In my opinion, DOR has crossed the line in their role as an executive agency. Their job is to execute the law—not make it. When this agency, by interpretation or issuance of a regulation, expands the application of a tax law, the public has placed on it taxation without representation. Sadly, in the past, the Governor has not provided enough oversight to the DOR and other executive agencies under its control, leaving voters to have to call their legislators with issues, questions and complaints.

Let me give you an example. There is no sales tax on service shipping, handling charges or donations, yet I have received complaints of efforts to collect sales tax from businesses on these items. Recently, one advertising business was audited and charged for failure to collect sales tax on services, shipping and handling. The company was told by the DOR that the shipping part of the tax penalty would be forgiven but not the service charges. The business owner never collected sales tax from the service fees as she was initially advised by a DOR representative at the Revenue Service Call Center that it was not required. Now, she has to go into debt to pay this demand. Adding insult to injury, when this citizen attempted to explain she called the department for advice and proceeded to follow it, she reports the auditor replied that the contact center personnel “…aren’t particularly qualified” to answer questions and give instructions about filling out the sales tax return. Another manager described the auditor that first reviewed this case as inexperienced.

Because of these complaints, I have sponsored The Taxpayer Fairness Act of 2011. This proposed bill would forbid the DOR from expanding the application of a tax by interpretation or regulation. The plain black letter law would strictly apply the tax, and any ambiguity over applicability must be interpreted that the taxpayer does not owe the tax. If the Department of Revenue wants new taxes or to apply old ones to new things, then it must seek a law change—not issue an opinion or regulation to do the same. Taxation only by representation requires a vote by the public’s elected representatives.

For years, I have pushed for a constitutional amendment to limit the growth of government to the real growth in income and population over a ten-year period. The amendment I’ve proposed would stop “roller coaster budgeting,” which is the bad habit of spending too much when times are good—then cutting too much when the economy declines. Here is how my proposal would work:

In any given year, the amount available for State spending would be the previous year’s appropriation, with increases limited to the ten-year average in revenue growth. Any revenue increase above that amount would be put into a revenue stabilization account to be available to fund the budget in the years when there is a downturn in revenue. The result would be an orderly budget process. In good economic times, we wouldn’t hire excessively; therefore, we would avoid the need to fire excessively in bad times. In other words, over a ten-year period, government wouldn’t grow any faster than the ability of the public to pay for the services of government.
Our Courts have ruled if a statutory spending limit is ignored, then it is suspended for a year. Therefore, a statutory cap is meaningless if it can simply be ignored.

If it were only a law and not a constitutional amendment, all the General Assembly would have to do is exceed the spending limit and suspend the limit for that budget year.

Last year, we came within one vote of passing the Spending Limit Amendment. Let us hope we can enact this important reform in the 2011-2012 Session.

Budget deficits created by overspending government executives should not be tolerated. Why do we require an annual budget or balanced budget, if it can be ignored? Allowing Governors or executive branch managers or the other two branches of government to exceed their appropriated amounts is, in my opinion, unconstitutional and unnecessary government growth.

These deficits have sadly occurred in three agencies that were restructured and placed directly under the Governor. The Department of Corrections may spend approximately 7 million more than appropriated, the Department of Social Services more than 50 million, and the Department of Health and Human Services more than 237 million. It is my opinion that one of the agencies may have known since last spring that it would run a deficit and rolled part of the deficit forward from one fiscal year to another. With half of the fiscal year over, one of these agencies may create a deficit equal to over 200 million in red ink.

We must act to stop government from spending money we do not have. I believe South Carolina needs what exists on the Federal level: a deficiency act which makes it a crime for State executives to knowingly spend more than authorized and/or civil liability if they negligently, recklessly or intentionally overspend. Since Governors are accountable, they need to more closely oversee what their cabinet appointments are spending. The General Assembly needs to spend more time and effort in oversight of the different agencies—reviewing how they are operating, what they do with the public money appropriated to them, and assess whether they are spending their budgets efficiently for the public interest. Governors need to provide in-depth oversight for a smaller, more effective government.

The issue before the South Carolina Senate is whether to empower our police across the State to enforce Federal immigration laws. The United States Government has failed miserably, and the States have little they can do except enforce Federal laws above what the States have already passed.

The costs of illegal immigration pile up on the States, and the blame falls on the Federal Congress. This proposed State law will not allow sanctuary cities and will require those arrested for a crime to produce some identification proving they are legally in the United States or be turned over to federal authorities for deportation after they serve their sentence.

I am against jackpot justice but also believe people injured by the acts of others should have an avenue in the courts for fair redress. Changes should be made when there are injustices—not just for the sake of change. It is important to scrutinize changes to see whether they lower insurance rates, address a wrong or excess and do not unfairly limit a person’s rights.

Trust Funds are held in trust for a specific public purpose. These funds should only be used for the specific purpose for which they were set aside. For years, I have opposed the raiding of trust funds to balance the budget or supplement the budget of a State agency. This past year, 13.2 million dollars were taken from the Rural Infrastructure Bank account by the Budget and Control Board (B&CB) after the Governor successfully vetoed 24 million dollars of their operating fund. A lawsuit was brought, and the court ended this raid. Two years ago, the State budget was balanced by raiding a trust account managed by the B&CB, and I had to vote against the budget. I have authored a constitutional amendment to protect against Trust Funds becoming slush funds.

The current law is so ridiculous that the police only enforce it selectively, which should not be their choice. We owe it to our law enforcement officers to give them clear laws. In the interest of fairness, justice and liberty, the time has come to clean up these antiquated laws. For all those reasons, I have offered legislation to make it legal to play cards and dice games in your home with family and friends, provided there is no profit for the house and no enforceable debt created under law by the game.

I have proposed a constitutional amendment to allow charities to hold raffles and to allow them limited use of games of chance for charitable purposes. Our committee held hearings across the State and found wide support for this change. Our goal is to have this constitutional amendment put on the ballot at the next general election for approval by the public.

Those of us fighting for reform are working to usher in a new era of transparency. However, as we move forward on these important reforms, we must take care to act within the framework of the Constitution and not try to amend it by passing a law.

On this point, the Constitution of South Carolina is clear. It says “Each house shall determine its rules of procedure… .” Under our system, we have a clear separation of powers. Our founders knew it was wise to separate the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. When a law is passed by the General Assembly, the executive branch administers the law, and the third branch of government—the judiciary—rules on the constitutionality of how laws are written and administered.

The founders also created a bicameral General Assembly with two separate bodies, the Senate and the House, and gave each body the Constitutional authority to set its own rules and procedures, which include such things as how votes are cast and how records are kept. For that reason, it is essential for each body to create new transparency rules and procedures. That is the goal I am working toward in the Senate.

But let us remember, to be Constitutional, these transparency rules must be created by each body, rather than by a single statute that applies to both. Efforts to achieve those reforms by statute are well-intended but would violate the constitutional provision that gives each body the authority and the duty to set its own rules. The power of the General Assembly is constitutionally balanced.

Of course, some say we should not read the language of the Constitution all that literally. Even some, who call themselves conservatives, are willing to ignore the Constitution when it suits their purposes or when it collides with their high-minded reform agenda.

That is exactly what is wrong with government today at all levels. Whether in Washington, D.C. or Columbia, S.C., we ignore our founding documents at great peril.

For my part, I have always followed a strict, lawful approach to the Constitution: it is what it says, not what I or someone else might want it to say. President Obama would do well to follow that principle and so would leaders here in South Carolina as we reform the way we conduct the people’s business.

In the Senate, we have reformed the rules to automatically require roll call votes on key items such as taxes, salaries, ethics, fees, budgets, etc. that are broader than any proposed statute. Also, as few as three senators can now trigger a roll call vote on any procedural motion such as to table legislation, recede, adjourn or carry over. Four senators can trigger a recorded vote on any issue whatsoever.

I have also authored Senate rule changes to expand the automatic roll call voting list even further. Using the rules to make these changes is a stronger reform method than a statute. A statute can be changed or abolished by a simple majority, while a change in the rules requires a super majority.

I pledge to lead the way in bringing about these important transparency reforms. But let us do so within the framework of constitutional law. Unless the Constitution is amended, the correct path is to reform the rules of the House and the Senate separately. Our Constitution is far too important to ignore.