This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Oct 13, 2004
Contract for Change: General Assembly should proceed on four of the
five items
Gov. Mark Sanford announced his agenda for next
year's legislative session this week. Lawmakers should act on four of the five
items in his "Contract for Change."Sanford is again proposing to gradually lower
the state income tax rate over six years. This is likely, as Sanford claims, to
enhance the state's business climate and create jobs.The governor also is
renewing his push for government restructuring. The General Assembly started the
job during the Carroll Campbell administration because it knew that
restructuring could save the state money and increase government accountability.
Lawmakers should finish the job.Sanford is asking the legislature to enact tort
reform. Lawmakers considered some worthwhile measures last year that would limit
the costs that excessive litigation imposes on the economy, particularly the
health care industry. Those measures should be enacted.The most critical element
of Sanford's contract is changing the rules of the state Senate. The income tax
reduction, tort reform and several pieces of the governor's restructuring
proposals were passed by the House this year, but they died in the Senate.That
body was held hostage by a minority of senators who wanted to block proposals
like primary enforcement of the state's seat belt law.The state saw progress on
meaningful issues thwarted while a handful of senators insisted on having their
way. Senators must change the rules for filibusters and other ways in which
small groups of senators can bring business in that chamber to a halt. These are
antiquated rules that cater to the egos of senators while they erode legislative
progress and the quality of democracy.Lawmakers should not be too quick to act
on the fifth portion of Sanford's contract. This is the plan to provide tax
credits to parents who send their children to private school or teach them at
home.There are real concerns about the effect such a policy would have on the
state's public schools. Would they be spurred by competition to improve? Or
would they lose the academically successful students along with much of their
funding and be left with the hardest students to teach and fewer resources to
spend on those children?South Carolina might do well to let other states
experiment with such programs and adopt them only if they result in educational
improvement in the public and private sectors.