State lawmakers are pretty busy these days, what with fistfights, the speaker seeking more power to censure his peers, feuds (even some, reportedly, with the folks back home) and party switching.
Then there’s that little matter of squeezing blood out of the turnip that represents state coffers, with tax plans being tossed around like a legislative salad. So far, we find none of the plans very filling; where’s the main course?
Gov. Mark Sanford wasn’t pleased with the bill lawmakers offered to create a jobs incentive program, primarily, he explained, because most of what was in the bill "did not serve the state’s interests" and involved issues that had not been brought before the public for debate. That seems to us to have been a valid objection. While unrelated items are frequently added on to bills, it’s usually to get someone’s pet project through. Following suit, lawmakers support each other’s special interests to secure support for their own. So in true cooperative spirit, both the House and the Senate voted to override the governor’s veto of the pork projects, adding fat to the fire of what has proven to be a power struggle between the governor’s office and the Capitol.
The House on Wednesday did however approve Mr. Sanford’s proposal to lower the state’s income tax to 4.75 percent over the next 10 years. It is, after all, an election year for many of them and in an election year, reducing taxes seems to be every lawmaker’s solemn vow, no matter what state the state’s economy might be in.
In other Columbia news — The governor believes that come November, voters should make the decision whether to go along with his proposal that five of the nine constitutional offices currently elected be moved to the discretion of a governor’s appointment. The Senate Judiciary shot that down last week, returning a watered-down version giving the governor authority over only the superintendent of education post.
We don’t believe that change would affect the adjutant general or agriculture commissioner adversely, nor even the secretary of state. But we have stated before and still believe that the offices of superintendent of education and comptroller general should be answerable to the voters of South Carolina, not the politics of who is in the governor’s office.
We’re puzzled by Inez Tenenbaum’s support of the proposal. She should know from her own experience that major changes are needed in a state where we have suffered so long with a disjointed educational system when it comes to quality and equality in funding. The ability to push through those changes or the time allotted to do so should not hinge on who sits in the governor’s chair.
Conversely, if the public is dissatisfied with the performance of such an important leader, the public should have the right to make changes in the office. The superintendent of education should be obligated only to the students of South Carolina and the taxpayers who fund that most important aspect of our state.
To his credit, the governor has at least made a concentrated study of possible money-saving measures in state government, an admirable and time-consuming chore, such as consolidating some agencies (although we disagree with his apparent low opinion of the value of the public service divisions of our state universities). But his primary cost-cutting moves utilize almost $300 million in one-time money.
And we all know from painful experience that is no way to run a financially stable government.
What’s the solution?
Simple and difficult at the same time — we either tighten our belts or loosen our wallets.
But that is why we elected these folks in the first place, to make the tough choices.
Of course, there’s always November, when if displeased with their choices, we might make a few of our own.
