Testicular fortitude, the Bible, planets. Quips, campaigns at SC House budget debate
The annual South Carolina budget debate is the opportunity for House members to talk about almost anything and everything they want. With the entire state House being up for reelection this year, it was an opportunity for some members to try to earn some political points.
And some House members may not have been thinking about their primary reelection battles in their district. Some may have been eyeing higher office.
Here are some notable moments from this week’s budget debate.
Audition for Evette?
A debate on whether the state should contribute $32 million toward a settlement led to two supporters of Lt. Gov. Pamela Evette’s campaign for governor to criticize the attorney general’s office, who negotiated the settlement. Attorney General Alan Wilson also is running for governor.
Budget writers included $32 million to settle a lawsuit with developers that wanted to build houses on Captain Sam’s Spit on Kiawah Island. The project was stopped and developers wanted to recoup their costs for a project they no longer could carry out. The project has been wrapped up in yearslong litigation that involves the state of South Carolina and Kiawah Island.
The settlement is expected to be voted on by State Fiscal Affairs Accountability Authority later this month.
State Rep. Gil Gatch, R-Dorchester, an Evette supporter, argued the developers didn’t have a strong case.
“Why wouldn’t he just take this to the Supreme Court and save the taxpayers’ money? Why would he do this and give a handout to developers,” Gatch said.
State Rep. James Teeple, R-Charleston, spoke more passionately about the issue, saying he was frustrated.
“In my opinion, if we’re gonna pay them, we ought to take that out of the attorney general’s budget, if they lack the testicular fortitude to go and follow the precedent of the Supreme Court on multiple occasions. How is it that all our constituents should be on the hook for $32 million because our attorney general wouldn’t go do his job,” Teeple said. “Our attorney general needs a backbone and save $32 million from our taxpayers.”
State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, said he spoke with the attorney general’s office and added there’s a 40-50% chance of the state being successful in the case. The state faced a potential liability of $200 million, Rutherford added.
Ways and Means Chairman Bruce Bannister, who is also an Evette supporter, defended the allocation. He pointed out that the lawsuit has been pending since 2009 and the federal case is ongoing. The case was settled in mediation almost a year ago, Bannister said. The settlement was discussed with members of SFAA, which includes both legislative budget chairs, the treasurer, comptroller-general and governor.
Bannister also pointed to the other possible motivation of his two Republican colleagues.
“As I appreciate all the folks trying to get on a spot on the lieutenant governor’s ticket, as much as I appreciate everybody has friends, and we want to make political points, the settlement resolves a very serious liability to the state of South Carolina,” Bannister said.
Jermaine Johnson’s amendment not germane
State Rep. Jermaine Johnson, D-Richland, who is running for governor, tried to get a discussion on expanding Medicaid in the state as allowed under the Affordable Care Act.
South Carolina is one of 10 states to not have expanded Medicaid under the law commonly referred to as Obamacare.
“This amendment will allow us to do what we claim to do in here every single day, which is take care of the people of South Carolina,” Johnson said.
Johnson’s amendment was eventually ruled out of order, but there was some levity, when state Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, argued the amendment wasn’t germane to the budget.
“Germaneness when Jermaine is at the well. How do we not?” Caskey said to House Speaker Murrell Smith.
“I do think I have to overrule your point of order because he is Jermaine at the well,” Smith responded to laughs.
The Bible, planets and sports marketing
Not all of the testy moments were campaign moments.
State Rep. Josiah Magnuson, R-Spartanburg, tried to remove almost $2 million from the Parks, Recreation and Tourism budget for sports marketing. He argued the money would not be spent on a core function of government and referenced the Bible and the solar system in an analogy to make his argument.
“We have to have a government that stays in line,” Magnuson said. “That’s what we mean by core function of government. A government that does what it was designed to do. You cannot say that sports marketing grants, in my opinion, you can’t say that is a planet (that) revolves around the sun of justice.”
Magnuson argued marketing sports should be done by the private sector.
State Rep. JA Moore, D-Charleston, questioned Magnuson’s analysis.
“We don’t understand on how the Bible and the planets relates to this $2 million you’re trying to take out of the budget,” Moore said.
State Rep. Daniel Gibson, R-Greenwood, was blunter in his assessment.
“I’m not a smart man, but I’m dumber now than I was 10 minutes ago,” Gibson said.
A fight over Tri-County Tech
State Rep. April Cromer, R-Anderson, who has been rumored to be a potential running mate for U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, sought to take away money from Clemson University and Tri-County Technical College.
She was complaining about Clemson and how its former President Jim Clements had different reactions to the deaths of George Floyd and Charlie Kirk, making a public statement about Floyd and not one about Kirk.
She later complained about how Tri-County did not take action when a man, who identified as a woman, used a women’s restroom.
The Tri-County situation led to an argument between Cromer and fellow Republican Anderson County state Rep. Don Chapman.
Chapman pointed out that he and both Cromer co-sponsored the bathroom bill.
“I know how you act and how you vote are two different things,” Cromer said to Chapman.
“I wanted to make you aware of that because you’re telling people otherwise,” Chapman responded.
Chapman pushed Cromer on whether Tri-County received a formal complaint later, saying Cromer only had hearsay.
“There is a mother … in our area with a concern,” Cromer said. “You can ask questions but you cannot determine how I answer the questions, Mr. Chapman.”
“OK give me one of your drawn-out ones then,” Chapman responded.
Both Cromer efforts to remove dollars from those schools were unsuccessful.
Cromer pushed many amendments during the budget debate, and later added she is focused on her own re-election to the state House.
“I love Congressman (Norman) and his message and his platform, and we need him as governor, and I support him, but my heart is in Anderson District 6. That’s where I plan to stay. There’s never any talk or ambition to move anywhere other than that.”
