Gov. Mark Sanford has tried, and the odds now say he will fail, to get the Legislature to live within what he believes to be the state's fiscal means. Experience says the governor is right to be wary of a budget that includes $90 million in anticipated revenue not certified by the Board of Economic Advisers. Unfortunately, his more conservative approach was overwhelmingly rejected by the House of Representatives Wednesday when it brushed aside all but one of his 106 budget vetoes.
For the governor it is a bitter disappointment, particularly in view of the unprecedented time he has spent in the past 12 months on the state's fiscal affairs. He devoted last summer to budget meetings with all the state agencies and delivered to the Legislature early this year the most detailed budget ever presented by a South Carolina governor.
A key goal has been to erase a previous unconstitutional $155 million deficit, an aim the legislative leadership also embraced. While the governor acknowledges that the budget makes a significant $90 million down payment toward eliminating the debt, he argues that more should have come from the anticipated surplus instead of going to other programs. A bill pending in the Senate would add general reserve funds to the debt payment for a total of $139 million, still some $16 million short. The governor also notes the general reserve fund is $100 million shy of its constitutionally required minimum.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bobby Harrell counters that the payment on the deficit isn't really short since the $16 million will come from the sale of state cars and property. The governor responds that the money is by no means certain and deficit reduction should have been a priority.
Of even greater uncertainty, however, is some $90 million of uncertified revenue -- being described as "Maybank money" -- that is being used in the budget. The description comes from the fact that the funds are expected to be generated by the Department of Revenue -- headed by Burnet R. Maybank Jr. -- primarily by going after out-of-state firms that don't now pay sales tax. The governor cited in his veto message the BEA's refusal to certify the estimate and the reservations that earlier had been expressed in the Senate about counting on so much from increased collections.
The governor said he toyed with vetoing the total $90 million. He opted instead to veto some $21 million of "Maybank money" allocated to other agencies so that the Department of Social Services wouldn't be so hard hit if all the money doesn't materialize. His vetoes included cuts in a variety of agencies that would balance out his proposed reductions in anticipated revenue.
The governor couldn't have been surprised that his proposed trims got such a cold shoulder, particularly since they were so wide-ranging and affected so many lawmakers' home turf. He certainly didn't spare his own backyard, proposing to eliminate, for example, funds for the culinary arts school at Charleston's Trident Technical College because he didn't feel it was constitutionally authorized; some $5 million for beach renourishment at Hunting Island State Park; and $380,000 for the Palmetto Bowl for Charleston. The governor said he supports the Palmetto Bowl project but insists the money should come from the Capital Reserve Fund.
But the 43-page veto message, which included some pats for the lawmakers along with the pans, was rejected out of hand by the House. Rep. Harrell disagrees that the quick dismissal of the huge veto package took place without due consideration. He argues that the budget was roundly debated in both bodies and discussed at length in caucuses Wednesday. He says there simply was disagreement with the governor's basic objections to the budget.
Rep. Harrell contends that the Legislature is well aware that the $90 million in "Maybank money" is a one-time revenue estimate. But the alternative, he says, would have been even deeper budget cuts for agencies that already had been critically wounded. The Legislature, he contends, has put all the agencies on notice that the money won't be there next year.
Clearly, the lawmakers and the governor have different perspectives. There's little doubt that the legislative outlook is colored not only by protecting hometown constituencies but by the fact that this is an election year. As the governor observes, the only entity that has the capacity to look at the big, statewide picture is the executive branch.
From Gov. Sanford's perspective, the budget not only digs the state into deeper fiscal trouble but includes some constitutionally troubling expenditures. Members of the House should have given the public the benefit of their reasoning for rejecting his arguments Wednesday. Public debate is the least that should be expected from the Senate.
Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/052704/edi_27edit1.shtml