Civil, issue-oriented discourse needed on important issues

There’s a battle of sorts going on in Columbia between those trying to rein in spending, impose greater accountability, and pull back the curtains of government so that decisions are made in full public view… and those who don’t think these changes are needed.

Those who know me generally put me in the former category -- a fiscal conservative committed to the cause of better government, increased transparency, and more careful spending. But while remaining true to my conservative principles, I consciously try to show respect for those whose views and opinions are different from mine.

Unfortunately, in this environment what should be civil debate on important issues all too often descends into “attack politics” -- vilifying those with opposing views in order to win. Name-calling has become accepted practice for many.

One example on the national stage is the automobile bailout, where some in Congress are sniping and finger-pointing just because many others -- due to their deep-seated concerns about writing blank checks to Detroit -- opposed plans to bail out the Big 3 automakers. When everyone in Washington should be devoting their energy to moving the country past the current economic crisis, leaders of one party instead have been churning press releases blasting the other party, and a prominent leader in the majority party attempted to paint all those who voted against the bail out plan as “un-American.”

There’s no shortage of such behavior here in the Palmetto State, where for several years Governor Sanford and those aligned with him have tried to change the business-as-usual culture in Columbia. In the interest of openness, let me state that I wholeheartedly support the vast majority of Gov. Sanford’s proposed reforms. Like him, I strongly believe that changing the way we do things in Columbia is a key to truly moving our state forward. But Gov. Sanford and other reformers represent changes that many in Columbia neither seek nor wish to accept, and the debate hasn’t always been constructive.

The legislature will convene in January with South Carolina facing one of the biggest challenges of a generation – the current economic crisis. With state leaders grappling with new and more difficult problems, we’d do well to lay aside the “heroes-versus-villains” mentality, the attitude that it’s OK to tear down another for holding an opposing political philosophy.

At the local level, the men and women who engage in civic debate -- whether over a municipal tax increase, a zoning matter, or a school bond issue -- should be respected, even when they express views counter to our own. At a time when most folks go about their daily lives and simply read about developments in the newspaper, we should applaud any who take the time to become involved in the community to guide its future.

In South Carolina, an honest conversation about where we’re headed as a state, and how we get there, is a good thing. We should be able to have such a conversation without ever resorting to attacks. Those of us in positions of public trust have a particular obligation to set the right example by conducting our debates in a manner befitting those we serve. Let’s commit to finding success on high roads, not low ones, and let’s win hearts and minds with the power of our ideas, not the volume of our voices.

Time for a hard look at the way we spend

It’s hard to find a bright spot in the current national recession. But if there is a silver lining, perhaps it will be in a new approach to the way state government spends.

On Dec. 11, the state Budget & Control Board voted to reduce spending for the current fiscal year. The mandatory cuts came after the state’s economists calculated that the amount the state would collect in revenue would fall far short of the amount the state was set to spend. This most recent budget reduction – a 7 percent cut – was the third decrease since the fiscal year began in July.

Our budget crisis was not caused only by declining revenues, but by too much spending as well. When times are good, state government simply spends too much of what it take in. We seem to spend everything we take in, rather than just what we need to fund government.

It was as a result of this practice that, when the economy soured, we became unable to support state government at the size we had grown it. Thus, we were forced to cut – requiring employee furloughs and layoffs.

Our current fiscal straits underscore the need for more thoughtful spending practices. The current budget predicament should teach us the perils of spending every dime we take in, as if the good times will last forever. That’s no way to manage a state. We must set priorities, focus on the primary functions of government, direct resources where they are genuinely needed, and pare back frills.

Simply put, it’s time to reform the way we spend taxpayers' money.

Over the past several years, Gov. Sanford has worked to draw attention to state spending practices he accurately sees as unhealthy. His answer is to cap spending by indexing spending growth to inflation and population growth, which would keep government from growing at a faster pace than the underlying economy. Others would be wise to accept his advice.

A new year and a new legislative session are approaching, and with them comes an opportunity for new beginnings – for a new chapter in the history of state government. Common sense demands we use this golden opportunity to change the way we spend.

Government transparency gaining steam...

Those who know me know how increased government transparency is something I feel strongly about. That's why I have been working hard as Comptroller General to do my part to shine a light on state spending... so the taxpayers have access to as much information as possible about how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent.

Fortunately, the government transparency movement appears to be picking up steam. Every day, the drum beat grows louder. Increasingly, daily newspapers are using their opinion pages to advance the idea that the best government is the government conducted in the open -- in full view of the citizenry.

Below are two such editorials from the Charleston Post & Courier and the Myrtle Beach Sun News. It is certainly refreshing to witness newspaper editorial writers using their "bully pulpit" to advance the important cause of open government.

New chance for roll-call solution
From the Post & Courier (Saturday, December 13, 2008)

A reform plan for roll-call voting by the state Legislature gets another chance with a bill prefiled by Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler this week.
The Senate shouldn't settle for something substantially less, as did the House of Representatives.
The Gaffney Republican's bill reflects the changes sought in the House by Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington. It would require South Carolina's important legislative business to be submitted to a roll-call vote — as it is in the large majority of states.
The need for greater accountability was revealed by the S.C. Policy Council, whose analysis found that only 8 percent of House votes and 2 percent of Senate votes were recorded.
The Policy Council also found that South Carolina had the weakest requirements
in the nation for roll-call voting by the Legislature.
The House response was to approve a rules change that includes some mprovements, but far less than envisioned in the bill by Rep. Haley. The public support of more accountability is reflected in the bipartisan support for her bill. So far, 30 representatives have signed on to the bill.
Rep. Haley's bill, incidentally, has also been pre-filed for introduction to the House when the session opens. So the House will have another opportunity to consider her reform plan.
Sen. Peeler's bill has garnered broad support in the Senate, with 20 co-sponsors.
Sen. Peeler contends that the lack of accountability has resulted in irresponsible
spending by the state, and is partly to blame for the state government's current
fiscal problems.
"Transparency is clearly needed in South Carolina," Sen. Peeler said in a statement. "More roll-call votes will shine a bright light on the General Assembly, holding us accountable for the tax dollars we spend."
Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell supports more roll-call voting, but says the plan needs to be crafted as a rule change to avoid Senate gridlock. "We're trying to make sure that everything that is substantive and controversial gets a recorded vote," he said.
Presumably, those parliamentary concerns can be addressed during the debate.
The primary objective should be to provide more roll-call voting by senators who clearly haven't been on the record. If that requires some adjustments in the way the
Senate does business, then senators should be willing to make the necessary changes. Roll-call voting is essential to legislative accountability. It provides a record showing citizens how their legislators voted. It informs the electorate as voters go the polls.
The shortcomings in accountability have been revealed, and a remedy should be applied by the Legislature. A cure, not a bandage, is needed.

Let Us See the Truth
From the Myrtle Beach Sun News (Friday, Dec. 12)

Good for S.C. Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, R-Cherokee, and the doughty and of Senate Republicans who believe that the long era of secrecy in S.C. lawmaking ust end. Local Sens. Ray Cleary, R-Murrells Inlet, and Luke Rankin, R-Myrtle Beach, re among senators backing Peeler's bill to let ordinary South Carolinians in on how he General Assembly handles their tax money. Under present Senate rules and recently evised House rules, legislators too easily can obscure money-handling decisions and ositions with which their constituents may disagree.
The Senate Republicans' Spending Accountability Act would amend state law to equire roll-call recording of senators' and representatives' votes on: Each section of appropriations bills on second reading; Floor votes adopting House-Senate conference-committee and free conference-committee reports (most final budget decisions have their beginnings in these reports); Second reading of all bills and joint resolutions; Concurrence votes on Senate amendments to House bills, and on House amendments to Senate bills; Third (and final) readings of bills and joint resolutions amended after second readings. We can almost hear readers' eyes glazing over at all this legislative inside baseball. The S.C. representatives who last week approved House "reforms" that would allow many financial dealings to remain secret are counting on them to react that way. Too
many legislators like it when we see the inside stuff as boring.
The House rules changes require recorded member votes only on bills to raise or reduce taxes, to increase budgets by more than $10,000, to adopt the final version of the state budget, to reapportion the General Assembly or U.S. House districts,
to raise legislative pay and to amend ethics rules. That sounds like transparency but really isn't.
House rules, as amended, do not require roll-call votes on the measures itemized in the Peeler bill - even though the inspiration for his bill came from a House member, S.C. Rep. Nikki Haley, R-Lexington. The House refused to consider her accountability bill. And Speaker Bobby Harrell subsequently stripped Haley and another transparency reformer, S.C. Rep. Nathan Ballentine, R-Irmo, of their committee assignments. The two got punished, in short, for daring to suggest that House members should show their constituents how they handle public money.
Why should readers care that S.C. legislators, when stacked against their counterparts in other states, are among the least accountable legislators in the nation? For the answer, one need only look at how poorly the current-year state budget, which has imploded by more than a billion dollars, has worked out.
How did that happen when it was clear at the beginning of the year that the S.C. economy was headed for a bad place?
Who is to blame for this fiasco? There's no way to tell because the official record of the 2008 legislative session does not speak to the dozens upon dozens of procedural votes made during budget construction in the General Assembly.
Peeler says that if the House refuses to engage on his bill, he'll work to incorporate its provisions into Senate rules. The hope must be, however, that Harrell and his cohorts recognize the weakness of their rules "reforms" and unite with the Senate to make legislative transparency a matter of law.

My thoughts on the Budget & Control Board's 7 percent state budget cut on Dec. 11

A budget cut now is better than a budget cut next February... and February is the soonest legislative leaders say they would be able to deal with our current budget crisis. That's why I insisted that the Budget and Control Board needed to step forward to cut state spending.

Cutting today allows greater flexibility for each agency, while later cuts would require much more drastic action to keep government afloat.

State government is bleeding financially, and we needed to act immediately to stop the blood loss.

But let's honestly admit that our budget crisis is more a problem of our spending too much than collecting too little. Economic growth over the last few years has given us a false hope that good times will last forever. So state government has increased spending beyond levels we can keep up. Now that revenues are falling, we’re unable to support government at the size we’ve grown it.

A new year and a new legislative session are around the corner and with them comes an opportunity for needed change in state government budgeting. State leaders would do well to recognize this unique opportunity to rethink our approach to spending. We must exercise greater fiscal discipline by living within our means and resisting the urge to spend every dime that comes in as if good times will last forever.

If there’s a silver lining somewhere in this current economic crisis, it’s that these challenges will force us to use greater fiscal discipline as we move ahead.

Reduced tax revenue -- and what it means for S.C.

Year-to-date, corporate income tax revenues are down more than 57 percent from last year.

Net Corporate Income Tax collections for July - November of this year are $30.6 million compared to $71.4 million for the same period last year -- a difference of $40.8 million. Also down on a year-to-date basis are individual income tax collections (down nearly 3 percent) and sales tax collections (down nearly 11 percent). The Board of Economic Advisors is expected to discuss declining revenues at its meeting Wednesday.

These sobering numbers and the declining revenue projections already provided by the Board of Economic Advisors further illustrate the need for a complete top-to-bottom assessment of how we spend public dollars.

With the legislature set to return in a few short weeks, the economic crisis presents us an excellent opportunity to change how we spend public money. It no longer works to spend money as fast as it comes in, acting as if good times will last forever. Nor should the state continue to grow government faster than we can pay for it. The mess we’re in today proves that we need to change.

S.C. Budget Update

The state Budget and Control Board will meet Thursday, Dec. 11 to decide on a course of action for dealing with falling tax revenues.
That meeting will following Wednesday's meeting of the Board of Economic Advisors.