When many people speak of political conservatives in the United States they frequently speak of two distinct branches -- one being economic conservatives who care mainly about balanced budgets and policies favorable to economic growth, and the other being social conservatives who concern themselves mainly with moral and family issues, such as education, healthcare and crime. However, the General Assembly’s recent work on next year’s State budget demonstrates that economic and social issues are very much intertwined.
The recent budget spectacle has managed to unite not only fiscal and social conservatives, but has united some liberals and conservatives as well. What’s more, some of our state’s most liberal newspaper editors, normally of the belief that government can almost never tax and spend too much, have even criticized some of next year’s proposed spending plans. Many people have begun to protest against the selfish promotion of special interest projects arranged by politicians looking out for their own small corner of the state, rather than for the overall good of our state as a whole.
Fiscal responsibility is both a moral and social issue. That’s because the choices we make today shape the kind of lives our children and grandchildren will live 20 and 40 years from now.
State government expects to collect $1.2 billion more in revenue this year than it did last year. Yet instead of returning much of this excess collection to the taxpayers, or setting it aside to help get us through the next recession, or even committing it for overdue repairs of bridges, roads, schools and school buses, some legislators have a “better idea.”
They have decided to use a mere 3% for tax cuts. They also plan to penalize State government by using this year’s new non-recurring dollars, which are here today and gone tomorrow, for new recurring programs that instead should be supported by recurring dollars. Their proposed budget also bloats State government by another 12% on top of its 25% expansion during the previous two years. At the same time, they cut the number of new state troopers in half, fail to provide adequate funding for our prisons, and spend tens of millions on pork projects that sound like a list from Ripley’s Believe it or Not.
People complain about “pork-barrel” spending by elected officials. But are these complaints justified in South Carolina? Consider the following.
Among local projects benefiting from a controversial slush fund are The Pigs on the Ridge Festival, The Piggie on the Rock Festival, Squealin’ on the Square, and the Chitlin Strut. Do these sound like pork to you? Are you satisfied to see your taxes increase so that your family’s money can be spent on projects like these?
As in past years, Governor Sanford will veto many of these outrageous ways that some of our legislators have found to spend our hard earned money. But we can also expect that, as in the past, some legislators will show their disregard for the financial sacrifices and patience of taxpayers by proudly overriding most of the Governor’s vetoes.
If people really want to stop the questionable spending of their hard-earned money, then the list of legislators who vote to override the Governor’s vetoes could be very helpful. In fact, such a list might be more useful than all the campaign brochures that will be printed and campaign commercials that will be aired during next year’s re-elections. Perhaps voters should carry that list with them to the polls on Election Day.
The recent budget spectacle has managed to unite not only fiscal and social conservatives, but has united some liberals and conservatives as well. What’s more, some of our state’s most liberal newspaper editors, normally of the belief that government can almost never tax and spend too much, have even criticized some of next year’s proposed spending plans. Many people have begun to protest against the selfish promotion of special interest projects arranged by politicians looking out for their own small corner of the state, rather than for the overall good of our state as a whole.
Fiscal responsibility is both a moral and social issue. That’s because the choices we make today shape the kind of lives our children and grandchildren will live 20 and 40 years from now.
State government expects to collect $1.2 billion more in revenue this year than it did last year. Yet instead of returning much of this excess collection to the taxpayers, or setting it aside to help get us through the next recession, or even committing it for overdue repairs of bridges, roads, schools and school buses, some legislators have a “better idea.”
They have decided to use a mere 3% for tax cuts. They also plan to penalize State government by using this year’s new non-recurring dollars, which are here today and gone tomorrow, for new recurring programs that instead should be supported by recurring dollars. Their proposed budget also bloats State government by another 12% on top of its 25% expansion during the previous two years. At the same time, they cut the number of new state troopers in half, fail to provide adequate funding for our prisons, and spend tens of millions on pork projects that sound like a list from Ripley’s Believe it or Not.
People complain about “pork-barrel” spending by elected officials. But are these complaints justified in South Carolina? Consider the following.
Among local projects benefiting from a controversial slush fund are The Pigs on the Ridge Festival, The Piggie on the Rock Festival, Squealin’ on the Square, and the Chitlin Strut. Do these sound like pork to you? Are you satisfied to see your taxes increase so that your family’s money can be spent on projects like these?
As in past years, Governor Sanford will veto many of these outrageous ways that some of our legislators have found to spend our hard earned money. But we can also expect that, as in the past, some legislators will show their disregard for the financial sacrifices and patience of taxpayers by proudly overriding most of the Governor’s vetoes.
If people really want to stop the questionable spending of their hard-earned money, then the list of legislators who vote to override the Governor’s vetoes could be very helpful. In fact, such a list might be more useful than all the campaign brochures that will be printed and campaign commercials that will be aired during next year’s re-elections. Perhaps voters should carry that list with them to the polls on Election Day.
