went AGAINST good government and supported spending (by usurping the executive branch) $348 million in non-recurring federal stimulus funds for recurring state government spending.

House of Representatives

Those voting to override the Governor:

Agnew                  Alexander              Allen
Anderson               Bales                  Bannister
Barfield               Battle                 Bingham
Bowen                  Bowers                 Brady
Branham                Brantley               Grady Brown
Boyd Brown             Robert Brown           Cato
Chalk                  Clemmons               Cobb-Hunter
Cole                   Cooper                 Daning
Delleney               Dillard                Edge
Erickson               Forrester              Funderburk
Gambrell               Gilliard               Govan
Gullick                Gunn                   Hardwick
Harrell                Harrison               Hart
Harvin                 Hayes                  Hearn
Herbkersman            Hiott                  Hodges
Horne                  Hosey                  Howard
Hutto                  Jefferson              Jennings
Kelly                  Kennedy                King
Kirsh                  Knight                 Limehouse
Littlejohn             Long                   Lucas
Mack                   McEachern              McLeod
Miller                 Mitchell               Dennis Moss
Steve Moss             Joe Neal               Jimmy Neal
Neilson                Ott                    Owens
Parks                  Pinson                 Sellers
Simrill                Skelton                Donald Smith
James E. Smith         Roland Smith           Sottile
Spires                 Stavrinakis            Toole
Umphlett               Vick                   Weeks
Whipper                White                  Whitmire
Williams               Willis                 Annette Young

Senate

Those voting to override the Governor:

Alexander                 Anderson                  Campbell
Cleary                    Coleman                   Courson
Cromer                    Elliott                   Fair
Ford                      Hayes                     Hutto
Jackson                   Knotts                    Land
Leatherman                Leventis                  Lourie
Martin, Larry             Martin, Shane             Matthews
McConnell                 McGill                    Nicholson
O'Dell                    Peeler                    Pinckney
Rankin                    Reese                     Scott
Setzler                   Sheheen                   Thomas
Williams

Here are those who made the RESPONSIBLE (and legal) choice to NOT spend (by usurping the executive branch) $348 million in non-recurring federal stimulus funds for recurring state government spending.

House

Those supporting separation of powers:

Ballentine             Bedingfield            Crawford
Duncan                 Frye                   Haley
Hamilton               Huggins                Lowe
Merrill                Millwood               Nanney
Ted Pitts              Mike Pitts             Rice
Scott                  Murrell Smith          Garry Smith
Stewart                Stringer               Thompson
Viers                  Tom Young

Senate

Those supporting separation of powers:

Bright                    Bryant                    Campsen
Davis                     Grooms                    Massey
Mulvaney                  Rose                      Ryberg
Shoopman                  Verdin

Sources:
House Journal – May 20, 2009
Senate Journal – May 20, 2009

The South Carolina Club for Growth urges all Representatives and Senators to vote “NO” on overriding Governor Mark Sanford’s budget vetoes.  We will be scoring every budget veto vote as part of our 2009 Legislative Scorecard.

Unlike the alternative budgets presented in the House and Senate, we believe this year’s budget inadequately funds the core functions of government.  Much of this budget was crafted by staff members along with the finance committee chairmen and passed the House in a mere two hours – with not even the minimal 24 hours of review for legislators and the public.  South Carolinians deserve open and accountable government, instead of one that is crafted behind closed doors.

Without modifications, this budget sets up our state up for serious more budget problems in a mere 24 months when the federal stimulus dollars run dry.  We also agree that the amendments to the budget forcing the acceptance of $700 million in stimulus funds are in violation of our state’s constitution.  This is backed up by public opinions from South Carolina’s Attorney General, the Congressional Research Service, and the federal Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who have all argued that only the governor can apply for and accept these stimulus funds.

SC Club for Growth firmly believes the legislature’s efforts clearly violate federal law and will score any associated veto overrides.  In spite of false information to the contrary, sustaining these vetoes will not make the funds available for other states as the funds can still be drawn down by the governor through 2010.

Even legislators who aren’t willing to sustain the vetoes of the Part 1 and Part 3 spending have plenty of opportunities to vote as fiscal conservatives by sustaining the vetoed provisos.  Given SC Club for Growth’s role as South Carolina’s largest taxpayer watchdog group, we will be scoring all of the vetoed provisos but giving additional weight to some of the most egregious ones.    These include the following:

Vetoes 9- 12   An attempt to move the state Aeronautics Commission to the Budget and Control Board rather than allow savings of up to $350,000 (state government flies away with more tax dollars)
Veto 14   Special Events Traffic Control (potential savings: nearly $1 million)
Veto 15   Hunley Security (protecting pet projects should be privately funded)
Vetoes 16 -24   Capitol Police Force (a politically motivated waste of tax dollars)
Veto 25   Lt. Governor Security Detail (no need for the state’s part-time constitutional officer to receive security)
Veto 29   Requiring executive branch/cabinet officials to report to the legislature (violates separation of powers)
Veto 30   Eliminate B&CB oversight of agency heads and higher-ed presidents (removing Executive Branch oversight will lead to more overpaid bureaucrats)
Vetoes 32 – 35   Allows agencies to transfer Competitive Grant funds (sustaining these vetoes will finally end the Competitive Grants program)
Veto 40   Inexplicably prohibits a reform-minded appointee from serving as chair of the SC Research Authority board (what’s there to hide at SCRA?)
Veto 43   Raids the Insurance Trust Fund to fill recurring budget shortfalls with one-time funds

–
The South Carolina Club for Growth is a network of thousands of South Carolinians, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that promote economic growth primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.  The independent SC Club for Growth PAC and its members are fresh off two very successful election cycles where 38 of 54 endorsed candidates won their primary and general election races.  SC Club for Growth PAC members frequently use the Club’s legislative scorecards as part of their due diligence in deciding who to support in elections.

South Carolina Club for Growth strongly urges all members of the General Assembly to support Senator Lee Bright’s motion to recommit Judge Kaye Hearn’s nomination to the Judicial Merit Selection Commission. The vote will be included in the Club’s 2009-2010 Legislative Scorecard.

SC Club for Growth believes South Carolina’s judicial selection process needs significant reforms. Those reforms include moving to a more federal-style selection system, where nominees are chosen by the governor and confirmed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Judge Hearn’s now-unopposed nomination has exposed every imaginable flaw in the current system.

Mainly, political maneuvering and blatant disregard for judicial merit have characterized the process. Recommitting Judge Hearn’s nomination would bring much-needed awareness to these problems. South Carolinians deserve a judicial system served by independent and responsible judges – not by those who can survive the Columbia political gauntlet.

2. Cost Overruns at the State Farmer’s Market – $ 15,000,000
Richland outbid Lexington County to be chosen as the location for the new state farmer’s market. However, engineers made mistakes about soil conditions and now taxpayers of the state are on the verge of being forced to subsidize one local county’s bid to trump another’s. This is especially galling for citizens of Lexington County in that their tax dollars are essentially being given to Richland Country to help outbid their own county.

3. Hugh Leatherman’s Personal Spending – $ 8,970,129 (Francis Marion Center for Performing Arts, Florence Museum, Pee Dee Ballistic Shoothouse, Johnsonville Library, Lynches River Environmental Discovery Center)
While Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman didn’t get his extra $950,000 side of taxpayer-paid beans for his museum, he still got take-out on his main course – a heaping plate of $8.9 million of pork. Nearly half of that amount is for the Performing Arts Center which received an additional $7 million of our money in last year’s budget. While that is certainly quite a performance, Senator, we don’t think the hard-working taxpayers of South Carolina were calling for an encore this year.

4. Anderson County Parks – $800,000
House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper sure loves the swine too. Apparently the $250,000 in state taxes that he recently secured for an Anderson sports complex named after his father (Dolly Cooper) wasn’t enough so he’s back up to the trough for another $800,000 in state taxpayers’ funds for more ball fields back home.

5. “Cultural Centers” (Aiken, Bennettsville, Chapman, Colleton, and Gaffney) – $4,035,000
Why are state taxpayers being forced to foot the bill for these Taj Mahals to local culture? And why are we building one in Bennettsville for Clinton crony Marian Wright Edelman, one of the leading Socialists of the last century? Her “Robin Hood Foundation” wanted to rob the rich to pay the poor; this boondoggle project just robs ordinary taxpayers.

6. Pork of “Historic” proportions – $695,000
Whether it’s “Historic Mineral Springs Park”, “Historic Duncan Park”, the Historic Randolph Cemetery, the Quaker Cemetery, or the Dr. Mays Historic Site and Museum, this budget certainly has a sense of History. Too bad that it’s taxpayer dollars that are history as a result.

7. “Revitalization/Renovation” projects – $2,960,000
The Sumter Item bragged recently about the second consecutive year that Central Carolina Technical College was getting $2M to “revitalize” a single building in downtown Sumter. That’s separate from the $360K the city is getting from the Department of Commerce to “revitalize” the entire downtown. Also, St. Stephens is getting another $100K to “revitalize” its downtown, while Westminster gets another $500K to renovate it’s City Hall. We wish taxpayers pocketbooks could be “Revitalized and Renovated” that thoroughly.

8. Department of “Porks” and Recreation Earmarks – $2,660,000
Some for Horry County, some for Charleston County, some for the interestingly named “Dorchester County Youth Senior and Tourism”, some for the infamous town of Atlantic Beach, some for Marion County, soon enough it all adds up to real money. Also, why would we spend state tax dollars on the Mount Pleasant Waterfront Park after Charleston County just raised their sales tax to bring in over $100 million for green space? If we have a PRT “Competitive” Grants program (to the tune of $3M) why can’t projects like the Camp Croft State Park Bridge, the Fingerville Community Park, or Byerly Park in Darlington compete there for their funding?

9. “Little League Sports Complex on Bryant Road” – $ 70,000
What is it, we wonder, that makes Bryant Road so special, and so universal, as to deserve state funding without even naming the city it’s in? And why is the state in the baseball business? We love baseball as much as anyone, but that doesn’t excuse leaving state dollars on the field. Perhaps they intend to rename the field Krispy Kreme Field after the generous Senate sponsor?

10. “Erosion and Sediment Control at Congaree Pointe” – $150,000
It seems that Senator Darrell Jackson’s flock wants to develop some of their land, which is fine, of course. Not content with the fallout from the Farmers Market scam, now Senator Jackson wants to spend state tax dollars on the church’s development project as well. It seems the “render unto Caesar” principle has been lost here…

11. Piedmont Technical Pottery Degree program – $150,000
Why do we suppose failed gubernatorial candidate Tommy Moore decided to fund this pet project? Is there a political statement here about all of us as jars of clay? Perhaps this broken degree program is just a metaphor for shattered ambitions for higher office. Either way, it’s a waste of hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

12. Security Detail for the Lieutenant Governor – $90,000
None of the other seven constitutional officers require this security detail and they have full-time positions. This boondoggle of a perk was ended by Bob Peeler 16 years ago; why do we need to bring it back now? Or is this still just a thinly veiled attempt to provide a job for a powerful Democrat Senator’s family member? After seeing their taxes used to increase spending by 40% over the past three years, it seems that taxpayers of South Carolina are the ones most in need of security these days, and the details aren’t pretty.

13. Anti-business provisos 26.7 and 63.44 (related to Parks Recreation and Tourism and the Budget and Control Board)
While there are no direct dollar amounts associated with these items, they have the potential to save taxpayers more money than any other on the list. Real fiscal conservatives would write a budget that encourages – not discourages – the use of the private sector in our state.

In just the last couple of years these two agencies have signed new contracts with companies that make use of their expertise in areas like tourist advertising and public relations for our state, reservation systems for our state parks, and even creating and running the state’s entire internet portal. The results have been much greater citizen service at a much lower cost – an example is an instant jump in South Carolina’s ranking in terms of digital services offered to our residents from 43rd to 17th with no budgetary expenditures. Proviso 63.3 also singles out the Budget and Control Board to obtain legislative approval before letting unnecessary employees go in yet another affront to the taxpayers of our state.

It is anti-business, anti-free market, and downright anti-American to require these two agencies – and only these two agencies – to run the often slow and too often impossible gauntlet of legislative approval in order to improve their services by partnering with the very private sector that produced the $1.5 billion in new revenue being spent this year.

• It takes nearly $1.3 billion in new revenues and creates a recurring budget deficit of $242 million by choosing to pay for recurring items with non‐recurring dollars.
• It makes a much too modest $205 payment towards our state’s $10 billion in unfunded health care liabilities for retirees. This is irresponsible in the extreme.
• It only uses 3% of the nearly $1.3 billion in new revenues for tax relief and provides no money for income tax relief.
• It grows government by another 12% on top of the last two years’ 25% increase – an amount already double the national average for government growth.
• It cuts the number of new state troopers in half and comes up short in funding our prisons ‐ while instead choosing to provide tens of million for pork projects.

“The SC Senate must think it’s the US Congress, given all of their earmarks for local projects that should be funded by local government – if at all,” says SC Club Executive Director Joshua Gross. Instead, these items are too often funded to buy votes and help Senators bring home the lard – at taxpayer’s expense. While there are no “bridges to nowhere” in these funds, there is plenty of wasteful pork to go around. Gross continued, “By just eliminating the spending for the most egregious pork projects, Senators could reduce taxes by an additional $45 million – nearly double the tax relief in their current plan.”

The SC Club for Growth urges fiscally conservative members of the Senate who still care about the taxpayers to put a stop to this foolish spending and return a greater percentage of the $1.3 billion in new tax collections to the taxpayers who sent it to Columbia in the first place. If not, they should be prepared to face some angry voters next year.

The SC Club for Growth is a voter education organization dedicated to improving the income, wealth, and education of people in South Carolina by helping elect candidates who will be leaders in the fight for economic growth, lower taxes, and smaller government. The Club honors the legacy and policies of Ronald Reagan, educating the public to put sound economic thinking back into politics.

THE SC SENATE BUDGET’S TOP 10 “LARD LIST”

1. National Bean Market Museum of South Carolina: $950,000
If the 6478 residents of Lake City really need a place other than the grocery store to go look at beans, should taxpayers around the state really pick up the $950,000 tab for it? As a matter of fact, for that amount of money we could buy every resident of Lake City 341 lbs of green beans. Ironically, this is a project that no bean counter could love…

2. Francis Marion Center for Performing Arts & the Florence Museum: $7,900,000
Apparently Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman thinks that to go with the $950,000 of taxpayer-paid beans the good folks in the Pee Dee need a healthy $7.9 million serving of pork – and that’s on top of the additional $7 million Leatherman brought home last year for the Performing Arts Center. That is certainly not the kind of performance taxpayers should be proud of.

3. Anderson County Parks: $800,000
House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Cooper sure loves the swine too. Apparently the $250,000 in state taxes that he recently secured for an Anderson sports complex named after his father (Dolly Cooper) wasn’t enough so he’s back up to the trough for another $800,000 in state taxpayers’ funds for more ball fields back home.

4. Piedmont Technical Pottery Degree program: $150,000
Given Chairman Cooper’s apparent love of athletics, one would think that his local technical school would at least field a sports program (especially with all those taxpayer-funded fields) to add a course like pottery. What will we taxpayers have to spend next year for the football program and underwater basket weaving programs that are sure to follow in the next budget?

5-10. The so-called “Competitive” Grants Programs: $35,300,000
We always thought of government pork as just an analogy but were shocked to learn that this program, a legislatively-dominated favor factory, has given our hard-earned tax dollars to pay for ACTUAL celebrations of pork such as…

5. “The Pigs on the Ridge Festival” – Fairfield County
6. “The Piggie on the Rock Festival” – Union County
7. “Squealin’ on the Square” – Laurens
8. “Chitlin Strut” (note – chitlins are pig intestines) – Salley

We are all willing to pay taxes to fund the core functions of government but are just not sure that these items quite fit into that definition either. The grants program has also recently used our taxes to pay for many other boondoggles including…

9. “Freedom Weekend Aloft” – Anderson
10. “Hilarity Festival” – Chester

We’d keep going as there are countless other examples but frankly, we’re tired of this “hot air” and don’t find any of this “hilarious” because legislators are turning our hard-earned taxes into, in the words of The State newspaper, “the kind of legislative pork that they’d just as soon not have to debate in public.” The paper goes on to say that this program had “all the appearances of a secret legislative slush fund” that “should be abolished.” We couldn’t agree more.