THANKS TO "THE NERVE"

After Filibuster, Senator Eyes Budget Cuts, Tax Refunds

By Eric K. Ward
 The Nerve


S.C. Sen. Tom Davis wants to cut next year’s proposed state budget by at least $149 million and have that money refunded to South Carolina taxpayers.
The senator’s proposed cuts and rebates could be twice that amount, or closer to $300 million, based on calculations he attributes to Senate Finance Committee staff.
Davis, R-Beaufort, says he plans to propose a series of amendments to implement the spending cuts and tax rebates when senators resume deliberations next week on a budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year, which begins July 1.
The Senate has been debating an approximately $21.8 billion budget since the final week of April. Members of the chamber plan to pick it back up when they are scheduled to reconvene Tuesday at 10 a.m.
Again citing Senate Finance data, Davis says the general fund portion of the proposed budget would grow from $5.1 billion this year to $5.86 billion next year, an increase of $760 million or nearly 15 percent.
“And my point was households haven’t seen that kind of an increase in their incomes,” Davis says of an unusual, five-hour filibuster he mounted against the budget on the Senate floor Thursday. “I mean they’re trying to make ends meet.”
The general fund, about one-fourth of the budget, consists of state tax revenue. The rest of the budget comes from “other” funds, mostly fees and fines, and federal funds.
Davis says the Legislature, and state government in general, should abandon its spend-whatever-we-collect mentality and instead focus on core functions, discontinuing activities outside of its mission such as economic development.



Send it Back 
Whatever money remains after that process, he says, “Let’s send it back to the taxpayer. Essentially we’ve over-collected.”
Davis provided The Nerve with an advance copy of nine budget amendments he plans to introduce.
Most of his would-be cuts and taxpayer refunds would come from a $100 million reduction in Medicaid, a federal- and state-funded health care program for the poor, elderly and disabled.
Another amendment proposes a 10 percent reduction in funding to the Commission on Higher Education and state-supported colleges and universities. The schools “must reduce administrative and non-classroom instructional programs to absorb the cost,” the amendment says.
Five of the amendments similarly seek 10 percent funding reductions to a host of agencies and departments, including the House and Senate, and all nine constitutional officers except the attorney general and adjutant general.
The 10 percent list also features the Public Service Commission and the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism.
The Department of Consumer Affairs would get about $565,000 less.
Davis says he reviewed the Senate Finance allocations to each entity compared to its core mission and asked staff members of the committee to calculate his proposed savings.
Adding the figures, The Nerve came up with a little more than $149 million. The total listed in the documents, however, is double that amount – $298 million.
Davis says he isn’t sure how to account for the discrepancy.



Income Tax Rebate Fund
It could trace to a formula outlined in another of his amendments. That one would set up an “Income Tax Rebate Fund” in the S.C. Treasurer’s Office. The office would use the formula and the fund to compute and issue refunds to taxpayers. Late filers would not qualify.
The final Davis amendment calls for using any general fund revenue collected through the first three quarters of next fiscal year in excess of projections to help pay off nearly $1 billion in state debt to the federal government for unemployment benefits.
Asked why he would take the largest share of his cuts out of Medicaid, Davis says the budget the Finance Committee presented to the Senate would grow Medicaid by $200 million, meaning the program still would receive $100 million more over this year even if his suggested cut passes.
Also, Davis notes that the Legislature has taken steps to reduce Medicaid costs by repealing several provisos.
Those measures mandate certain Medicaid services, such as medically necessary chiropractic care. Another one of the provisos prohibits the state agency that manages Medicaid, the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services, from reducing payment rates to hospitals and other Medicaid providers.
South Carolina is the only state with a lock on its Medicaid provider rates, according to state officials and health care industry representatives.
Health and Human Services officials have said they are planning to cut rates 10 percent overall, but reductions for different industry sectors would vary.
The Nerve asked HHS for a response to Davis’ proposed $100 million reduction.
“Instead of taking 10 percent from the Medicaid provider line, we’d have to take around 18 percent,” agency director Tony Keck said in an email from HHS spokesman Jeff Stensland.
Continuing, Keck wrote, “Since most of our saving strategies, such as reducing NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) days, would be maxed out, most of the additional 8 percent would have to come from eliminating or significantly curtailing optional services and programs.
“We’d also have to look at additional rate cuts to managed care organizations and providers.”



Commitment on Amendments 
Davis says he agreed to end his budget filibuster only after receiving a commitment in writing from enough of his fellow senators that would allow him to bring his amendments to the floor for a vote.
Under Senate rules, doing so requires the consent of three-fifths, or 60 percent, of senators present.
While Davis spoke against the size of the budget on the floor of the chamber Thursday, he says his desk mate, Republican Sen. Phillip Shoopman of Greenville, approached all of their colleagues on hand asking where they stood on the matter, checking off their positions accordingly.
Only three senators said they would oppose the Davis amendments being voted on, according to the list Davis provided: Republicans Hugh Leatherman of Florence, Paul Campbell of Berkeley and Ray Cleary of Georgetown.
Sens. Thomas Alexander, R-Oconee, and Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston and president pro tempore of the chamber, were marked as “present.”
Sens. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, and Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, were recorded as unsure.
Davis said he did not know how to explain the “present” answer.
Efforts to reach Shoopman on Friday were unsuccessful.
Reach Ward at (803) 254-4411 or eric@thenerve.org.

It would appear Senator Campbell finds himself on the wrong side of an issue, again. He contrived reasons why he, originally, would not support the Voter ID bill and now, he refuses to back spending cuts to reduce the budget. Let's see, exactly when does Senator Campbell come up for reelection? We'll have to make a mental note of that for future reference.

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Many thanks to the Navy Seals who rappelled into Usama Bin Laden's compound and achieved justice for the 3000 Americans killed on 9-11.

The official report from the CIA stated, "The Navy Seals gave UBL the opportunity to surrender before they shot him."

For years now, the description of the shortest possible period of time has been "the time between when the light turns green and when the woman behind you blows her horn". From this moment on, the shortest possible period of time will be described as "the time between when the Navy Seal asked UBL if he wanted to surrender and the time he shot the SOB in the head".

USA USA USA

IS THIS ANY WAY TO RUN A RAILROAD?

• In 1994 lawmakers invested $17 million in Air South. Three years later the company went bankrupt and 700 South Carolina workers were laid off.
• In 1997 Marine Energy Systems was promised enormous taxpayer-funded incentives. The company announced the creation of 700 jobs. Less than three years later, the company was bankrupt.
• In 1998 Western Star Trucks was offered a massive investment package that included a reduced fee in lieu of property taxes and $25 million in exchange for 400 jobs in North Charleston. Two years later the plant closed.
• For two decades politicians gave millions – in cash – to Policy Management Systems Corp. In 2000 the company laid off 700 workers, was bought out, and the new company laid off 550 more.
• South Carolina taxpayers have spent more than $100 million on a new “research park” called “Innovista.” Politicians promised it would attract millions of private sector investment dollars. Today, the buildings are unfinished and largely empty.
• More than $40 million in state and local tax dollars have been spent in the Midlands alone to develop the “hydrogen economy.” Two hydrogen fueling stations cost $1.45 million. There are only two hydrogen-powered cars in the state, one of which costs more than $100,000.

This preceeding information was provided by the South Carolina Policy Council.

We think everyone will agree that these practices are outrageous. Unfortunately, we don't have to go out of Berkeley County to find similar egregious waste of taxpayers' dollars. All we have to do is look toward the end of Sheep Island Road.

We must go back to 2006 where the story of the "Sheep Island Road Industrial Project" begins. The controlling entities have changed names several times so, to avoid any confusion, we will refer to the only part of the "Project" concerning TBC. A FILOT (Fee In Lieu of Taxes) was executed in 2006. TBC would pay taxes at a rate of 6%, with a Special Source Revenue Credit of 15% of that amount.

On October 12th, 2009, Supervisor Davis executed a document amending this original FILOT agreement. In this new agreement, the SSRC was raised from 15% to 100% for 15 years. Also, in this agreement, TBC would only pay 25% for the final 5 years of the term. In simple terms, this means TBC would pay NO TAXES for the first 15 years.

As if this agreement didn't give away the farm enough, Mr. Davis executed yet another amended FILOT agreement with TBC on December 13th, 2010. In this newest agreement, TBC's tax exempt status was extended to 40 YEARS.

The reasoning was:

Whereas, the County has determined, in anticipation of the expected economic development impact of the Project, that it is in the best interest of the County to further induce the undertaking of the Project by extending the Fee Term, initially established to be twenty (20) years in the Original Fee Agreement, by twenty (20) years for a total of forty (40) years.

These agreements establish beyond question that Berkeley County can expect to get exactly nothing from TBC in the way of taxes for the foreseeable future. That removes any revenue gains from this equation. Now that we know what BC is NOT GETTING from TBC, let's look at what BC is GIVING TBC.

According to BC Resolution R10-03, on the 25th day of January, 2010, BC accepted a grant from the South Carolina State Ports Authority in the amount of Seven Million Dollars ($7,000,000), for the purpose of providing "aid in the construction of a new interchange located at approximately mile marker 197 on I-26." (Sheep Island Road) On the same day, Resolution R10-04 was adopted. This document details a grant from BC to TBC for $2,550,000 "for the relocation, acquisition, installation and other related costs associated with TBC's material handling equipment, generators, security systems, and other equipment." Also, on January 25, 2010, Resolution R10-05 was adopted. This Resolution grants TBC another $4,173,000. In the document, this money is earmarked "to assist with the costs of site work, utility installation (including water, sewer, telecom and electrical service) and engineering and design costs......".

The South Carolina State Ports Authority can legally grant monies to counties for infrastructure projects but is restricted by law from giving monies to private businesses. GE&P interviewed two members of BC Council concerning the coincidental transfers of these funds. We were told that no laws were broken BUT the laws have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.

Moving right along, on February 8, 2010, BC Resolution R10-08 was adopted. This resolution accepts a $15,000,000 grant from the South Carolina State Ports Authority "to use for the costs of facilitation of construction management and to aid in the costs of construction of a new interchange in support of the County's economic development efforts....". According to this document, this Resolution supersedes R10-03, previously mentioned. At the end of this new document, it specifies the total amount of $15M can be used "for public purposes" even though the description paragraph states the money is to be used for the new interchange.

On February 22nd, 2010, Resolution R10-12 was adopted. This Resolution grants TBC another $2,100,000 "for the construction of certain public roads, including Drop Off Drive and other adjacent public roads."

To date:

SCSPA granted $7M to BC and BC granted $6,723,000 to TBC on the same day, 1/25/10.

SCSPA granted to BC an additional $8M, totaling $15M in February 2010 and BC granted TBC $2,100,000 same month.

TBC will pay NO BC taxes for 40 years.

Just when you think this mess couldn't get any worse, there's more. The State Infrastructure Bank had indicated it would contribute $25M toward the new Interchange. Since then, due to reduction in State revenue, they have withdrawn this offer. The town of Summerville offered $5M toward the new interchange because those folks learned two hotels planned to build in the same area. Summerville added one little string to its offer though. They wanted to annex the area into their town so they could get a share of the property taxes and the accommodations tax. Well, BC said, "No way, no how" to that suggestion. So Summerville withdrew their $5M. To add insult to injury, when the hotel companies realized they could end up in a situation where they had to pay taxes to two entities, they pulled out of the deal, too.

Considering the fact that TBC has no BC tax liability and BC has deferred a huge amount of their startup costs, should this economy continue to decline, what is there to deter this company from just packing their bags and leaving the BC and SC taxpayer holding the bag? In a word.......NOTHING.

GE&P IS STILL AT WORK

GE&P is working on another expose. We know it is taking a long time but excellence doesn't come quickly. Stay tuned.

EVEN THE MEDIA GETS IT

http://www2.counton2.com/news/2011/mar/28/spending-spree-berkeley-county-creates-tension-ar-1641045/

This report points out the difference between the Liberal view and that of the Conservative.

WHO'S SURPRISED? JUST ANOTHER DOT TO CONNECT.

For a couple of years now, many Conservative Republicans in Berkeley County have accused Supervisor Dan Davis of being either an outright Liberal Democrat or, at least, a "Republican In Name Only", (RINO). As far as GE&P is concerned, these tags equate to "six of one and half dozen of another". Mr. Davis has denied these accusations and has repeatedly, even as late as the 2010 Primary and General Election, described himself as a "Conservative Republican".

The controversy between Mr. Davis and the Conservative base reached a crescendo during the biannual reorganization of County Council in January, 2011. During these meetings, Mr. Davis and two of the supposed Republicans on Council, Jack Schurlknight and Bob Call, joined forces with the two Liberal Democrats, Pinckney and Steve Davis, to revamp Council Rules, taking all power and influence away from the four true Conservative Councilmen, Fish, Callanan, Farley, and Cathy Davis.

Since this alliance with the Democrats was solidified, Mr. Davis has managed to pass ALL of his proposals. The vote on Council ALWAYS come out 4/4, with Supervisor Davis breaking the tie in his favor.

As many of you know, the BCGOP is in the process of the biannual precinct reorganization. If you would, please allow us to outline the process.

Each precinct in the County has a meeting to elect it's representative to the County Executive Committee, it's Precinct President, and other precinct officers. They, also, elect their delegates to the County GOP Convention. These meetings represent the grass roots' organization of the Party. Any and all Republicans who live in the precinct are welcome to attend and participate in these precinct meetings.

To assist each Precinct organizer, GOP Party Headquarters provides a packet of information. In this packet, there are instructions as to how to conduct the meeting, forms to denote attendees and new members, and a list of contact numbers for known Republican voters in the Precinct. In the past, this list was divided into TWO segments. One list contained the names of EVERYONE who voted in the latest GOP Primary and one contained the names of consistent Republican voters. This "Strong Republican" list was most useful when organizing the Precinct meetings but compiling this list is very time consuming as one must research back several Primary cycles. This year, for whatever reason, Party Headquarters decided to ease its workload and only provide the complete list of those who voted in each precinct in the latest GOP Primary.

In the last few weeks, GE&P has received numerous phone calls and emails from GOP Precinct organizers complaining about their call lists. These folks were telling us that a large number of names on their lists have turned out to be Democrats. As a result, GE&P investigated these lists. Sure enough, these 2010 lists contain some rather revealing statistics. Would anyone believe the majority of names on these GOP primary voter lists are those of known DEMOCRATS?

How can this be? Why would so many Democrats cross over and vote in the GOP Primary in 2010?

Golly Gee, let's see if we can figure out this conundrum. We know we can if we all put our heads together and follow the dots. Let's start with the things we all agree are indisputable fact.

1. The two openly Liberal Democrats on County Council are members of Supervisor Davis' coalition.

2. One openly Liberal Democrat on Council, Pinckney, has received a $2.4 MILLION, 8 mile water line to his front door that services less than 10 households and a $1.1 MILLION water line that services only his constituents in another part of his District.

3. The other openly Liberal Democrat on Council, Steve Davis, has happily told anyone who will listen that he has been promised a $3.5 MILLION courthouse and Senior Center in his District.

4. These two openly Liberal Democrats on Council consistently vote WITH Supervisor Davis.

5. Voter turnout for Primary elections are historically low, usually between 15% and 20%.

6. Being as SC has "Open Primary" instead of "Registered Party" Primary elections, anyone may vote in anyone's Primary. When a large number of Democrats decide to vote in the GOP Primary, the election can be tainted. The same fact applies when the situation is reversed.

The following exchange contains the gist of many of the Precinct Organizers' contact calls:

GOP Organizer: "Hello, this is (name of organizer). I'm calling for the BCGOP to remind you of the Precinct reorganization meeting on 3/29.

Contact: "I don't know why you are calling me. I am a Democrat."

GOP Organizer: If you are a Democrat, why did you vote in the GOP Primary in 2010?"

Contact: "I was told to go out and vote for Dan Davis."

Now that we have these facts established, let's discuss the implications of this unholy coalition. Many folks wondered, many out loud, why these two Liberal Democrats, Pinckney and Steve Davis, would join forces with three self proclaimed Conservatives, Schurlknight, Call, and Dan Davis. (All five in this coalition state they are merely trying to achieve bipartisan cooperation on Council.) But, what has been the end result?

Even though Supervisor Davis claims to be a "Conservative", his actions tell a different story. He took 29% of the property tax relief provided by the LOST from the taxpayers which resulted in higher property tax bills. He raised the water and sewer rates by 30%. By choosing NOT to reduce the millage comparably, almost everyone's property tax bills went up after reassessment. He (some contend illegally) took $10 MILLION from the Fund Balance of BCW&SA. He took MILLIONS of dollars from the BC School District by co-opting the FILOT funds from Mt. Holly Industrial Park. At the same time, Supervisor Davis has gone on a spending spree that would put Obama to shame.

All of these actions were achieved with the cooperation of the 2 Liberal Democrats, Pinckney and Davis and the 2 RINOs, Schurlknight and Call. We know what's in it for Pinckney and Steve Davis. What the benefit is for Schurlknight and Call remains to be reveled.

Supervisor Davis claims to be a Conservative Republican. But, he was elected with organized Democrat support and his power is dependent on "compensated" Democrat support on County Council. Lead by Supervisor Davis, our County government is following a "Liberal Tax and Spend" agenda. Our 4 Conservative Republican members of County Council have been silenced.

Dan Davis, Jack Schurlknight, and Bob Call are Conservative Republicans?

YOU CONNECT THE DOTS.

THE WOLF IS AT THE DOOR

Over the years GE&P has learned a few TRUTHS OF THE AGES:

1. A Conservative can never convince a Liberal to be fiscally responsible.

2. If a man will lie, he will steal.

3. You cannot do anything to cure stupid.

4. You can never, never trust a dishonest person.

5. Murphy's Law is alive and well.

In one way or the other, each of these TRUTHS apply to this post.

GE&P attended the County Council meeting last Monday night. The result was a bit anticlimactic as we knew the outcome before it happened. Even so, these results warrant a few comments. We will begin with the Transparency issue.

A few weeks ago, the Transparency Subcommittee held a meeting. The Davis administration had made it clear for months that they did not want the transparency issue addressed. It is not to the advantage of Mr. Davis to have the entire County watching the Council meetings and having knowledge of the process of their "new and improved" government. This could be very problematic to many of Mr. Davis' endeavors. The majority of BC citizens do not take the time out of their busy lives to attend the Council meetings but they WOULD turn on the TV and watch if they had the chance.

Getting back to the Transparency meeting, the press received a complaint that the meeting was not noticed properly. The complainant, who can be traced directly to the BC administration, created quite a stir and attempted to put the blame for the oversight upon the shoulders of the subcommittee chairman. In fact, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Jack Schrulknight, was present at this meeting and knew ahead of time that the meeting had not been noticed to the public. He did not complain at the time nor did he attempt to stop the meeting. Also, the County's legal council was present at the meeting and made no issue about the lack of notice.

At Monday's Council meeting, Mr. Schurlknight refused to allow the subcommittee chairman to make her report, siting the lack of notice of her meeting. It is notable that the original subcommittee meeting was held over three weeks prior to Monday's meeting. If Mr. Schurlknight intended to disallow the recommendations of the subcommittee, why didn't he inform the Chairman? Easy answer; Mr. Schurlknight was following instructions to kick the can on down the road. If he didn't get the report, the administration wouldn't have to take any action on the issue. That means the public will be denied access to Council meetings on the public airways for at least another month. You can bet this issue will not be addressed until AFTER the battle for the 2011/2012 budget.

History: At the January reorganization of Council meeting, the Supervisor, shall we say "orchestrated" a new system. By forming a coalition with the Democrats on Council, he managed to achieve a support majority. How did he do this? He used a tactic at which Mr. Davis excels; he convinced these Liberals that they were being cheated out of their "fair share of the pie". The "race card" was utilized with the desired effect.

He bought Pinckney's vote with a $2.4 Million water line that serves less than 10 people. No red flags here. After all, as Mr. Pinckney is fond of saying, there has to be "equity" when it comes to County services. Never once has he mentioned or even recognized a little thing known as "economic feasibility". He bought Steve Davis' vote with the promise of a $3.5 Million courthouse for St. Stephen. Predictable. Mr. Steve Davis has said to GE&P and others, on more than one occasion, if Goose Creek and Moncks Corner have nice courthouses, so should St. Stephen.

After securing the Democrat vote, he proceeded to address the "stupid" vote. He won Mr. Schurlknight's vote by making him feel relevant and important with an appointment to Finance Committee Chairman. That's a tight fit. As to Mr. Call's conversion, Mr. Davis found a cheap date here, for obvious reasons. With these 4 securely in his pocket, Mr. Davis proceeded to change Council rules. He removed the 4 Conservatives from the Committees that control spending and he was free to do as he pleased. Had this meeting been televised and even 10% of the population viewing, GE&P contends there would have been an uprising in protest.

Now we will proceed to the issue of the purchase of the fairgrounds property.

At the 2/14/11 Committee meetings, the subject of this purchase was discussed. The supervisor wanted to purchase this 16 acres at a cost to BC of $1.6 Million. The proposed Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus would be located on this site. Being as the new Campus only requires about 7 acres, Mr. Davis stated he would "sell the remainder of the land at some later date". Being as the fairgrounds property has been sitting there for decades without an offer to purchase, we can assume resale will be eminent.

Mr. Fish pointed out that the appraisal used in this transaction was that of the sellers and that the County had accepted the asking price without any negotiation. Mr. Fish pointed out that another tract was available at a much cheaper price. This Conservative Councilman pointed out that the state of the economy would not support such excessive spending at this time. Mr. Davis assured Mr. Fish that he "would check into these concerns" before the next Council meeting. Even with these concerns being voiced, the Committee voted to go ahead with the purchase. (Remember, this Committee is stacked with Dan Davis' supporters and the 4 Conservatives have no voice.)

Fast forward to Monday night. The issue of the fairgrounds property purchase came up, again. Mr. Callanan and Mr. Fish brought up the same issues that were brought up at the Committee meetings two weeks prior. Over strong opposition from the Conservative Councilmen, the sellers appraisal was deemed acceptable and the administration found no problem with agreeing to the sellers asking price with no negotiation. Even though, at the previous meeting, the Supervisor promised to check into the alternative, less expensive site, no mention of this investigation was voiced.

Mr. Davis did support his preference for the fairgrounds site because "the majority of the clients needing these services resided in Moncks Corner and, therefore, this site would be more convenient". He said he needed a site that was "on the public bus line". There are problems with these statements. First, if you base the question on population, the town of Moncks Corner is not centrally located in the County. Second, the public bus line runs right past the alternate site.

Let us review the facts:

The SELLERS appraisal was used.

The ASKING PRICE was ACCEPTED WITHOUT NEGOTIATION.

A LESS EXPENSIVE PROPERTY was DISCOUNTED.

SUPPORTING ISSUES for the location were ERRONEOUS.

If GE&P was not totally convinced ( which we most certainly are) that our Supervisor is a man of proven, incontrovertible integrity with an impeccably reputation for honesty and truthfulness, quite candidly, we might suspect this deal of being shady. Under other circumstances, we might suspect that, somehow, money could be transferred under the table and that someone, other than the taxpayers, will be benefitting from this transaction. Thank the Lord we're not dealing with this other scenario.

Mr. Fish and Mr. Callanan argued to no avail that the taxpayers of BC should be given back the 29% of their property tax relief from the LOST. They contended, considering the state of the economy, these funds could be better utilized by the taxpayer than committed to unnecessary spending. Judging from the round of applause when these statements were made, the audience at the meeting soundly agreed.

This is where the anticlimactic part comes in. When the final vote was taken, it was predictably 4/4, with Dan Davis providing the tie-breaker. The motion was passed and the taxpayers of BC found themselves, ultimately, in $23 Million worth of debt for the new Dan Davis Health and Human Services Campus. But, there is a redeeming side to all of this. When this facility is completed, the clientele of these state and federal agencies will have a bright, new, and shiny location at which to go and collect your tax dollars.

A man by the name of Alesis de Tocqueville wrote an interesting book back in the late 1700s. In it he commented that this pristine new form of government would endure UNTIL "one citizen learned that he, by his vote, could transfer money from another's pocket to his own." Prophetic, wasn't he?