COLUMBIA, S.C. - Legislators return to Columbia on Tuesday to deal with similar but competing GOP priorities as the General Assembly reconvenes with some new faces.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate say they haven't developed specific legislative roadmaps for the January-to-June session. For now, that leaves Republican Gov. Mark Sanford and the GOP majorities in the House and Senate to wrangle over what the state's top legislative issues should be.

Last month, House members prefiled 228 bills as way of getting a head start on new and perennial issues, including the GOP's "Palmetto Pledge" agenda: job creation, reducing income taxes, tort reform, government restructuring and school choice. House Speaker David Wilkins expects those measures to clear the House by the end of March.

"I think the House will continue to work on ways to create a favorable business environment for our small and large businesses in South Carolina," said Wilkins, R-Greenville.

All of those issues are Sanford priorities, too, with the income tax cut at the top of the list.

Legislators first must deal with Sanford's veto last month of a bill that called for 20 percent cap on property tax assessment increases. Sanford said it was unconstitutional.

Rep. Vida Miller, D-Pawleys Island, says a cap would help protect South Carolinians from losing homes because of skyrocketing tax rates. "I'm talking about people losing their homesteads. To me, that is a disgrace that working South Carolinians will be put in that position," Miller said.

House Ways and Means Chairman Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, doubts the veto will be overridden. Legislators, however, likely will take up a proposal that locks the value of property at its sales price, Harrell said.

Sanford's proposal to cut the state's top income rate from 7 percent to 4.75 percent is expected to hit the House floor within two weeks. Sanford's executive budget calls for the Legislature to earmark $7 million for the tax cut to begin in 2006.

Harrell says that small price tag makes it more likely to clear the House.

Last year, Sanford's tax cut became mired in the Senate as critics pointed out it would benefit only those on the upper half of the state's income ladder.

The governor says his plan is aimed at attracting wealthy retirees and executives while helping business owners. Those people make investments and decisions that spur economic growth and help all taxpayers, Sanford and Harrell say.

People deciding to move to South Carolina or build businesses here are looking at many other factors, including education and the lawsuit climate, said Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman, R-Florence.

He's concerned legislators may pass a tax law without understanding the effect. For instance, property tax breaks passed in the past decade were initially forecast to cost $195 million, but now demand $410 million yearly.

As for Sanford's proposal, "I'll keep an open mind," Leatherman said.

Senate Minority Leader John Land, D-Manning, says he opposes the break because the emphasis needs to be on funding and improving the state's schools, not cutting taxes.

"I want to put education back in the forefront," Land said. "I want to see us abide by our own law regard to the education finance act."

A formula tied to that law says the state should be spending $2,300 per student on education, but the current budget pays $1,852. Sanford's budget puts per-pupil spending at $2,213.

Sanford has another priority: changing debate and procedural rules in the Senate. That's pretty much guaranteed to happen after the gavel falls.

Before the work begins on the 184 bills already filed or the hundreds that will follow, Rules Chairman Larry Martin, R-Pickens, will lead an effort aimed at cutting off filibusters and making bills move faster through the Senate.

Sanford, Leatherman, Martin and other Senate Republicans were miffed when their own top bills became mired in the old rules and died without final votes. Republicans have spent the past few months rethinking the rules, something Sanford insisted they do.

It's a bad move, some say. "All this rule change is about is to be able to get something passed into law for politics - for the governor's run in 2006," said Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia.

Former governors have had to deal with a Legislature controlled by another political party in the past but managed to get key agenda items passed by working closely with legislators, Knotts. "Why can't this (Republican) governor come in and sit down with a Republican-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate and get things passed?" Knotts said.

The rules changes may not give Republicans what they want, some say. After all, Land said, four years ago Republicans changed the rules when they took control of the Senate but didn't have much to show for it.

"If there was any fault to be laid on anybody by rules, it lies with them," he said.

If nothing else, the rules likely will force more fights into Senate committees and more legislation is likely to die there, Senate Transportation Chairman Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken, said.

Ryberg is back this year with a bill aimed at allowing police to ticket adult drivers who aren't wearing seat belts. It's the same bill that tied up the Senate for weeks last year as an off-and-on filibuster simmered.

Things will be different this year, Ryberg said.

"There's more support, and I think there's more evidence of the problem," he said. "Everyday we pick up the newspaper and see evidence of another useless tragedy on our highway."

Legislators also will ratify a constitutional amendment that allows restaurants and bars to stop using minibottles and instead pour liquor from larger containers.

The Legislature also must agree on the specifics of how that free-pour liquor law will be implemented. Land says a compromise worked out last year - limiting restaurants and bars to 1-liter bottles and pulling those containers from retailers' shelves - remains the best way of implementing the law.

Sanford's government restructuring plans also are back. He said he's looking mainly for consolidation of health-related agencies and administrative functions. His budget proposal calls for consolidation of several small agencies and the elimination of most statewide elected offices.