Editorials from across South Carolina: gun fixation, Wilson-Pascoe dispute, road reforms
Misplaced priorities
The General Assembly has managed to avoid reforming ethics rules so that the public can know whether elected officials act in the state’s best interest instead of their own financial interest.
It has come up short over and over in securing road funding that the S.C. Department of Transportation could count on from year to year.
And it has failed to restructure the DOT to ensure that the vital infrastructure, when fixed, doesn’t end up returning to the sorry state that it is in now.
But somehow our state lawmakers have time to consider a bill that would allow someone in bankruptcy to protect up to $5,000 worth of firearms from debt collectors.
It is stunning that the S.C. House of Representatives on Tuesday passed the bill, introduced by Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach.
Mr. Clemmons said he learned that other states have similar laws. He didn’t provide any evidence that the issue has arisen in South Carolina or that the bill’s passing would benefit the state in some way.
No one offered a bill suggesting that someone in bankruptcy could shield $5,000 worth of canned foods that might sustain a family or a car that might enable the bankrupt individual to work and rectify his financial situation.
Wilson-Pascoe dispute
At the very least, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Special Prosecutor David Pascoe have done state residents a disservice by injecting politics into a role that is supposed to transcend it. At worst, Wilson has sullied the entire concept of the special prosecutor by his attempts to fire Pascoe who he himself appointed.
Wilson and Pascoe are in the midst of a legal battle over whether a special prosecutor can take a case to the state grand jury without involvement of the attorney general who appointed him, and whether the attorney general has the right to fire a special prosecutor.
They are questions that ultimately will be answered by the Supreme Court, but ones that undergird the credibility of both offices and could have longstanding consequences in the state. They also will have a profound effect on an ongoing Statehouse corruption inquiry that began with the investigation of former House Speaker Bobby Harrell. That probe needs to be completed to give state residents peace of mind that lawmakers are acting in residents’ best interests and not their own.
Finally, and not inconsequentially, the fight is yet another ugly chapter in the long-running and sordid saga that is South Carolina politics. …
(T)his much is clear: citizens need to have faith that when a special prosecutor is appointed he is qualified, trustworthy and will be able to follow an investigation wherever it leads.
Even giving Wilson all benefit of the doubt in this case – which both sides deserve – the attorney general and this entire dispute have undermined the office of the special prosecutor in general, and this corruption investigation in particular.
DOT reform
(T)here are legitimate questions about how road funding has been handled in the past. Better oversight is sorely needed. One only has to look east to better understand why.
Coastal counties already receiving billions of dollars through the SIB and other sources have sought billions more for such big-ticket projects as I-526 in Charleston County or I-73 in Horry County. That hardly seems equitable.
Last week, a House conference committee consisting of prominent lawmakers formed in an effort to hash out differences in the bill. Our only hope is that they reach a solution soon.
South Carolina voters are too smart to fall for legislative finger pointing. And with more than 100 state lawmakers facing election challenges this year, they’d be wise to settle this legislative food fight soon.
This story was originally published April 25, 2016 at 1:41 PM with the headline "Editorials from across South Carolina: gun fixation, Wilson-Pascoe dispute, road reforms."