Senate Democrats Praise Ford’s Leadership on Payday Lending Reform
Columbia, SC – South Carolina State Senate Democrats today applauded Senator Robert Ford’s (D- Charleston) efforts to pass a payday lending reform. The Charleston Democrat took the unusual step this week by placing a hold on all SC House of Representatives’ legislation on the State Senate calendar until payday lending reform was considered.
With Senator Ford’s objection to all House legislation, the Senate agreed to consider another payday lending reform bill. The second effort was in response to the House’s refusal to even consider legislation that passed the Senate.
“Senator Ford played hardball and won. This is the type of leadership he has shown over the years and the leadership that folks can expect for the future,” said Phil Bailey, spokesman for the Senate Democratic Caucus. “He’s a fighter and he scored a knockout this week.”
Senator Ford put a roadblock on all House-approved bills that were on the Senate agenda - stalling House legislation. Ford says the move was necessary to give the House another opportunity to enact payday lending reform.
“I took a stand for the people of my district and for consumers across South Carolina. The special interest in Columbia cannot keep me from doing what’s right. That’s just who I am and the type of job I do as senator,” said Ford. “The folks in Charleston send me up to Columbia to stand up for them.”
According to the South CarolinaAppleseedLegal JusticeCenter, payday lenders made over 4.3 million loans in our state in 2006. These loans, secured by a future paycheck, are limited to $300 and cost the borrower $15 per hundred dollars loaned, and typically last two weeks. That’s an annual percentage rate of 391 percent. The interest charges totaled $155,834,568 in 2006, or roughly $3 million per week.
“I hope the House will take this opportunity to pass payday lending reform. The more time that is wasted equates to more millions made on the backs of South Carolina consumers,” said Ford.
Bill McKown (pictured above wondering where his home is)
“I Ain’t got no home” - Bruce 'The Boss' Springsteen
"If Mr. McKown can't figure out where he lives, he certainly shouldn't be a state Senator," state Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler
MB Sun News
Thu, May. 01, 2008
Democrats sue to get candidate off ballot
By Robert Morris rmorris@thesunnews.com
A Republican seeking the state Senate seat representing North Myrtle Beach filed using two bogus addresses, and should be taken off the ballot, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the state Democratic Party.
William McKown previously served on the Surfside Beach Town Council from 2004 until January, when he resigned to take a position on a state aeronautics board. He could not be reached for comment Thursday at the mobile number he filed with elections officials.
According to the complaint, McKown applied for voter registration using an address of 521 48th Ave. S, North Myrtle Beach. On his candidacy form with election officials, McKown listed as his residence 2504 S. Ocean Blvd., NorthMyrtle Beach.
The 48th Avenue address, Democrats say, is an unoccupied property still under construction where no permits have been filed, and the Ocean Boulevard address is ``apparently vacant and is listed with a rental agency that secures short-term vacation rentals,'' according to their news release.
"If Mr. McKown can't figure out where he lives, he certainly shouldn't be a state Senator," state Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler said in the release. "He apparently lives outside the district, but he thought no one would notice if he made up an address within the district as his legal residence. The voters of HorryCounty deserve an honest Senator, not someone who is willing to disregard the law in order to get elected."
Senate District 28 is held by state Sen. Dick Elliott, a Democrat. McKown was the only Republican to file.
SC Senate Passes Health Care Accessibility for Young Americans Act
Columbia, SC - Today the South Carolina Senate unanimously passed S. 1010, the Health Care Accessibility for Young Americans Act. The measure will require insurance companies to extend families' health insurance policies for young adults and military veterans.
Currently young adults are eligible to remain on their families' policies only if they are full-time students in college. They are dropped from policies if they are part-time students or enter the workforce. According to the measure's primary sponsor, state Senator Joel Lourie (D-Richland/Kershaw) the bill aims to extend the period of time young adults are covered by their parent's health insurance policies.
"By passing this legislation, the General Assembly is making it easier for young adults to buy affordable health insurance", said Lourie. "I am pleased with the bi-partisan response from the Senate and hope we can get it passed in the House before the session adjourns" Lourie added.
Twenty-one states have similar plans in place to extend families' health coverage to young adults. In South Carolina, 40% of 18-25 year olds have no health insurance.
"Families across South Carolina will benefit from this responsible measure as young adults should not be penalized for making decisions that meet their individual needs" said Senator Darrell Jackson (D-Richland), a co-sponsor of the legislation.
S.1010 also has provisions to extend health coverage for young men and women who return from active military status.
Last week, the Senate Finance Committee approved a bill to increase South Carolina’s lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax. Our cigarette tax is only 7 cents per pack and has not been raised since 1977. The national average for state cigarette taxes has climbed to $1.11 per pack and will continue to increase as four states enact additional increases this year. We must address this life-saving legislation as soon as possible.
Since 2002, 43 other states — including tobacco-producing North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky — have increased their taxes on cigarettes more than 70 times. In fact, during the six months from the end of South Carolina’s 2007 legislative session to the beginning of our 2008 session, nine other state cigarette tax increases went into effect. South Carolina falls further behind the national average each month that we delay addressing this important public health issue.
Tobacco use is the No. 1 preventable cause of death and disease in South Carolina. House Bill 3567, sponsored by Republican Rep. Rex Rice, would raise the cigarette tax from the lowest in the nation to 57 cents per pack — still barely more than half the national average. Yet this modest increase would have tremendous benefits to the long-term health of our state and, ultimately, to our economy.
Dozens of independent studies have confirmed that raising the price of cigarettes is the most effective means of keeping kids from ever starting to smoke. In South Carolina, a 50-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase would keep 35,500 kids alive today from becoming smokers. In addition, this increase would prevent 4,900 adults from dying a premature, tobacco-caused death. In a year in which we are facing a significant budget shortfall, this bill would generate more than $158 million in new annual revenue.
Time is of the essence for the Senate to address the cigarette tax bill. As we face the upcoming state elections, the chances that this bill will pass are dim. Our fellow legislators tend to get nervous about taking courageous action in an election year. However, we would remind our colleagues that poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of registered S.C. voters, across party lines and in every corner of our state, supports a significant increase in the cigarette tax. In fact, 71 percent of voters even support a cigarette tax as high as $1 per pack.
Raising the tax is just the first step toward protecting our kids. If we truly want to achieve even greater reductions in youth smoking, we must allocate a portion of our tobacco revenue to programs that prevent kids from smoking and help adult smokers quit.
South Carolina ranks 45th among the states in the funding of tobacco prevention programs. South Carolina currently allocates $2 million a year for tobacco prevention, which is just 8 percent of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation. It would take only a few pennies of our cigarette tax increase to fund prevention programs on a recurring basis. In addition to saving lives by reducing smoking-caused heart disease, lung cancer and other diseases, studies show that the best programs have saved as much as $3 in smoking-caused health costs for every dollar spent on tobacco prevention.
We urge our fellow senators not to wait any longer to pass a significant cigarette tax increase. We have the opportunity to save our kids from the ravages of tobacco addiction. What better message could we send to our constituents back home?
Sen. Hutto represents Allendale, Bamberg, Barnwell and Orangeburg counties. Sen. Matthews represents Bamberg, Colleton, Dorchester, Hampton and Orangeburg counties.
Bill Stern, Chairman of the State’s Ports Authority, is set to testify before the SC Senate Transportation Committee under on oath on Wednesday.Let’s hope his answers on Governor Sanford’s involvement in the shady Port Royal real estate deal don’t go like this...
The public is invited to attend the hearing. Room 308 Gressette Senate Office Building in Columbia. Wednesday 11:00am.
Posted on Thu, Feb. 14, 2008
Port Royal | Sanford tried to upset port deal
Governor accused of attacking developer’s reputation
By JIM DAVENPORT
The Associated Press
Gov. Mark Sanford enmeshed himself in the state’s $26 million sale of former port facilities near Beaufort last year — first by conferring with a developer who didn’t win the bid, then by unsuccessfully trying to undermine a different developer’s higher offer by disparaging the man’s reputation.
Sanford this week acknowledged to The Associated Press he had private conversations with the head of the State Ports Authority and with a lawyer representing the agency in the deal during which he took aim at the developer who eventually bought the land.
Sanford, a real estate developer himself, said he simply was bringing his professional relationships and expertise to his role as a watchdog for the state’s finances. He denied doing anything in an attempt to steer the sale to a specific developer or interfering in the bidding process.
But the governor’s actions in the run-up to the sale of land give his critics ammunition and could add weight to a lawsuit brought by Carroll Campbell III, an ousted member of the Ports Authority who accuses Sanford of abusing his power.
“Mr. Campbell is concerned about, and has to question, the actions by Governor Sanford that were taken to potentially interfere with a transaction that was clearly in the best interest of South Carolina; actions that appear to have been taken for personal or political reasons,” reads the suit, filed last month.
At issue was the right to transform Port Royal, South Carolina’s smallest state-owned port. Plans call for a marina, shops, restaurants and residential villages on the port’s 50 acres, which include a mile of waterfront on the BeaufortRiver.
The property on the market twice. The first time it was on the market, the governor said he spoke with Chaffin/Light Associates founding partner Jim Chaffin as that company vied to buy the property. Sanford said he had no role in the bid and the developer didn’t ask for help. Sanford said he liked the developer’s ideas; plus, he wanted to know as much as possible because he was busy making promises to Port Royal residents over what the project would look like.
But bids from Chaffin/Light and a second group fell short of what the Ports Authority wanted, and the property again was put on the market, this time for $27 million, agency spokesman Byron Miller said.
It found a buyer, for $1 million less, in a collaboration of Global Asset Alternatives Llc of Atlanta and developer David Staley’s Main Street Realty of Hilton Head Island.
The sale required the Ports Authority to get the nod from the state’s budget oversight panel, which Sanford heads. But before the State Budget and Control Board met, Sanford said he made a round of calls to his real estate friends to find out about the developers, and then he made some more calls.
Sanford telephoned Bill Stern, the Ports Authority’s chairman, and told the AP he repeated negative things he had been told about Staley’s personal reputation and professional record. He disagreed with the characterization of those comments as attacks.
He also said he told Stern that Staley didn’t keep promises and had had problems with the development of a golf course community that offered fairway views for people who bought lots, but those views were later obscured by apartments.
Tom Gardo, a spokesman for Staley, said that was the original golf course plan, but there was never a guarantee and the land ultimately was rezoned — something homeowners overwhelmingly approved. “There were, in fact, never guarantees on anything,” he said.
Stern said he wasn’t concerned about Sanford calling. “Ultimately, we went with the contract. We moved on,” he said.
Sanford also had phoned Neil Robinson, the Ports Authority’s lawyer, knowing he was drawing up the deal documents.
When the deal came before the budget board, the governor continued to voice objections but recused himself from the vote.
“You know I want to be very clear on the record on some reservations I have on this developer based on my limited due diligence,” Sanford told the board, according to a recording of the meeting. “It may prove that those reservations are completely inaccurate and wrong. That’s certainly my hope.”
Sanford had a lot more confidence in Chaffin/Light, the company whose founder he spoke with both before and after its bid was rejected.
Chaffin/Light got its start at Sea Pines Plantation and Hilton Head Island and has projects at SpringIsland and CallawassieIsland, as well as in Colorado, Florida, Washington and North Carolina.
“I’ve talked to them because they’re incredibly reputable guys in doing development in that part of the world,” Sanford said.
Critics such as Senate Minority Leader John Land, a Manning Democrat and lawyer, said the governor could be open to a lawsuit from a developer contending he interfered in the deal.
“I would say he grossly overstepped his bounds,” Land said.
Campbell, the ousted Ports Authority board member who is the son of a popular former governor, contends his concerns over Sanford’s involvement became a factor in Sanford removing him from the board. When that happened, the governor’s office cited opposing views on privatizing ports and the appearance of a conflict of interest because Campbell runs a political and government consulting firm.
“The governor’s conduct in this situation is troubling to me,” Campbell said in an interview for this report.
Sanford said any criticism of his involvement in the Port Royal deal is politically motivated and pushed by Campbell.
The Caucus Blog has attended his small share of Widespread Panic shows.The Blog enjoys their music, but is not going to call himself a true fan. He fears the potential wrath of faux-hippies, selling veggie burritos in the show’s parking lot, calling him a ‘poser’.
Cigarette tax plan increase approved by Senate panel
By JIM DAVENPORT Associated Press Writer
A 50-cent-a-pack cigarette tax increase would be used to expand state Medicaid programs and help about 177,000 people who don't now have medical insurance under a plan approved by a Senate panel Tuesday.
South Carolina's current 7-cent tax is the lowest in the nation and hasn't been changed since 1977. Raising it to 57 cents would generate $158.9 million.
Under Sen. John Land's proposal, nearly all the money would be used for Medicaid programs and when combined with federal funds will mean an additional $500 million for the state-federal health insurance program for the poor, disabled and elderly.
"We just gave it all to Medicaid," the Manning Democrat said. "It's hard to argue against that."
The extra money should bring more than 70,000 children and 65,000 adults into the program, Land said.
The committee dumped a plan to use the cigarette tax increase to cover tax credits intended to make health insurance more affordable for individuals and businesses.
The plan provided only about $467 per individual, not nearly enough to cover health insurance, which typically costs more than $4,000 for an individual.
"By the time the insurance companies got their profit and salesmen got their commissions, there wasn't anything left. You can't buy a policy of insurance for $467," Land said.
As the Senate Finance Committee met, the Americans for Tax Reform sent out an alert telling senators on the committee they needed to back away from the proposal because it would violate pledges made by some lawmakers to not raise taxes.
"A tax increase can never be offset with spending, only with true tax cuts of equal or greater size put forth in the same bill," Grover Norquiswt, the group's president, said in an e-mail. "Beyond this, the idea of supporting expanded health care programs with a tobacco tax hike is in itself a fallacy" because tobacco use is declining.
While the Medicaid expansion proposal passed with a 14-8 vote, it faces challenges on the Senate floor as early as this week. And even if it clears the Senate, the bill will go back to the House, which already has rejected efforts this year to further expand Medicaid programs. In its version, the cigarette tax increase is used to eliminate grocery sales taxes.
Sen. John Courson, R-Columbia, said he will be back on the Senate floor with a proposal to use the money collected by raising the cigarette tax as a break for all taxpayers.
Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, like Courson, is a tax pledge signer. Before the meeting, he doubted Land's Medicaid program could get through the Senate because it's a tax increase.
He said he wants to see that increase offset with some type of tax credit or break. "For me personally it's important and I think it's very important to garner votes to pass the Senate," the Gaffney Republican said.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Hugh Leatherman voted for both flavors of the bill.
"I want to see the cigarette tax go on so we can cut down on smoking particularly among the teenage youngsters out there," said the Florence Republican, who added he wants the extra tax money used for some type of health care program.
But Leatherman isn't sure there are enough votes to avoid a filibuster. "It'll have tough sledding, I tell you that right now," he said.
South Carolina is at a crossroads: One path leads to continued neglect of our public schools, the other leads to a greater commitment to our children’s education and a prosperous future for all South Carolinians. My fellow Democratic state senators and I have chosen the path to success.
For too long our state’s leaders have been operating under a standard that has short-changed our students and limited their educational potential. That standard is providing only a “minimally adequate” educational system for our children.
Article 6, Section 3 of the state constitution says: “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public schools open to all children in the State and shall establish, organize and support such other public institutions of learning, as may be desirable.”
In 1996 the South Carolina Supreme Court answered the question of what does it mean “to provide maintenance and support” for the state’s schools. It said the state must provide the opportunity for each child to receive a minimally adequate education.
This standard, under which South Carolina operates its public education system, has led only to disappointment. Test scores have not significantly improved, dropout rates continue at staggering levels, and student and teacher morale is questionable. The minimally adequate standard was at the heart of the “Corridor of Sham”e court case involving a number of South Carolina’s rural school districts — a case that highlighted South Carolina’s shameful neglect of its schools.
I have joined with Sen. John Matthews of Orangeburg and my fellow Senate Democrats to introduce a measure calling for an end to the shameful “minimally adequate” standard. The bill would change the state constitution to say that the state “will provide a high-quality education, allowing each student to reach his highest potential.”
A new, higher standard will force the state’s leaders to strengthen their commitment to South Carolina’s students and to their schools. In abiding by a higher standard, we will be obligated to fund our schools to a level that is appropriate for the 21st century. We will support our teachers, who are preparing students for a changing world. And we will stand with parents who want only the best for their children.
This new commitment also means our state leaders must defend our schools from any attempt to drain needed resources away from the classrooms. Whether it is in the form of private school vouchers or complex tax-giveaway schemes to the wealthy, we need to stand guard against any measure that will undercut our children’s schools.
We cannot continue to sell our students and teachers short. We must work to make our schools the best they can be. We must work to ensure that every child in South Carolina reaches his or her highest educational potential.
I’m inviting all of my fellow senators and representatives to join this coalition for a greater commitment to our schools. Our state’s students, teachers and parents are already committed. Now is the time for the General Assembly to lead.
Sen. Jackson represents parts of RichlandCounty in the S.C. Senate. He can be reached at DJ1@scsenate.org.
OUR VIEW: Lawmakers should push Sanford for compromise on ATV legislation
Orangeburg Sen. Brad Hutto minced no words in assessing the situtaion:
"This is absolutely incredible. Republican senators value urinating in a cup more than protecting the lives of children here in South Carolina," Hutto said Tuesday.
He was referencing refusal by the Republican-led Senate to set Chandler's Law for special order, a move that would have put the ATV safety bill on the legislative fast track. Instead a measure calling for candidates for public office to pass a drug test took priority.
Immediately after killing the effort to pass Chandler's law, Republican Sen. Larry Martin moved to place legislation requiring candidates for public office to pass a drug test for special order.
Similar candidate drug-testing measures have been declared unconstitutional. A Georgia drug-testing law was shot down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1997, Hutto noted.
"This drug-testing bill is nothing but opportunistic legislation designed to distract the voters' attention away from the fact that Republicans are doing nothing in Columbia."
Beyond the partisan assessment, the legislation known as Chandler's Law faces a difficult rode even if the Senate gives its approval. It was passed a year ago by the Legislature only to be vetoed by Gov. Mark Sanford, who has rejected similar legislation three times with lawmakers sustaining his veto.
Chandler's Law would require children ages 6 to 15 to take a safety course and wear a helmet and goggles while operating an all-terrain vehicle on public and private lands. Children 6 and under could not operate an ATV.
Sanford has argued that the law imposes a hidden tax on ATV owners by requiring them to have their children take the safety course. And he and opponents of the legislation reject the aspect of regulating ATV use on private land.
Government has a role to play in protecting children at home and this legislation is consistent with that mission. It is not unlike requiring the use of car seats and seat belts. For the legislation to have any meaning, it must address use of the vehicles on private property, where most ATV accidents involving children occur.
While Republicans may be ready to give up the effort to pass Chandler's Law this time around, they instead should be lobbying the governor for a compromise.
Organized almost 25 years ago, the Senate Democratic Caucus has played an important role in many of the historic issues facing our state. As a vibrant minority party in the Senate, our role is to represent our constituents and present viable alternatives on critical issues. The S.C. Senate remains a unique place for this to occur in our policy process.
