State House budget writers are putting a hold on the budget debate awaiting the outcome of the federal stimulus package vote.

That puts ‘24′ up for debate on the House floor… likely tomorrow.

Abortion proponents are pressing legislators hard to amend the waiting-period bill, giving abortionists an “out” to the entire concept of a “period of reflection” before a woman can have an abortion.

Amendments are one of the greatest concerns of bill sponsor Greg Delleney. He said today that changes to the bill could basically nullify any strides made to extend the waiting period for an abortion from 1 hour to 24.

CALL TO ACTION

When it comes to hearing from constituents, legislators are telling us that conservative voices are outnumbered 3-to-1 on this bill. 

Contact your House member today and tell them to pass Rep. Greg Delleney’s bill (H. 3245) unamended.

If you aren’t sure who your legislator is… sign up on Palmetto Family’s online petition for up-t0-date legislator information.

The former chairman of the S.C. Board of Economic Advisors, Dr. Harry Miley, has added his two cents on the tax discuss and debate.

“What do we need to do? We need to do what everyone has been saying we need to do for the last several decades — undertake a thorough evaluation of our current system and redesign it from top to bottom. The recent proposals for the corporate and personal tax rates may be what are needed, but they need to be considered in the context of a comprehensive evaluation of the entire system. Whether it’s done by the Palmetto Institute, a special legislative committee, a business coalition or a mix of all the above, that is what we need to do.

“When we do it we need to be careful to distinguish discussions about how much government spends from discussions about how government raises the revenue to pay for the services. But we must stop doing it piecemeal in a vacuum. Please ….”

Take a moment to read all he has to say.

Just last week brought the announcement of a fourth round of budget cuts for the state, bringing the grand total to $1.2 billion. And this year’s economic forecast doesn’t look any better.

Listen to folks within state government and you’ll hear talk of program cuts, furloughs, and job losses. It almost makes you wonder how in the world lawmakers could cut more from state budgets. But they have to.

Reality is the 170 men and women we’ve elected to serve under the copper dome in Columbia are now facing the consequences of their less-than-economically-conservative decisions of the last 4 or 5 years. 

They’ve taken surpluses and spent them, instead of saving up for the inevitable rainy day.

They’ve expanded grants and programs to “bring home the bacon”, instead of moderating growth.

And they’ve made the state’s revenue stream dependent upon the most fluctuating income source… the sales tax, instead of taking on the hard task of real tax reform.

The passage of Act 388 did as much to exacerbate our state’s current financial condition as did this economic recession we’re in. By trying to bring “tax relief” to homeowners (i.e. voters), lawmakers did the old switch-a-roo… reducing property tax for a one cent increase in the state sales tax. But they failed to realize what that would do to revenue during economic anorexia.

Historically, South Carolina is slower at economic recovery than other states. Our economy is not as diverse, nor is our tax system as equitably distributed as it should be. It’s going to be tough times for state agencies for the next few years, but if lawmakers don’t make real tax reform a priority on Tuesday morning when they head back to work, it’s going to be even tougher for the state to recover from our economic woes.

As The State’s editorial said today…

“There is no question that tackling this monstrosity will be difficult — more this year than in a normal year. That’s why a growing chorus of business and civic leaders is calling for the creation of an independent panel, whose recommendations lawmakers would have to accept or reject as a package.”

Hopefully, lawmakers will realize they can’t piecemeal our tax system together in a vacuum. They must rely on outside expertise to come up with comprehensive, long-term solutions. If they don’t, this state will continue to hobble along, struggling to compete in a 21st century economy.

Economists say we’ve been in a recession for nearly a year now, and for many this has come as no surprise. South Carolina’s economy, not necessarily one of the most robust in the nation, is more susceptible to dramatic effects of the downturn than most.

Case in point… $625 million in budget cuts.

It has taken nearly 7 years for us to recover from the economic punch of the 2001 recession, and now that we’ve barely gotten back on our feet, we’re taking another blow to our economic gut.

Darla Moore drove home this point earlier this week at a meeting of the Upstate chambers of commerce.

In two studies on South Carolina’s tax structure commissioned by the Palmetto Institute the experts noticed, with regard to previous recessions, that South Carolina’s revenue performed worse than the national average in two of the last three recessions since 1980….

To emphasize the point, Sales Tax Revenue in FY 2001 was $2.7 billion. Seven years later, it is essentially the same. That tells me that the current trend in lagging income and sales tax revenue is likely to be the case for the next several years.

It doesn’t help that two years ago the Legislature passed a tax-swap “reform” package – Act 388 – that essentially made state tax coffers overwhelmingly dependent on the most fluctuating revenue source – sales tax.

Now state leaders in Columbia are prepping for a third round of budget cuts this month. It wouldn’t be surprising if we face a fourth before we end Q1 of 2009.

Darla Moore brings up a valid point in recommending a BRAC-style commission to reform our state’s taxing structure. Hopefully, leaders in Columbia will take her recommendations to heart and realize that piece-mealing a tax system together just won’t work.

Here’s what she had to say…

The mainstream media have brushed off this story, but it’s one worth telling, especially when the federal government is being asked to bail out auto companies and states.

Gov. Sanford requested a $15 million loan from the federal government because the South Carolina Employment Security Commission ran out of money. But he did it with a gun pointed at his head. The good bureaucrats at ESC didn’t bother to tell the governor about the problem until five days before the deadline for the request, even though they acknowledged discussing the problem with legislators for weeks. That’s playing Russian roulette with the unemployed and it stinks.

Anyway, the governor wrote a blunt letter to the head ESC bureaucrat telling him how much he thinks the agency stinks, and the head bureaucrat responded in kind. Here are the letters so you can judge for yourself who’s right. Just remember: South Carolina’s jobless rate is higher than at any time in 25 years, and the ESC is responsible for making sure all those people get their unemployment checks. Read the letters and tell me if you have confidence in this agency.

Send the call out far and wide, it’s time to round up the Legislature.

All that grandstanding over the last weeks between the Governor’s office and lawmakers over returning to Columbia seems somewhat petty now, especially in light of that fact that the Board of Economic Advisors has forecasted some rather gloomy days ahead for our state.

Now, the 170 men and women who serve under the copper dome must not trim, but cut an additional 6% from the state’s budget… to the tune of $550 million from the state’s already strapped $7 billion budget.

In the midst of election season, lawmakers will now have to earn their keep and make some tough decisions. We’ll see who will stand their ground, who will stand on principle, and who will buckle under the heat of election pressure.

Rep. Gresham Barrett says he will vote for the Senate version of the rescue plan/bailout package/necessary action/commie plot or whatever you want to call it.  He says it’s better than the House version that he voted against.

That, and I’m guessing, an earful from scared constituents changed his mind. Whatever the case, he is doing the right thing.

Rep. Gresham Barrett

Rep. Gresham Barrett was the only member of the South Carolina House delegation to vote against the president’s financial bailout plan yesterday, so the same question to him that we put to Jim DeMint: what’s your plan and where is your bill?

Barrett spent a lot of time yesterday saying what he could not do in good conscience, which he said amounted to using tax dollars to reward bad financial decisions. But he also said, “I understand the need to act, and the urge to act quickly.” So he understood that the market would tank, which it did. That means he understood that his position could sink the U. S. economy that eventually will be felt by every household in South Carolina.

Joe Wilson and Henry Brown are just as conservative as Barrett; they led the conservative movement in South Carolina long before he came along. They, too, understood the urgency of the moment and voted for the plan, holding their noses all the way. Here’s what Wilson said: “There are no perfect options. This was a compromise at a time when we need solutions.”

This is not a good guy/bad guy situation. I’ve contributed to both Gresham and Jim’s campaigns, I’ve supported them and will continue to do so. They could well be right about the plan, and conservative, market-based solutions most likely would be a better choice.

But we’ll never know, because neither attempted to force a vote on what they say are better ideas. They neither wrote nor introduced legislation reflecting their principles when there were unanimous expectations that the stock market would crumble without congressional action. They simply said no. And they did it knowing full well the consequences of doing nothing.

I just don’t understand.

Sen. Jim DeMint

I got an answer to my earlier post asking when Sen. Jim DeMint, a leading opponent of the White House compromise to bail out the financial markets, was going to introduce his own bill since the president’s bill bit the dust today.

The back-and-forth emails are extraordinary. First, Wesley Donohue and Ellen Weaver, a consultant and employee, sent me DeMint’s words. There were lots of words about how the White House plan was terrible and how DeMint’s plan is great. For all I know, the senator’s words and ideas are right.

But I emailed both back. I do not care about words. Neither do the financial markets. Wall Street tanked when the House killed the president’s plan today. Average folks are being mutilated, and the hurt has just begun. We need action, not words.

I asked Wesley (as an aside, one of the finest young men I know) and Ms. Weaver, whom I do not know, whether DeMint would put his words into action, i.e., introduce a bill. I’ve not heard from Wesley, but I did hear from Ms. Weaver, who is in the deep spin cycle. Here’s the email answering the question, sort of, of whether DeMint will introduce his own bill to address the financial meltdown:

“No, but that could be easily remedied if the time to strike was right.

“Realistically, we all know both houses of a Democrat-controlled Congress are never going to pass a DeMint-authored bill on a matter of this magnitude. But we can continue to beat the drum for the right ideas, connect the dots for the average Ameican and try to pull those who ARE at the negotiating table (which to this point has been limited to leadership and committee chairs and ranking members) towards these market-based reforms.

“And I’m not saying we WON’T author legislation on any of this. Who knows: maybe now that negotiations seem to have completely broken down there is an opening – I know we’re exploring all our options.

“My money is that some form of bail out is eventually going to pass, and we will still have to fight for these basic reforms even after that happens.

“My point is simply that Jim isn’t just throwing rocks, he putting out real ideas that could have real impact.”

Now let’s parse what she said.

“We all know both houses of a Democrat-controlled Congress are never going to pass a DeMint-authored bill…but we can continue to beat the drum for the right ideas, connect the dots for the average American and try to pull those who are at the negotiating table…toward these market-based reforms…”

She is correct. The Democrat-controlled Congress will never pass a DeMint bill or a conservative bill authored by any other Republican. That means, like it or not, Republicans must compromise to get any remedy. That’s what the president tried to do, imperfectly.

Connecting the dots for the average American? I think the dots are being connected right this moment as average Americans lose their retirement accounts and homes. They’ll really be connected when they can’t borrow money to send their kids to college or buy a house.

But we can rest easily; Ms. Weaver is betting her money (I’m glad she still has some) that some form of bail out (sic) is eventually going to pass…” I hope she tells that to Wall Street, which seems disinclined to heed words without action.

And she assures us that her boss might or might not do more than talk.

I don’t fault fellow conservatives for fighting against a plan they think is wrong for America, but I do fault them for not having a backup plan ready to be introduced and debated-a plan more to their liking but written with the understanding that Democrats must vote for it to pass. Right now they have nothing but words and good intentions. The White House plan might be loaded with mistakes, but the president at least had the courage to try.

For a legislator, there is no courage in criticizing without legislating.

Okay, our conservative brethren and sistern got just what they wanted in the financial bailout issue, which is nothing. The House defeated it. The Dow Jones at this minute is down about 716 points.

Here’s the question I now pose to my philosophical soul mates: What’s your plan? I particularly address this to Dr. No, Sen. Jim DeMint. Jim: You opposed this from the word go. You obviously had a better grasp on Hill sentiment than the president, but we still have a problem, as in the national economy might be tanking.

So what do you say “yes” to? I don’t want philosophy. What do you say “yes” to that will pass a Democrat Congress? Seems to me you have two choices: either come up with your own plan or sit back and watch what happens. What will it be?