Advertisement

The amendment would allow the House and Senate to adjourn temporarily when no business is being conducted. Specifically, the House or Senate, by majority vote, could adjourn for up to 30 days. A two-thirds vote could allow for an adjournment longer than 30 days.

Supporters say the measure would be most useful at the beginning of the legislative session when committees are considering bills but the full House and Senate are doing nothing or very little. State lawmakers need the flexibility to adjourn temporarily. The measure would save lawmakers time and save taxpayers money.

This proposal deletes the current requirements concerning House and Senate adjournment. It must be approved to permit the provisions of 2a.

South Carolina is the only state in the nation that is prohibited from investing pension fund money in foreign stocks. That means the state can't invest in such high-quality companies as Michelin, Bridgestone and Nestle.

This amendment would allow the state to invest some money not only in international stocks but also in real estate and private equity. Broadening the investment options not only could boost returns for the pension system, helping to ensure its future solvency, but also would reduce risk through greater diversification.

The amendment is a housekeeping measure: eliminating an investment advisory panel that already has been superseded by a more professional and less political commission and staff.

The advisory panel formerly made investment recommendations to the state Budget and Control Board, which was in charge of handling billions of dollars in state retirement funds. In 2005, the General Assembly wisely sought to take the politics out of the investing of state pension money by giving those responsibilities to a six-member commission and professional staff with investing expertise.

Property tax relief was a big winner in the Legislature this year, but the fact is that this amendment would provide a tax cut for people whose homes are appreciating rapidly while increasing the tax burden on businesses and most everyone else. The amendment would prevent tax assessors from increasing property values -- for the purpose of taxation -- more than 15 percent every five years.

The proposal would favor wealthier people -- those who generally own large, rapidly appreciating homes. Their tax burden would be unfairly shifted to businesses and homeowners whose properties are not appreciating as quickly.

Hardest hit would be new homeowners, because the cap would not apply when a home is sold. Thus, those just buying a home -- a young couple, for instance -- could see the highest property tax increase of all.

A "No" vote is not a vote in favor of higher taxes but rather in favor of tax fairness.

South Carolina already has some of the toughest protections for private property in the country, but this amendment would make it even harder for government to take someone's property and give it to a developer. It would prohibit the state or a local government from taking private property for any purpose except for a public use rather than mere economic development purposes.

This amendment was proposed in response to an overreaching Supreme Court ruling that, in some instances, allowed local governments to condemn private property so it could be turned into a shopping mall or high-rise building. The amendment is needed to further protect private property in our state.

Post a Comment This article does not have any comments associated with it