C.A.U.S.

Governor Mark Sanford Addresses Need for Spending Restraint

2008-06-02T14:59:00.000-07:00

At a June 2, 2008 news conference, Governor Mark Sanford called on South Carolinians across the state to contact their state House and Senate members to urge them to uphold the majority of his vetoes to bring the upcoming budget in line with sustainable levels.

Senate Spending Caps Study Committee to Meet Thursday

2008-02-05T12:29:00.000-08:00

SPENDING CAPS
STUDY COMMITTEE

Thursday, February 7, 2008

10:00 a.m.

Room 308, Gressette Building

Members: Senators Gregory (Ch.), Ford, Martin, Ritchie, Sheheen, Lourie, Campbell
Senate Staff: Katherine Wells, Phil Lenski

Representative Mahaffey Removes Sponsorship

2008-02-05T12:14:00.000-08:00

Representative Joe Mahaffey (R-Lyman) REMOVED his name as a co-sponsor of H.3615 on Tuesday, February 5, 2008.

This move comes just less than three weeks after Representative Mahaffey added his name as a co-sponsor (Wednesday, January 16, 2008).

E-mail Representative Mahaffey at MahaffeyJ@schouse.org or call him directly at (864)949-0432 to express your disappointment and ask that he AGAIN reconsider his position for the future of South Carolina and that he support firm reductions in local government spending.

Recap of the Senate Spending Caps Study Committee

2008-01-16T13:04:00.000-08:00

A blog called "The Other Brooks Brothers" posted an interesting take on last night's spending caps public hearing in Columbia.

Titled "Gordon Gecko Hires Chicken Little to Spearhead PR Efforts," the post notes that among the hearing's comments were:

A representative from Clarendon County government noted that last year council members had a tough choice to make. They could either purchase a badly-needed new ambulance or provide employees with raises. They chose raises.
A representative from the state employees association described his contemporaries as “the vehicles that provide the services and mandates.” He then said that state employees would lose their jobs under spending caps.
Hollie Bennett a self-described mother and taxpayer said that budgets in our private lives are based on our ability to pay from the income we have. She said that we should expect no less from government.
Margaret Thompson, a Clemson City Council member said, “The sky isn’t gonna fall. These cities need to put themselves on a budget.” She added, “We have a great city manager, but I can already see him drooling over what he’s gonna do with that (extra money from spending increases) now.”

Representative Mahaffey Adds Sponsorship

2008-01-16T12:54:00.000-08:00

Representative Joe Mahaffey (R-Lyman) added his name as a co-sponsor of H.3615 on Wednesday, January 16, 2008.

E-mail Representative Mahaffey at MahaffeyJ@schouse.org or call him directly at (864)949-0432 to thank him for his commitment to the people of South Carolina and to thank him for his courage in reducing local government spending.

NEW SC POLICY COUNCIL STUDY: "Property Owners, Businesses Will Pay Higher Taxes in 2010"

2007-11-16T09:05:00.000-08:00

SC Policy Council Study Shows Economic Impact of Tax Plan

Released: 15 November 2007

Homeowners will see their new property tax relief cut by 45 percent by 2010, , according to a study by Suffolk University economist Dr. David Tuerck, released today by the South Carolina Policy Council. Also, SC businesses will pay an additional $409 million as the result of the recent property tax swap plan.

"Absent substantive spending caps local government growth will outpace relief by 2010, cost the state 6,557 jobs, lower personal income by $321 million and real disposable income by $79 per capita,” Dr. Tuerck said.

The study was released at the SC Chamber of Commerce’s annual meeting on Thursday. SCPC President Ed McMullen said the study made it clear that tax cuts were good for economic growth while increases had a clear negative impact.

“Tax swaps lead to tax increases, and tax increases lead to fewer jobs and less money for South Carolinians. “ McMullen said. "This study shows that when taxes go up, income goes down. When taxes go down, job growth, investment and disposable income go up. "

SC Chamber President Hunter Howard said "Last year’s property relief plan was intended to lower taxes, but it ultimately raised them on businesses. If we do not make some changes quickly, we will lose South Carolina jobs and create an anti-prosperity environment that will encourage companies to move to other states, and discourage them from expanding in ours.”

The study also examined what would have happened if the property tax relief plan were passed without the corresponding sales tax increase. Under that scenario, the study showed the state would have gained 8,965 jobs, added $13 million in investment, and that consumers would have had a higher real disposable income per capita.

The study employed a “dynamic” fiscal impact analysis, which takes into account not only the simple cost in revenue to government – which is only a static analysis – but also the effects of tax policy on the economy. Dr. Tuerck explained that the most accurate way to gauge economic impact was through dynamic analysis.

AVAILABLE DOWNLOADS

The study's executive summary, click here.

The study in its entirety, click here.

GREENVILLE SPENDING CAPS STUDY COMMITTEE HEARINGS

2007-11-09T11:13:00.000-08:00

Please be advised that two public hearings of the Spending Caps Study Committee have been set for:

Tuesday, November 20, 2007
6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m
Greenville Technical College
J. Verne Smith Technical Resource Center Auditorium
506 South Pleasantburg Drive
Greenville, S.C. 29607

Members: Senators Gregory (Ch.), Ford, Martin, Ritchie, Bryant, Sheheen, Lourie
Senate Staff: Katherine Wells, Phil Lenski

CHARLESTON AND ROCK HILL SPENDING CAPS STUDY COMMITTEE HEARINGS

2007-10-31T11:24:00.000-07:00

From: SC Senate
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 04:47 PM Eastern Standard Time
Subject: Spending Caps Study Committee Public Hearings

Please be advised that two public hearings of the Spending Caps Study Committee have been set for:

November 5, 2007
6-8 pm
College of Charleston
Randolph Hall, Alumni Memorial Hall
Corner of George St & St. Philip Street
66 George Street
Charleston, SC 29424

November 14, 2007
6-8 pm
York Technical College
Baxter Hood Center, Barnes Theater
452 S. Anderson Road
Rock Hill, S.C. 29730

INFORMATION NOW AVAILABLE FROM SENATE SPENDING CAPS STUDY COMMITTEE

2007-10-29T11:59:00.000-07:00

If you were unable to attend the organizational meeting of the Senate ad hoc Spending Caps Study Committee, information is now available for everyone's review to aid in the education of this important issue.

First, CAUS has all two-and-a-half hours of this public hearing on DVD available upon request. Simply e-mail us at caussc@gmail.com and request the DVD. You can see for yourself which legislators and groups support responsible spending in South Carolina and which ones do not.

Second, the committee posted supporting documents on-line. All notebook contents received by committee members are posted in a special section of the South Carolina Senate web site (click here). Future additions to the committee's resource page may include printed versions of citizen testimony.

CAUS wants to continue providing materials that will help educate friends, families, and legislators about South Carolina's need for local and state government spending limits. If you need any additional resources not available through CAUS' web site or its blog, please let us know.

As always, you can visit us at www.CAUSSC.org.

Sincerely,
The CAUS Community Relations Team

SENATORS CONSIDER STATE, LOCAL SPENDING CAPS

2007-10-26T14:24:00.000-07:00

By Kirsten Singleton | Morris News Service
Thursday, October 25, 2007

COLUMBIA - Lobbyists and taxpayer-interest groups overtook a Senate committee meeting, turning what was intended to be a discussion on a proposed constitutional cap on state spending into a debate on whether to limit local-government spending as well.

Representatives from the South Carolina Policy Council, South Carolina Chamber of Commerce and South Carolina Association of Taxpayers all spoke in favor of a statewide cap on local spending.

"We're talking about ... limiting those expenditures to the citizens' ability to pay," said Rep. Garry Smith, R-Simpsonville. "That's a reasonable thing to do."

Business representatives particularly were concerned about businesses taking on a larger portion of the tax burden now that last year's property-tax reform aimed at helping homeowners is taking effect.

"Business does not pay taxes. ... They collect the tax. They add it onto their services or merchandise, and the taxpayer ends up paying for it," said Emerson Read, a Charleston-area real estate broker who has led tax-reduction efforts.

Senators, though, raised immediate concerns about a local cap.

Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Camden, for example, is worried that a local cap would stop a small town from growing.

"Growth for them might mean hiring a police officer," he said.

Howard Duvall, the executive director of the South Carolina Municipal Association, argued that local governments need financial flexibility to address their residents' needs.

"Look at state spending habits and let local people in South Carolina, through the elections they have every two years, decide if the spending they have at the local level is out of control," Mr. Duvall said.

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell called Mr. Sheheen's concerns "valid."

South Carolina long has had a state spending cap. But, as drafted, the law is virtually meaningless.

A STATE SPENDING CAP NOW NECESSARY

2007-10-19T09:44:00.000-07:00

By GLENN F. MCCONNELL - Guest writer

Published in THE STATE
Friday, October 19, 2007

South Carolina can only have an orderly, predictable and consistent growth rate in state spending by constitutionally mandating it. It cannot be accomplished on a reliable basis by hanging onto slim majorities in the Legislature and having the right governor. The political pressures are too great unless there is a constitutional bridle on the process.

That is the reason I created a task force to consider a constitutional amendment that would cap the growth in spending by the state. The first meeting of the Senate study committee on constitutionally capping state government spending is scheduled for 1 p.m. Oct. 24 in Room 105 of the Gressette Senate office building in Columbia.

There will always be more needs than revenue no matter what the economic times and the amount of available new funds. Government must, therefore, temper its conduct to spend so that over the highs and lows in revenue forecasts, the necessary revenue will be there to fund essential needs without the pressure for new taxes.

When government is flush with money, the spending goes up to fund many new initiatives — some good, some questionable and some not good. In other words, projects get funded not so much out of merit but merely because the money was available. Some one-time expenditures also occur the same way. In the face of a bountiful taxpayer buffet, government cannot control its appetite, so its stomach must be stapled.

At stake is the need to at least control the rate of growth in the recurring base. So I have introduced a constitutional amendment to cap the rate of spending of our state government. Government would be limited to growth at an amount that would not exceed the rate of population growth plus the growth in personal income. Basically, government should not grow any bigger than it needs to be or any faster than people’s ability to pay for it.

I have been an ardent supporter of both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, and I believe that government is best which governs least. I also believe that as much money as possible is best left in the hands of people if we are to economically advance. If people keep more, they have greater opportunities to invest and spend so our economy will expand. It is a matter of fairness.

If there are surpluses in Columbia, these should not expand the obligation to fund a growing government but instead should be used to reduce long-term debt and obligations, fund capital projects to avoid issuing costly bonds, cover one-time costs, save and carry forward for a rainy day, and/or fund tax refunds and tax cuts.

The constitutional amendment would foster growth in the private sector, challenge legislators to prioritize spending better, seek better efficiencies in the operation of government and privatize operations where it is in the state’s best interest. This will present new opportunities to create rainy-day funds, to create a more debt-free South Carolina and to replenish trust funds that too often have been tapped in lean times to fuel the insatiable appetite of government created by overspending in good times.

Finally, we all must realize that our state government, just as much as any business, has to be competitive in order to attract and retain jobs. We need to provide essential services, but we need to do it in a way that ensures excellence, efficiency and long-term cost control. Throwing dollars at an agency does not ensure that it will be better. Limiting the growth in spending ensures that the challenge for each budgeting year is to do more with what we have available rather than to spend more to get the job done.

Working together, we can give the people of South Carolina an opportunity to vote on whether they want this limitation on the growth of spending. As I said, the limitation, if adopted, would ensure our future is not one of ups and downs based on political fortunes but instead one of predictability and orderliness in the growth of South Carolina.

Mr. McConnell, a Charleston attorney and businessman, is president pro tempore of the Senate and chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Representative Hagood Changes Positions and Removes Sponsorship

2007-05-31T14:40:00.000-07:00

After adding his support on Wednesday, April 25, Representative Ben Hagood of Charleston (Univ. of Virginia, B.A., 1979; Univ. of S.C., J.D., 1983) REMOVED his name as a co-sponsor on Thursday, May 31.

Please call Representative Hagood at (843) 883-9078 or e-mail him at HagoodB@schouse.org to express your disappointment and ask that he AGAIN reconsider his position for the future of South Carolina and that he support firm reductions in local government spending.

Video Available from Subcommittee Hearing on H.3615

2007-05-14T18:13:00.000-07:00

In the spirit of maintaining an openness in government meetings, here are testimony segments from the House Ways and Means Committee's Economic Development, Capital Improvement and Other Taxes Subcommittee hearing conducted on Wednesday, May 9 regarding H.3615 -- the Local Government Fiscal Accountability and Fairness Act.

Don't forget, all C.A.U.S. videos are also available on its YouTube page at http://www.youtube.com/caussc.

Segment 1 -- Rep. Garry Smith Explains H.3615

Segment 2 -- Rep. Garry Smith Continues Explaining H.3615 and Answers Questions from Subcommittee Members

Segment 3 -- Rep. B.R. Skelton opposes H.3615 and refers to voters in an inappropriate manner. NOTE: Contains language that may be offensive to some viewers.

Segment 4 -- Mr. Dan Harvell of the SC Citizens' Lobby Supports H.3615

Segment 5 -- Ms. Margaret Thompson of Clemson City Council Supports H.3615

Segment 6 -- Mr. Don Weaver of the SC Association of Taxpayers Supports H.3615

Segment 7 -- Mr. Emerson Read of NoHomeTax.org Supports H.3615

State budget contains obscene amount of spending

2007-05-14T14:42:00.000-07:00

The budget doesn't fund statewide needs; it fails the test of fiscal responsibility, and I reject it.
Published: Friday, May 11, 2007

By Greg Ryberg

The S.C. Senate recently spent more than $7 billion. It took about 10 hours. No one could stop it, and very few tried.

I voted against H. 3620, the 2007-08 appropriations bill, due to its unprecedented level of spending. The budget contained more than $1.3 billion in new spending while returning about $90 million to the taxpayers. After rejecting efforts to lower income taxes, eliminate many low-earning taxpayers from the tax rolls and eliminate the grocery tax, the Senate chose to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on new annualizations and local pet projects. This amount of new spending is not only unsustainable but also unconscionable.

This budget spends well over $300 million on local projects but fails to properly fund the retirees' health insurance trust fund, fails to appropriate any money for statewide road construction or repair, fails to reform the legislative slush fund known as the Competitive Grants program, fails to adequately address the capital needs of our colleges and technical schools and, most importantly, fails to give meaningful tax relief.

This budget fails to prioritize and fund statewide needs, and it fails to give any more than a pittance of the new money back to the people who earned it. Therefore it fails the test of fiscal responsibility, and I reject it.

The Senate spent your money with reckless abandon. The taxpayers, who sent more than $1.2 billion in new money to Columbia this year, unfortunately remained at the bottom of the priority list. Sen. Larry Grooms proposed an amendment to reduce income taxes by the same amount as the House budget, $81 million. It failed.

Sen. Kevin Bryant offered an amendment to provide for the exemption of the first $5,000 of taxable income, thereby removing about 400,000 of the lowest-earning citizens from the tax rolls. It could not even get the support of five senators for a roll-call vote. I offered an amendment to provide for the elimination of the grocery sales tax. Three senators other than myself voted for that.

Each of these amendments failed because spending fever was running high. Most of you likely know by now that the Senate sent $950,000 to a green bean museum in Lake City, but the Senate budget contained more than $300 million in earmarks for local projects. This spending level was reached before the conference committee writes the final budget. It could be worse in the end.

Funding local projects with statewide money accomplishes two things. First, it uses taxpayer money to make lawmakers look good back home. Second, it influences members in whose districts the favors are placed and prevents them from standing up to even the most egregious examples of pork.

For instance, when Sen. Bryant offered an amendment to divert the $950,000 from the green bean museum to sick children, he received the support of only four other senators. When he tried to use $100 million in yet-uncertified funds to repair roads across the state, he received five votes. When he tried to return about $300 million in surplus money spent on local projects to the taxpayers, he received three votes.

The rejection of these efforts reflects a terrible flaw in our budgeting practice in Columbia. The Senate budget, like that passed by the House, favors local projects over truly statewide priorities.

Everyone knows that the Department of Transportation sits nearly cash-bankrupt and unable to finish many of its projects. Nevertheless, the only money budgeted to the agency by the Senate came in the form of earmarks to local projects.

Most South Carolinians also know that the state retirees' health insurance program faces a $9 billion unfunded liability. However, with more than half a billion dollars in new recurring revenue, the Senate chose to place less than $50 million of it into a trust fund for the liability.

We failed even to stop the flow of pork outside the budget. I offered an amendment to end the "Competitive Grants" program, which is funded by your tax dollars (about $50 million so far and counting) and wherein the only competition is the signature of the legislator on the application. Nine senators voted for that.

The budget passed by 32 members of the Senate, and opposed by only nine, spent approximately $7.5 billion. That figure contained approximately $1.3 billion in new revenue, of which the taxpayers received about $90 million, or about 6 percent, back. My word for this is "obscene."

The last time I witnessed spending like this, I was watching politicians in Washington. I am sure that those who are no longer there regret that episode. I am sure politicians in Columbia will regret this one, too.

Sen. Greg Ryberg represents District 24 in Aiken County. He is chairman of the Senate Labor, Commerce and Industry Committee, and he can be reached at SLC@scsenate.org.

H.3615 Receives First Subcommittee Hearing

2007-05-09T15:06:00.000-07:00

The House Ways and Means Committee Economic Development, Capital Improvement and Other Taxes Subcommittee conducted its first public hearing today on H.3615 -- also known as the Local Government Fiscal Accountability and Fairness Act.

Of this morning's speakers, the testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the legislation.

Because of the amount of the testimony, which lasted until the 10:00 a.m. cutoff, the subcommittee adjourned without any action being taken.

Video of the hearing and the testimony provided will be available over the next several days.

Please continue checking back for updates.

DeMint and Sanford Publicly Support Spending Caps

2007-05-05T08:28:00.000-07:00

On Friday, May 4, Governor Mark Sanford and US Senator Jim DeMint held a news conference at INNegRITY in Greer to discuss the need for fiscal responsibility and spending limitations in government.

This type of discussion illustrates the need for H.3615 and H.3295.

Video of the news conference is available from the C.A.U.S YouTube page (http://www.youtube.com/caussc)
or directly below.

Representative Toole Adds Sponsorship

2007-05-02T12:03:00.000-07:00

Representative Mac Toole (R-Lexington) added his name as a co-sponsor of H.3615 on Wednesday, May 2.

E-mail Representative Toole at TooleM@schouse.org or call him directly at (803) 755-6542 to thank him for his commitment to the people of South Carolina and to thank him for his courage in reducing local government spending.

Representative Hagood Adds Sponsorship

2007-04-26T05:03:00.000-07:00

Representative Ben Hagood (R-Charleston) added his name as a co-sponsor of H.3615 on Wednesday, April 25.

E-mail Representative Hagood at HagoodB@schouse.org or call him directly at (843) 883-9078 to thank him for his commitment to the people of South Carolina and to thank him for his courage in reducing local government spending.

GREENVILLE NEWS Op-Ed: "Controlled growth in spending essential to state's prosperity"

2007-04-20T06:33:00.000-07:00

By Representative Garry Smith
Published: Friday, April 20, 2007 - 2:00 am

A recent Greenville News editorial took issue with a bill in the S.C. House that would cap growth in local government spending to inflation plus population growth. The editorial's main argument seems to be that local governments must have the ability to increase spending above and beyond the cap amount in order to provide for the safety and welfare of the local citizenry. The ironic part is that's exactly why I, Speaker Bobby Harrell, Majority Leader Jim Merrill and others introduced this legislation.

Many local governments are growing at an unsustainable rate. This uncontrolled growth is hindering both businesses and the individual taxpayers' ability to prosper, which is adversely affecting their welfare. The Local Government Fiscal Accountability and Fairness Act (H 3615) will force local governments to prioritize more and protect the hard-working citizens of South Carolina.

It is important to note that some local governments have taken it upon themselves to show the type of fiscal restraint that this bill is intended to afford, most notably our own Greenville County whose council works well under a self-imposed cap right now.

But the facts in South Carolina do speak for themselves: From 1995 to 2006, local governments raised millage in 44 out of 46 counties; total average statewide millage jumped 80 mills over that same period -- 277 in 1997 to 357 in 2005; from 2000 to 2005, the value of one mill increased an average of $98,317; 28 out of the 29 counties that have implemented a local option sales tax now have a higher millage rate than before the local option sales tax was increased; and, since passage of last year's property tax relief bill, 21 school districts across the state have announced millage hikes.

Local taxing entities (which include city government, county government and school districts) have undermined the intent of both the 1995 and 2006 property tax relief laws, resulting in an overall tax burden that South Carolina businesses and taxpayers cannot afford. Our tax burden has grown approximately 10 percent per year over the past decade and is now among the highest in the nation. This trend shows no signs of slowing down.

Too often, citizens do not realize just how much their tax burden is going up. Permit charges, fees and small millage hikes are done with little to no public scrutiny. But the result is that they are spending substantially more money on government than they used to, and they have less left over for themselves.

And it's not just the individual taxpayer. Businesses are feeling the impact, too. South Carolina businesses currently account for 45 percent of all state and local taxes collected. In contrast, businesses in our neighboring states of Georgia and North Carolina account for 36 and 39 percent respectively of total revenues generated for state and local governments. Coupled with the fact that last year's property tax relief applies only to one's primary residential home, it's clear that South Carolina businesses need protection.

The Greenville News' editorial also implies the House is being hypocritical, saying "state lawmakers do not arbitrarily limit their own spending," and thus should not place such a restriction on local government. If they had done a bit more research on this issue, they would have seen that H 3295 is a bill that applies a similar cap on spending growth to state government. It has passed the House and new rests in the Senate Finance Committee.

Those of us who are trying to protect the taxpayers of South Carolina realize that controlling the growth of state government is just as essential as capping the out-of-control spending taking place on the local level. I've learned this firsthand, having spent over 23 years working with budgets as an administrator and consultant to local and county governments, and now as a legislator.

The Roman Emperor Tiberius Caesar is quoted as saying, "It is the duty of a good shepherd to shear his sheep, not to skin them." These are both reasonable spending limit bills that will help ensure South Carolina taxpayers are sheared and not skinned. All taxpayers are offered protection, economic growth will be stimulated, and state and local governments still have the ability to increase their budget beyond the cap if needed.

Without these protective measures, we can expect more of the same -- increased spending by government and less prosperity throughout our state.

State Rep. Garry Smith, R-Simpsonville, represents House District 27 in Greenville County. He has served in the House since May 2003. He can be reached at SmithG@SCHouse.org.

Earl Capps' "Inside Interview" with Representative Bill Cotty

2007-04-19T15:13:00.000-07:00

From: THE BLOGLAND OF EARL CAPPS

Posted Thursday, April 19, 2007

South Carolina blogger Earl Capps posted an "Inside Interview" with Representative Bill Cotty (R-Kershaw and Richland Counties).

In the interview, Mr. Capps asked, "What do you see as the priority issues in the ongoing term in the House?"

Among his answers, Representative Cotty cited taxpayer protections and budget reform stating, "South Carolina as well as our counties, municipalities and school districts should have limits on increasing the tax burden on our citizens."

Mr. Cotty has a tremendous opportunity, and you need to bring it to his attention.

For some reason, Mr. Cotty is not a co-sponsor of either H.3615 or H.3295. Call or e-mail Mr. Cotty to urge him to support his "legislative priority issue" of taxpayer protection and budget reform by co-sponsoring these important pieces of spending limitation legislation.

We agree with Representative Cotty's position that governments should "have limits on increasing the tax burden on our citizens."

Urge Representative Cotty to take advantage of this opportunity to limit government growth and spending.

Bill Cotty Contact Information

H: (803) 788-1338 -- Click here to e-mail Representative Cotty.

NFIB Joins Historic Coalition

2007-04-17T15:04:00.000-07:00

Calls for Caps on Government Spending

(April 17, 2007 / Columbia, SC) CAUS, the Coalition Against Unlimited Spending, is pleased to announce the National Federation of Independent Business of South Carolina has joined its historic coalition in support of meaningful caps on government spending.

“Having both NFIB’s network of 5,000 small businesses throughout SC and strong presence at the Statehouse behind us means a great deal towards our efforts to enact meaningful reform in government spending. Taxpayers across SC have joined our coalition, from both the business community and grassroots, as government spending has continued to grow well past what any of us can afford,” said J.J. Darby, Executive Director of CAUS.

“NFIB is proud to join CAUS – which is doing meaningful work to protect businesses and taxpayers from excessive spending at the local level by supporting caps on government spending,” NFIB/South Carolina State Director Jay W. Ragley said. “NFIB members believe local governments and school districts should manage spending by prioritizing needs and sometimes making tough decisions, just as they do when managing their enterprises. CAUS is doing a terrific job encouraging better accountability from the many local entities that are entrusted with our tax dollars.”

NFIB joins the SC Chamber of Commerce, the SC Manufacturers Alliance, South Carolinians for Responsible Government, the SC Association of Taxpayers, NoHomeTax.org and other tax reform groups statewide in CAUS.

###

Brand names, product names, services, companies, events, and publications are or may be trademarks or registered trademarks of, and are used to identify, products or services of their respective owners in the U.S. and/or other countries.

This contains or may contain forward-looking statements that are subject to certain risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results or facts to differ materially from such statements for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to: industry conditions, changes in supply, pricing, and customer demand, competition, other industry vagaries, and changes in key supplier relationships. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date on which they are made. The company undertakes no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements.

Representative Shoopman Removes Sponsorship

2007-04-12T13:09:00.000-07:00

Representative Phillip Shoopman (R-Greer) removed his name as a co-sponsor of H.3615 on Wednesday, April 11.

E-mail Representative Shoopman at ShoopmanP@schouse.org or call him directly at (864) 895-6446 to express your disappointment in his decision, and urge him to reconsider his position so we can promote responsible government growth and spending in South Carolina.

Education-spending watchdog shifts focus

2007-04-09T09:47:00.000-07:00

Spartanburg group joins statewide tax relief efforts

GSA BUSINESS
Published April 2, 2007

By Latasha M. Hunter

A grassroots organization created to make sure property tax money was making it into Spartanburg County classrooms has joined a statewide movement to regulate government spending.

Accountability for Spartanburg County, along with other groups across South Carolina, are mobilizing and, in many cases, pooling resources to provide reform ideas for taxpayers and businesses.

"It's about government being good stewards of funds and spending the funds in the most beneficial way," says Shane Rogers, chairman of ASC.

In addition to ASC, other groups such as Conservatives in Action PAC and the Coalition Against Unlimited Spending are supporting the passage of House bills H.3295 and H.3615, which were introduced to regulate government spending on local and state levels.

CAUS is a coalition formed by an alliance between the S.C. Chamber of Commerce, S.C. Manufacturers Alliance, S.C. Association of Taxpayers and South Carolinians for Responsible Government. The group is calling on the General Assembly to impose caps on government spending that can only be exceeded in the event of a governor-mandated state of emergency.

"This is an interesting topic to a lot of people," says Rogers of the call for caps on government spending.

Similar groups have cropped up from Anderson to Lexington County.

"The taxpayer movement has grown in South Carolina over the property tax debate," says Taft Matney, an Upstate political operative and ASC supporter.

"People are mobilizing. There are groups across the state getting together, and the same is happening in Spartanburg County."

ASC is focusing on stewardship of all government funds. However, at its inception, ASC's first initiative was calling on elected officials to institute a millage rate cap so that property tax adjustments were based on cost-of-living and inflation rates, as well as fair-market value.

The first portion of the equation, according to Matney, was passage of a bill that capped millage rate increases. As a result, owner-occupied homes are now exempt from increases in property taxes for school operating purposes.

Instead of increasing millage rates, counties are now authorized to enact a local option sales tax to replace property taxes for county operations and school operations for all classes of properties.

"The two bills introduced which will place limitations on government spending will really put the other portion of the equation into place," says Matney. "The spending limitation legislation complements the property tax reform measures groups like ASC pushed to pass last year."

Through communicating with elected officials, sending letters and e-mail campaigns, the ASC seeks to express taxpayer concerns and change legislation one House bill at a time.

"It's about making others aware," says Rogers. "It's rewarding to do that."

Legislation would place cap on budget increases

2007-03-25T06:23:00.000-07:00

THE ANDERSON INDEPENDENT MAIL

Published Sun, Mar 25, 2007

By Doug Staley

A bill that would impose limits on annual spending increases for local governments has been introduced by South Carolina lawmakers.

House Bill 3615, also known as the Local Government Fiscal Accountability and Fairness Act, would place a cap on government spending based on a formula that takes into account inflation and population growth.

Also, the bill includes a provision that would roll back millage increases that approximately 20 school boards and counties made last year before the state’s property tax swap took effect.

The legislation will raise the state sales tax by 1 percent in July in exchange for eliminating local school property taxes on owner-occupied homes. The sales tax increase will replace revenue generated by local school property taxes.

The proposal has the backing of the Coalition Against Unlimited Spending, a group that includes leaders from the state’s Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers, the South Carolina Manufacturer’s Alliance and the South Carolina Citizen’s Lobby.

The group, which was formed last year, is a strong proponent of restricting local government spending.

Dan Harvell, a member of the Citizens Lobby board, said taxpayer groups that worked to bring about the property tax reform recognized they would need a two-pronged approach in order to protect those changes.

“Basically, we want to protect what we achieved,” Mr. Harvell said. “The two complement each other very well. We think this (bill) is a logical extension of the property tax reform.”

Ultimately, Mr. Harvell said the goal is to limit government spending so it grows with the economy rather than outpacing it.

The proposed spending cap would be based on a combination of the Consumer Press Index, which measures inflation, and the percentage of population growth, or an increase of no more than 6 percent, according to Robert Croom, the assistant director of the South Carolina Association of Counties.

He said it appears the bill would limit financial spending, regardless of whether revenue was received through grants or property taxes, for example.

“The terms of this are very broad,” he said. “If the state said they were going to switch to new voting machines and they were going to pay half and the counties would have to pay half, that would fall under the cap. There is the potential to cause some hard decisions.”

The proposal comes at a time when many local governments are grappling with the rising costs of worker’s compensation, health insurance benefits and salaries, said Howard Duvall, president of the South Carolina Municipal Association. He said local governments should have the flexibility to respond to the needs of residents.

“We don’t have to raise our budgets by 6 percent, but I can see that occurring from time to time,” Mr. Duvall said. “We have a lot of other pressures, just like any other business.”

At first glance, the proposal appears to be an attempt by lawmakers to micromanage the budgets of local entities, said S.C. Rep. Michael Thompson, R-Anderson.

“It’s one of those things that works in theory, but has yet to be tested in the real world,” he said. “I’m not quite sure how it would work. If a small town needed to hire an officer by increasing taxes, they would not be able to do this under the law. There are still a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

Anderson Assistant City Manager Linda McConnell said the city has not studied the proposed legislation in detail but said it could hamper the city’s ability to control “our own financial destiny.”

“This tends to erode our home-rule authority,” she said. “Our financial destiny is hamstrung when the legislature takes measures like this into consideration. The needs of municipalities are best left as a local decision.”

Anderson County Finance Director Gina Humphreys agreed the cap could make it difficult for local governments to budget for fuel expenses, give employees pay raises or prepare for health insurance increases.

“It’s easier to do this on the state level (spending cap), but when you get into different communities where the value of a mill differs, that’s were you get into the complexities,” she said. “I don’t know how you can realistically make it work in that regard.”

She said the county is drafting letters to send to state lawmakers, stating opposition to the proposed bill.

“We will be making our plea,” she said.

C.A.U.S. Member Organization Changes Web Site to Reflect Need for Change

2007-03-23T14:25:00.001-07:00

NoHomeTax.org

Posted on Fri, Mar 23, 2007

Emerson Read, chairman of NoHomeTax.org recently made a major change in the message on his group's front page. In a letter dated March 14, Mr. Read explains how spending limitations are the natural evolution from the property tax reform efforts, why this current effort is now underway, and why NoHomeTax.org aligned itself with C.A.U.S.

We felt that his statement was important enough to share here and hope that you continue supporting C.A.U.S. as other taxpayers and business leaders are doing.

Mr. Read's letter is below.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

March 14, 2007

To NoHomeTax.org Supporters:

For more than two years, we worked with and for you to ensure that South Carolinians owned their homes outright - without perpetually paying rent to local government, schools and state government.

With the passage of several pieces of legislation and last November's constitutional amendment, because of your help we were largely successful and had the school operational portion of your property taxes removed, with surplus being applied to county operations and taxes on your groceries reduced from 5% to 3% statewide.

Our work is not finished - taxes are still too high. Tax reform was important, and yes, there is still much to be done, but if we are to make those reform measures lasting and permanent we must address the other side of the equation. That means we must address government spending at the state and local levels.

To achieve that goal, NoHomeTax.org recently aligned itself with CAUS - the Coalition Against Unlimited Spending.

Comprised of the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers, South Carolinians for Responsible Government, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina Manufacturers' Alliance, and now NoHomeTax.org, this historic coalition is made of groups that in the past often fought on opposite sides of issues. Now we are sitting at the table together with our differences behind us to prevent the need for further tax reforms in another ten years.

With two bills currently in the House, we have the opportunity to provide more reform for South Carolina's taxpayers and businesses.

H.3615, also known as the "Local Government Fiscal Accountability and Fairness Act" will limit local government spending increases and roll back the artificial and arbitrary budget and millage increases which occurred in 2006 in 21 School boards and Counties in their efforts to offset the results of our landmark tax bill before it went into effect.

H.3295 will do the same as H.3615 but at the state level.

The next two years will be pivotal as we work to keep the past from repeating itself. Both the SC House and Senate will be up for re-election. The property tax reforms of 1995 were well intentioned but missed one important element. While tax control is important, spending limitations are equally as important. One without the other will only allow for out-of-control government growth.

That is bad news for taxpayer and business interests alike.

That is why we are now a part of CAUS.

That is why we support the "Local Government Fiscal Accountability and Fairness Act".

That is why we support H.3295.

It's easy for legislators to be reminded of their duties when they're in Columbia, but we need to remind them of those same duties when they are at home in their districts. We can write them, call them and email them in Columbia and in their districts to continually remind them that they represent us.

If you don't know your legislator or how to contact him or her, simply go to the General Assembly's web site and enter your ZIP code. From there, you can contact your legislators about pending spending legislation and tell them how you feel. It's that simple - and that important.

There are no paid members of NoHomeTax.org. We are a middle and low income Statewide Grassroots Coalition made up totally of unpaid volunteers! YOU are the reason NoHomeTax.org exists, and we will rely heavily on you, your neighbors and your friends as we put the last piece of the puzzle in place and finally get a grip on government growth in South Carolina.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions or suggestions you may have. Thank you as always for your efforts and dedication as we continue working together to reduce or eliminate property taxes and reign in government spending.

Yours very truly,

Emerson B. Read, Sr., Statewide Chairman
NoHomeTax.org

P.S. To register for Be-CAUS, the coalition's electronic newsletter, click here to subscribe. Enter "Newsletter" in the subject line.

C.A.U.S. UPDATE -- Working for you

2007-03-23T14:25:00.000-07:00

C.A.U.S.

Posted Fri, Mar 23, 2007

A support project to help spread the coalition's message

If you've taken a quick spin around the Internet and found yourself at the C.A.U.S. web site (www.caussc.org), you probably noticed that the site is, for lack of a better phrase, sparse with information. Sure, you have quick access to contact information and you can download or open the initial announcement news release, but there isn't much else to look at.

That's about to change.

We are close to relaunching www.caussc.org and wanted you to know some of the things to expect.

First, it's going to be a little more aesthetically pleasing. We aren't going to throw in a lot of flash or bells and whistles that detract from the site's purpose, but we'll have some graphics to break up the monotony.

Second, we are dedicating an entire page to H.3615 and H.3295 -- just like the legislative update section of this newsletter. While this is not a major technological advancement by any stretch, it's a way for you to see what progress the bills are making, which legislators continue to offer their support, and which legislators decide to withdraw their support because they think it's OK for government to spend at a greater rate that South Carolinians can fund it.

Third, we are adding a web blog (or blog) so we can quickly and easily update the site with information about the legislation, letters and comments from our supporters, and even information with what the opposition is saying so we can correct the misinformation they are spreading across the state. We want this to be a source of information that evolves as private citizens and the business community continue coming together from every part of the state to fight for South Carolina's financial future.

Fourth, we are adding a resources toolbox. Along with links for media outlets and think tanks, we plan to include some items for you, your friends, and anyone else to download and print to help spread the work in communities across the state. We would like to add some multimedia and networking elements, but we'll address those issues as they arise.

Finally, we want to make it as simple as possible to contact us. Whether you want to send a letter, draft an e-mail with your thoughts, or just sign up for electronic communications from C.A.U.S., we don't want you to have to waste your valuable time figuring out how to do it. The information will be right there for you.

As you can see, the new site won't be one that institutes the latest technology, but that's a conscious design decision. C.A.U.S. exists to work with you and for you so that we can finally get government spending under control in South Carolina. Our web site will exist as a tool and a resource. It shouldn't become the center of our activities. We would rather spend our time in communities in the Upstate, the Midlands, the Pee Dee, and the Lowcountry working with those who believe in the C.A.U.S. cause.

We won't launch the new site until we tell you, so keep an eye on your inbox for the launch announcement over the next couple of weeks. Until then, as we continue the design and put on the finishing touches, we want and need your input. What do you want or need to make the C.A.U.S. web site a resource you can use to spread the word to your families and friends? Just let us know at caussc@gmail.com.

We look forward to sharing the new site with you very soon. As always, thank you for all of your hard work to contain government spending in South Carolina.

Regards,

The C.A.U.S. Community Relations Team

Historic Coalition Adds Partner

2007-03-16T14:19:00.000-07:00

C.A.U.S.

Originally released on Fri, Mar 16, 2007

The South Carolina Citizens’ Lobby to Fight for the CAUS

(March 16, 2007 – Columbia, SC) Today leaders of the South Carolina Citizen’s Lobby (SCCL) announced their alliance with and support of the Coalition Against Unlimited Spending (CAUS) – a coalition of business and taxpayer groups supporting government spending limitations in South Carolina.

J.J. Darby, executive director of the coalition made of business organizations like the SC Chamber of Commerce and the SC Manufacturers’ Alliance as well as taxpayer advocate groups like NoHomeTax.org, the SC Association of Taxpayers, and South Carolinians for Responsible Government, said he welcomes the South Carolina Citizens’ Lobby as a new member.

“We have a swell of support from across the state. Business interests and taxpayer advocates alike are fighting to ensure that government spending does not carry on unrestrained growth. The grassroots support that the SCCL brings to the table is a welcome addition as we continue to spread our message of controlling spending,” Darby said.

“Their experience and support will be valuable assets to this latest battle of taxation and spending reform in South Carolina,” he added.

Dan Harvell, SCCL’s president, said that with the property tax reform measures being passed last year, it is imperative that the state examine government spending, as well.

According to Harvell, “In the long run, it doesn’t do much good to have the tax side handled while the spending side remains untouched. We saw after the 1995 property tax reforms that it took less than 10 years for government to be exactly where it was – digging in the pockets of taxpayers to such a great extent that it became dangerous.”

He added, “This latest round of reforms is no different. If we don’t address the exponential growth in government, in another 10 years we’ll be right back at the drawing board, but we will have lost so much industry due to an unfriendly business climate that we may not have a chance like this again. The spending issue has to be addressed, and soon.”

Harvell said that SCCL and other taxpayer organizations are working to publicize the need and movement for spending reform citing such bills as H3615 to limit spending at the local level and H3295 which places limits on state spending.

“This is an exciting coalition representing diverse interests statewide, and we want to do our part so we have a South Carolina to pass down to the next generation,” Harvell said.

About the South Carolina Citizens’ Lobby

The South Carolina Citizens’ Lobby (SCCL) is a non-profit grassroots organization providing a unified voice of its membership through education and advocacy programs at the state and local levels in an effort to increase public policy participation and knowledge among citizens of The Palmetto State.

Counties struggling to find funds to pay for needed services.

2007-03-09T14:22:00.000-08:00

THE STATE

Originally submitted on Fri, Mar 9, 2007

The caption for your article is not the correct statement. The counties can pay for all their needed services that they have now with the inflation factor plus population growth. The growth will pay for the present and expanded services two ways: As more businesses are built and more homes are built they will be at a higher value, more property tax revenue. This will pay for additional services as the county grows.

The counties already have more services than are needed. I have lived at my present address for 22 years and every year property taxes go up. Our property taxes dropped in 1998 with the relief the legislators gave us but increased 400% by 2006 -- only 8 years. My services have not increased in 22 years. I pay for garbage pickup and have a well for good water and a septic tank for sewer.

The counties could charge impact fees to the builders for more fire stations, etc. as the new homes and commercial buildings are the cause for the need. They will not do this because they sold out to the builder lobbyists. The county council wants the taxpayers to foot the pork barrel projects. There is too much tax money being spent now. They also want to put a $25.00 road fee (fees are still taxes) on all our vehicles so they can pave privately maintained roads and then take them as more costly upkeep for the taxpayers . The people who built on these privately maintained roads knew where they were building. The counties can not keep the paved roads up now, so why pave more?

The cap was put on local governments’ millage rates because they have not shown any restraints on spending when they were given home rule. The local governments are crying because they can not tax and spend at will for all their PORK BARREL and PET PROJECT WANTS. Examples are: Pelion airport, funding a go-for-broke airline, and all the empty buildings they have built. They also talk about funding a no-answer-to-anyone-but-Mayor-Coble bus line.

The State paper said "The effect of the law could be that cities, towns and counties may be able to maintain the current level of services but won’t be able to add new services, no matter how much they are desired or needed." Do we need any more pork projects at the taxpayers' expense? Quoting councilman Smoky Davis, "With the new restrictions by state law, every county is going to have to do with what we’ve got." That is how every citizen in South Carolina has to live. We live with what we got and need not what we want. That is why our legislators put a cap on the millage rate and let the people decide with a vote on capping the reassessment in the South Carolina Constitution. This was done because the legislators knew the local governments and school boards would not slow down on spending on their own accord. The legislators gave us the relief in 1998, but the local governments kept spending out-of-control anyway. That was the only way the local governments could be restrained in their wanton spending.

The legislators have not completed their task until all the taxes are eliminated from our primary homes and the fear of losing them in our twilight years. This could be done a very simple way, as the tax law is already on the books. Increase the deed stamp to pay for taxes and earmark the increase to pay them off or simply they could be taken off with the budget surplus that we have. They also need to give us the vote to keep it off with a constitutional amendment. Property taxes on our primary homes collected by the local government will only be 18–20 per cent of the total property taxes.

David Whetsell

President stoptax

www.stoptax.org

Lexington , S.C.

That Terrible, Terrible Tornado Tax

2007-03-04T14:14:00.000-08:00

The Newberry Observer

Originally submitted on Sun, Mar 4, 2007

The several tornadoes of early March that ripped through several places in the United States have gotten special attention in the national media, and rightly so. They've left a pathway of death and destruction, even destroying a school.

It is ironic that many Newberrians can relate to this, perhaps to a lesser degree than having the lives of school children snuffed out. Those of us who survived the severe tornado of the mid 80s certainly remember the horror left in the wake of that tornado. As public information officer for the Newberry County Disaster Preparedness Agency, I certainly remember very vividly the pain and suffering that gripped our community in aftermath of this tragedy.

Newberry County, like most small counties throughout South Carolina, doesn’t get national press often. But we got it that night. I can tell you with authority we did, because as PIO officer, I was the one who gave out information all during the night to several national news agencies who contacted the Law Enforcement Center where the disaster team was confined. We were even recognized overseas. During that first night, I was called to the telephone and told some reporter from the British Broadcast Company (BBC) was on the line.

As I reflect on these nightmares and the national attention they generally get, I could not help but relate it to the terrible, terrible, tornado tax tragedy which reaches its peak stage this month in Newberry County.

What is going on in Newberry County this month won't attract national headlines, and yet it is a tragedy that will surely result in several citizens losing their homes. When all is finally tallied, I predict the number of citizens who lose their residences will greatly exceed the number of people whose homes are destroyed by most of the tornadoes, even the severe ones. It will be the top story of the year in America, but will be totally ignored by the press whose attention is glued to masterminding the war and getting the first female elected president of the U.S.

Of course, our hometown media (The Newberry Observer) has been on-top of this situation and I'm confident they'll continue to birddog it—we can be thankful for that. Otherwise, the powerful turbulent wind of destructive force equal to the severest tornado, created this past year by elected officials of Newberry County (please recognize that I'm talking about those jerks who were put in office by our votes) will essentially put many, many people out of their homes that they've worked and struggled a lifetime to have.

No, I haven't dropped a brick off my truck since I've retired. I'm still smart enough to realize that the drama attached to spectacular events like tornadoes and hurricanes lure readers by the thousands. I haven't forgotten all that I've learned in a journalistic career that now spans 57 years of my life.

But I also am smart enough to know that the loss of a home is just as tragic whether it is taken by the strong winds of a tornado or the powerful might of those elected officials whom we entrusted with the responsibility of handling our important public business. In the situation to which we refer, those officials have fumbled the ball—and they deserve to have their butts kicked out of office.

I write this as a reminder that most taxpayers are headed toward another 15th of the month deadline. Our "kind and benevolent" officials to whom we gave our votes (the same ones that gored us with an historical record tax increase this year) allowed us to split our payment. That is to say we were allowed to pay half in January and the other half comes due March 16. Now wasn't that very generous of them—everybody ought to call them on the 16th and thank them for this "favor."

My tax bill went up 350 per cent. Some jumped as much as 600 per cent. I've thanked God several times that, as of this time, I won't lose my retirement home. My tax bill is public record, but how I paid it is my business. I am not one of those so-called "fat cats" who live on Lake Murray. But I am among the fortunate senior citizens who won't have to put my house on the market immediately, because I learned early in life how to survive on a tight budget. All through life, my two sons have accused me of being so tight that I squeak when I walk. My prayer is directed to those who will have no other choice. I do intend to sell, however, if something isn't done to reverse the strong hold our elected officials have over their electorate. I have lived in Newberry County and paid my taxes in full every year since 1956, always on time and without a penalty. But if I have to sell my house and move, I promise it won't be anywhere in Newberry County. I just don't plan to continue giving what little money I have left in my retirement fund to those unscrupulous characters who propel the strong winds of the Newberry County tax tornado. For my part, all of those bandits who escaped arrest for robbing the citizens of this county ought to resign or be thrown out of office.

Ollie Moye

2006 Property Tax Relief Measures Create a "Win-Win"

2007-03-04T14:13:00.000-08:00

The Beaufort Gazette

Originally submitted on Sun, Mar 4, 2007

A great deal has been voiced about the pending perils of the S.C. Legislation (H4449) that limits some of the growth of County Government and the School District. However, little has been reported to the taxpaying public about the benefits. To wit:

Starting June 1, 2007 everyone who buys something will pay an additional 1% sales tax except for food and accommodations. Starting in 2008 that money will be used to fund the operating costs of K through 12 public schools. The benefit to homeowners is a reduction in their property taxes by at least 50%. That's right 50%! (80% of the school budget is for operating costs, 60% of the mileage rate is for schools and businesses and non owner occupied homes will not benefit from this reduction thereby paying a higher portion of property taxes).

The School District will greatly benefit from this legislation because the formula for distributing these funds will go from property valuations to a "per pupil" basis. (Section 11-11-156. Para. A2). Simply put, the more students, the more money. And protestations to the contrary, it appears that there will be more than enough money to fund these operating costs.

County governments dislike this legislation because it limits how much they can raise taxes. They are allowed to increase taxes by the rate of inflation of the Southeastern States and the growth in population. Emergency spending (i.e. Hurricane cleanup, etc) is also covered.

The result is a win-win for everyone.

Tom Hatfield

Hilton Head

School property tax rollback 'a dead issue,' senators say

2007-03-01T14:11:00.000-08:00

The (Hilton Head, SC) Island Packet

Posted on Thurs, Mar 1, 2007

By JEREMY HSIEH
jhsieh@beaufortgazette.com
843-986-5548

A bill that would force a rollback of property taxes that pay for school operations in Beaufort County and eight other school districts is unlikely to reach the Senate floor, two senators said Wednesday.

Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens County, said he introduced the bill Jan. 9 after those nine districts dramatically raised school taxes.

Through a referendum in November, voters approved a property tax relief measure that will add an extra 1 percent of state sales tax in June. The revenue is meant to replace the portion of homeowners' property taxes that pay for school operations. The state will pay those costs through the sales tax increase.

Martin said he thought those districts exploited the state by taking advantage of the revenue shift, calling it "a raid on the state treasury." Those increases only affected homeowners' tax bills this year. With the referendum taking effect, the state is expected to credit homeowners with the portion of their 2008 tax bills that cover school operating costs.

In Beaufort County, it was an 18 percent increase, equivalent to an extra $132 on a home with an assessed value of $200,000. However, two-thirds of the Beaufort County Council's school operating tax increase was intended to make up for a projected $14.4 million loss in state education funding and the other third to address growth and unfunded state mandates, said Assistant Superintendent of Finance Phyllis White.

Martin has since reconsidered his position. Officials from the districts penalized by the bill voiced "very legitimate concerns" and "very good reasons" for their actions, Martin said, and he doesn't expect it to reach the Senate floor.

Sen. Wes Hayes, R-York County, who is the chairman of a Senate Finance subcommittee that examined the bill, agreed.

"I think that's a dead issue," he said. Hayes' committee gave it an unfavorable recommendation, and the full Finance Committee did not act on it during its meeting Tuesday.

Even without the tax rollback, rapid growth and state-imposed caps on tax increases have led White to forecast budget deficits from 2009 forward if the district doesn't cut jobs, which would create problems meeting performance and class-size requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

White has said the rogue district label "adds insult to injury," though Martin said Beaufort County was never intended to be singled out.

Republicans Propose Local Government Spending Caps

2007-03-01T14:08:00.000-08:00

The South Carolina House Republican Caucus

Released on Thurs, Mar 1, 2007

COLUMBIA -- House Speaker Bobby Harrell, Majority Leader Jim Merrill, Rep. Garry Smith, and 19 other conservative Republicans filed legislation today to cap the out-of-control local government spending in South Carolina.

"The lesson of the Property Tax Relief from 1995 is that if there are no limits on the spending authority of local governments and school districts then we will have to address property tax relief again in the near future," Rep. Smith said. "We want the tax relief we provided last year to be permanent."

The legislation is filed on the heels of the historic passage of state spending limits under the guidance of the House Republican leadership.

"Lawmakers are responsible for the public's money at all levels of government," Speaker Harrell said. "The House has proven its commitment to limit government spending by passing legislation that limits state government. We are now asking that local governments also share in the commitment to responsibly handle the people's tax dollars."

Legislation was needed to cap local governments because of events following the 2006 property tax relief. At least 20 school districts, and some municipalities and counties circumvented the tax relief provided by the General Assembly by dramatically increasing property taxes before the relief took effect.

"Those actions were a clear money grab by a few unscrupulous local governments," Merrill said. "While a select few gave reasons for their tax increases, most rushed through what are, in effect, massive penalties on local businesses."

The bill filed Thursday rolls back those increases. It also restricts spending increases for operations to a formula that considers inflation and population growth. There are some exceptions: including declarations of a state emergency or a two-thirds vote of the council or school board.

"Government must learn to live within its means," Merrill said. "Since government has proven it won't voluntarily, we must restrict it by statute."

Leaders Call for Caps on Government Spending

2006-08-30T10:02:00.000-07:00

C.A.U.S.

Released Wed., Aug 30, 2006

South Carolina business leaders and taxpayer advocates have formed a historic coalition, calling on the General Assembly to impose strict caps on local government spending that could only be exceeded in the case of a state of emergency declared by the Governor.

This is the first time in recent memory that grassroots activist and taxpayers have joined forces with business leaders.

Leaders from the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, the SC Manufacturer’s Alliance, SC Association of Taxpayers and South Carolinians for Responsible Government held a press conference at the Statehouse today announcing the formation of C.A.U.S – the Coalition Against Unlimited Spending, and to call for the spending caps in the wake of a rash of millage raising by some local governments, who responded quickly to increase the rates after property tax relief was passed.

Business leaders expressed concern that the total tax burden on companies and individuals was rising across the board, and would continue to rise and ultimately eat up tax relief and result in higher tax bills.

“Fees and other charges have gone up 10 percent each year over the last decade. Local government has never missed an opportunity to raise taxes. If the current plan is implemented without constitutional restraints on government, not only will business pay higher sales tax without corresponding relief, but will ultimately see other taxes rise as well,” said Lewis Gossett, President of the SC Manufacturer’s Alliance.

Small business owners are concerned that higher sales taxes, coupled with local governments raising millage rates, will hurt their companies and impede consumer spending.

“No one wins when consumers have less money to spend in the economy because they are giving more money to government. Every higher tax is a pinch felt in our businesses, and by our employees. If South Carolinians are not spending money in our economy, it is going to stagnate quickly,” said Otis Rawl, Chief Operating Officer of the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.

Taxpayer advocates pointed to rising millage rates over the last decade as proof that property tax relief was being eaten up by local governments.

“The problem is that our property taxes are spiraling out of control, and the plan that was offered this year will not ultimately provide the relief we need. In spite of statewide property tax relief back in the nineties, local governments have continued to raise millage rates,” said SC Association of Taxpayers President Don Weaver. Weaver said that all but one of the 29 counties with the local option sales tax had also seen millage increases.

SCRG Chairman and former member of Georgetown County Council Tom Swatzel agreed. “As a former county council member I have seen first hand local government's continuous efforts at so called ‘revenue enhancement’ through the imposition of property tax rate increases, countless fees, and special taxes on businesses. A true cap on tax rates will cause local governments to better prioritize spending and live within their means just like the tax paying families and businesses of this state have to do,” said Swatzel.

C.A.U.S –will be actively working with the leadership in the SC legislature over the fall and the beginning of this next session. The coalition also supports calls for the General Assembly to roll back the base year of the reimbursement amount in the current property tax plan from 2007 to 2006 to protect the relief to property owners that will take effect next year.

###

CAUS

Coalition Against Unlimited Spending

Post Office Box 12554

Columbia, SC 29211

www.caussc.org

Also included in this document

Statement of Otis Rawl, SC Chamber of Commerce

Statement of Tom Swatzel, SCRG Chairman and former member of Georgetown County Council

Statement of Lewis Gossett, SC Manufacturers Alliance

Statement of Don Weaver, SC Association of Taxpayers

Statement of Otis Rawl, SC Chamber of Commerce

My name is Otis Rawl and I am with the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce. I am here today to speak on behalf of our small business members.

As the premier organization that represents small business owners, we are very concerned about the current tax climate in our state.

Small businesses are the backbone of South Carolina’s economy. Without comprehensive tax reform, small businesses will find it more and more difficult to operate. The growing tax burden in South Carolina is seriously limiting the ability of businesses to expand, create new jobs, and locate here.

Quite simply, South Carolina businesses cannot afford a higher state sales tax and higher property taxes. Every higher tax is a pinch felt by businesses, their employees, and their customers - the voters of this state. No one wins when businesses AND consumers have less money to spend and South Carolina’s economy will go stagnate quickly.

According to the South Carolina Policy Council, not only have millage rates continued to rise, but fees and other non-tax revenues have gone up almost 10 percent every year for over a decade.

As the representative of small businesses, the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce is joining others today to ask our General Assembly to keep small businesses operating by limiting governmental spending because government spending should not increase faster than businesses and taxpayers’ ability to pay.

We look forward to working with our leaders in government and with CAUS in creating a climate for businesses to grow, expand job opportunities, and locate in our state.

Statement of Tom Swatzel, SCRG Chairman and former member of Georgetown County Council

My name is Tom Swatzel. I speak today as a former member of the Georgetown County Council. Unfortunately, I know how fast government can grow, and how little one elected official can do to stop it. We all have good intentions as stewards of local tax dollars, but when the chips are down, the cycle of more growth and higher taxes is almost impossible to stop. Officials look for more ways to feed the system, and when property owners are granted relief from one tax, they view that as a free pass to raise another.

That is simply how government works. Too often, citizens do not even realize just how much their tax burden is going up. Permit charges, fees and small millage hikes are done on the sly, with little to no public scrutiny. All taxpayers know is that somehow, they are spending more money on government than they used to, and have less left over for themselves.

Already, we have seen school districts rushing to raise millage as fast as they can, in anticipation of it being harder for them to do so in the future. Notice I did not say impossible. One thing I can promise the public is that local government officials are already trying to figure out ways around the modest limits the current tax relief plan imposes. And they will come up with ways around those limits, ensuring that not only does the sales tax go up, and the millage today, but also down the road.

Without serious and fast-acting reform, taxpayers will end up with higher sales taxes and increased millage rates today, and even higher property taxes down the road. The only way to protect taxpayers is to insist that government live within its means and not grow at a faster rate than income levels and population. Leaders in the General Assembly should move quickly to roll back the base year of millage to 2006 to stop governments from raising taxes today, and to put into place constitutional mandates to stop the eating up of tax relief that citizens were promised and which they deserve.

I feel strongly that the efforts of the others here today, in conjunction with the other supporters of CAUS’ effort are critical to both the taxpayers and to the economic development efforts here in SC.

Statement of Lewis Gossett, SC Manufacturers Alliance

My name is Lewis Gossett, and I am the President of the South Carolina Manufacturer’s Alliance, the only state-wide organization dedicated exclusively to the interests of the State’s manufacturing sector. Our industry provides approximately 19 percent of all jobs in our state – one in five South Carolinians is employed in manufacturing.

Manufacturing employees are among the most highly skilled and certainly among the most highly compensated, in terms of hourly wages and benefits, in South Carolina. Our members’ facilities and the jobs they provide represent the backbone of local economies in all but a very few of South Carolina’s local communities.

South Carolina manufacturers have invested heavily in our state’s economy. We create jobs, and we are responsible for income growth. Moreover, we represent the only real path for many South Carolina communities to build a vibrant economy that can support small businesses, excellent schools, necessary infrastructure, and various philanthropic interests. In many ways, a typical manufacturing facility is the goose that lays the golden egg.

Unfortunately, many local taxing authorities in South Carolina seem determined to kill that goose. Instead of seeing a manufacturing facility as the foundation for a strong private sector, too many local officials see that same facility as a source of government revenue. That viewpoint puts our current economy at risk and jeopardizes any chance we might have in the future to grow and prosper.

It is critical to our citizens’ quality of life that South Carolina’s manufacturers are able to compete internationally. We simply cannot do that if we become overburdened by excessive taxes, and with the seemingly uncontrolled growth of local government in this State, that tax burden is increasing yearly. South Carolina’s manufacturers are more than willing to pay their share of the tax burden. In fact, we do just that. In virtually every county, a member of the SCMA is the largest single property taxpayer, and in many of them, our members dominate the list of the top 10 or 20. We pay our share.

Some, however, don’t seem to think that’s enough, so tax shifts become the norm. After all, the big box on the interstate doesn’t vote. Shifting the tax burden on to our members, however, will not result in a better deal for taxpayers in the end. South Carolina businesses need capital to compete. We need to expand our companies and attract new ones to our state. There is no ability to do so if our tax burden continues to grow. No one should forget that higher tax burdens make plants less competitive, and in this global economy, the tolerance for high taxes simply no longer exists, if it ever really did. We aren’t just talking about losing potential future investment. We’re talking about losing the jobs we already have.

The Manufacturers Alliance supports tax relief because we know it is the private sector that will grow our economy, not government. True tax relief, though, will only come with real caps on taxing and spending. Fees and other charges have gone up 10 percent each year over the last decade. Most local governments never miss opportunities to raise taxes. If the current plan is implemented without constitutional restraints on government spending, not only will business pay higher sales tax without corresponding relief, but we will also ultimately see other taxes rise as well.

On behalf of over 250 manufacturing facilities in South Carolina that employ thousands of our citizens, I call on our leaders to cap local government spending and to provide real relief to the business community so we can do our part to grow our state’s economy and keep our citizens working. We in South Carolina simply must stop taking from the market efficient private sector and giving to the horribly inefficient public sector.

Enough is enough. I look forward to working with the other members of CAUS to make certain this happens.

Statement of Don Weaver, SC Association of Taxpayers

My name is Don Weaver, and I am President of the South Carolina Association of Taxpayers. I represent taxpayers from all over our state, from every county and in every district. Today, we are confronted with both a problem and an opportunity. The problem is that our property taxes are spiraling out of control, and the plan that was offered this year will not ultimately provide the relief we need. In spite of statewide property tax relief back in the nineties, local governments have continued to raise millage rates. The result? A higher bill for homeowners and for businesses. In fact, in counties that have exercised the local option sales tax, all but one have seen corresponding millage hikes.

The truth is that government spending is growing faster than the average income, and taxpayers simply cannot afford any more increases. We were pleased that the General Assembly and the governor heard our cry for relief from increasing tax bills that resulted from re-assessment and millage hikes. But unfortunately, that plan did not go far enough to protect us. Already, close to 20 school districts have increased millage, and more are likely to do so in the coming months.

According to a study from the South Carolina Policy Council, all but two counties have seen the total county, city and school district millage increase since statewide property tax relief was passed in 1995. Clearly, we cannot simply trust local governments to give property owners the relief the General Assembly promised us. For that reason, we are here today to call for two things: a rollback of the base year for reimbursement from 07 to 06, and for strict, substantive constitutional caps on local spending. We believe those caps should be based on statewide population growth plus personal income growth, and should only be exceeded in strict emergency situations as declared by the Governor.

Taxpayers have already seen what happens when relief is given by the state – it is snatched away by the local governments. Without substantive caps, citizens will be stuck with a higher sales tax and a higher property tax bill. I appreciate the efforts of leaders in the General Assembly who have indicated they want to let taxpayers keep their relief, and I encourage them on behalf of our members to begin that process as soon as possible.

I stand here today to announce the formation of CAUS, the Coalition Against Unlimited Spending. This is truly a historic moment in that business and the taxpayers have come together, for the first time in recent memory, unified in support of the principle of real tax relief and unified in opposition to the actions of these political subdivisions. We will be working together; tax payer groups and business groups alike to make certain that the efforts of these wayward school districts, and others contemplating such actions do not go unnoticed by the General Assembly.