Legislative trends still militate against reforms

ONE OF THE great mysteries of the past year has been Sen. Glenn McConnell’s decision to become the chief advocate for Gov. Mark Sanford’s government restructuring proposals.

After all, back when Gov. Carroll Campbell was pushing for the same reforms, Sen. McConnell was the staunchest defender of the status quo. And now here he is making the same arguments he resisted so forcefully before.

I learned some of the reasons for this turnaround last week when the Senate president pro tempore and Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman came to discuss various issues with our editorial board.

Sen. McConnell’s reasons range from the personal to the philosophical. To begin with, he didn’t like the way “the other governor I got into it with” approached reform.

“They were interested in power,” he said of the Campbell administration. “This governor is not interested in power.... I just honestly think he’s trying... to make the government work.”

The senator also likes the fact that his restructuring bill spells out greater powers for the Legislature in keeping tabs on the executive: “He gets a more efficient operation; we get a rejuvenation of legislative oversight.”

In other words, Sen. McConnell is still the champion of legislative prerogatives, and the determined enemy of what he sees as overweening executive power.

Finally, there’s the fact that “The governor and I, philosophically, we think along many of the same roads.” This is true. They are two of the most truly libertarian politicians I have ever known. Neither gives just lip service to that limitied-government stuff, the way many Republicans do, just before passing around the pork barrel. This is one reason they’ve both been relative outsiders in their own party.

I suppose this is admirable, even though it leads to some of their worst decisions. With the governor, it comes out in his evangelical zeal to cut the income tax while essential services are hemorrhaging. With the senator, you see a Horatio-at-the-bridge defense of our God-given right to go flying through windshields.

“It’s a liberty issue,” he says. “I am not going to give police that kind of unbridled power.”

He speaks of roadblocks to make sure folks are buckled up safely the way Samuel Adams would have spoken of the Boston Massacre. There is much indignation in his voice as he says, “The last time they had it, they were out there with binoculars.” He says “binoculars” the way a lesser son of liberty would say “cattle prod,” or “jackboots.”

He has nothing against seat belts, per se. “I wear mine. I think you’re foolish not to.” He just has no interest in saving lives and money for us all by requiring others to drive in a secure seat. “It’s just me. I’m very philosophical.”

“I consider the precedent as a slippery slope,” he says, predicting further encroachments on our freedoms if police are allowed actively to enforce the seat-belt law.

Personally, I’ve always considered the whole “slippery slope” argument a slippery slope. Set a foot on one, and you find yourself sliding into irrationality. It’s an easy way to justify doing nothing.

Not that Sen. McConnell wants to do nothing — on other issues, that is. For instance, he hasn’t given up on restructuring. Despite the setback the Old Boy Network has dealt out, he has plans to revive it. “That’s round one,” he said. “We’re not finished.”

Meanwhile, both he and Sen. Leatherman are determined to see meaningful tort reform this year. The House passed something to say it passed something, and consequently it doesn’t do much. But the two ranking senators are true believers. You’ll see more on this subject soon.

What you probably won’t see is substantial action on comprehensive tax reform, despite the promising signs at the start of this session. Sen. Leatherman promised to give a hearing to Sen. David Thomas’ proposal — probably the weakest one out there. But in the face of the House’s absolute refusal to consider anything in this election year (and remember that every other year is an election year for the House) that includes a tax increase (and you can’t rebuild the system without some taxes going up while others drop), the senators say we’ll have to wait. Again.

Nor will you see any remorse on the Christmas tree bill that would create yet another four-year college we can’t afford, this time in Sumter. Sen. Leatherman is justifiably proud of the good parts of the bill, which enable our research universities to reach toward excellence and contribute to prosperity in our state. But he seems almost as proud that the governor can’t do anything about the pork in the bill.

When I asked what he was going to do when the governor vetoed it, he smiled confidently: “Well, I suspect there will be an attempt to override.”

It seems that the votes are there for that, which is one reason there are reports the governor will treat it as an appropriations bill and excise the bad parts line by line. Sen. Leatherman says the governor can’t do that either, because the bill itself clearly states, “No provision of this act shall be construed to appropriate funds.”

I don’t know whether this is an appropriations bill under the law or not, but that seems an odd dodge to me. If you put a line like that in the budget, would it, too, cease to be an appropriations bill?

Whatever. I just hope the governor can find some way to stop the thing. The unholy deals that led to this monstrosity’s passage are exactly how we got all the other stuff that doesn’t make sense in S.C. government.

It’s time we found a way to end such madness.

Write to Mr. Warthen at P.O. Box 1333, Columbia, S.C. 29202, or bwarthen@thestate.com.