A “Fair” Price?

A not-so-funny thing about S.C. state government is that they spend not only the money we send them, but anything that comes in on top of that.

For example, the first $500,000 in “excess revenue” for the coming fiscal year has already been allocated – to a University Center in Greenville, S.C. that provides four-year degrees on behalf of seven different higher ed institutions.

The money was directed to the Center during the budget debate last week on the motion of hometown Senator Mike Fair (R-Greenville), with no debate, discussion … or vote.

A motion was made later in the debate to bring the matter up for reconsideration, but that effort failed.

From the public record:

Senator FAIR proposed the following Amendment No. 76 (DG UCG), which was adopted (#24):

Amend the bill, as and if amended, Part IB, Section 90, STATEWIDE REVENUE, page 546, paragraph 90.21, by striking line 7 and inserting:

/ 90.20 of this act. The next $500,000 of excess revenue shall be transferred to the Commission on Higher Education – University Center of Greenville. /

Renumber sections to conform.

Amend sections, totals and title to conform.

Senator FAIR explained the amendment.

The amendment was adopted.

Simple as that, right?

Not quite.

FITS has spoken with numerous sources in the State Senate who contend that Fair was offered – and accepted – this $500,000 budget item for his hometown in exchange for his vote on a series of key budget proposals for the duration of the legislative session.

So who allegedly made this “corrupt bargain?”

Not surprisingly, our sources point the finger at the only person with the power to make such an offer – Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman.

The Florence RINO has evidently realized that reformers in the Senate are three votes away from making S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford “veto-proof,” or capable of weilding unprecedented influence over the state spending plan through his veto pen.

If true, this wouldn’t be a huge shock. Deals like the one alleged by these Senators go on every day at the State House, and using budget money to influence the votes of his colleagues is something Leatherman has been accused of repeatedly in the past.

Now the only question is, did it work?

Apparently, yes.

Fair – ordinarily a reliable fiscal conservative – has been voting in lockstep with the “Leatherman bloc” of liberal Republicans throughout the budget debate.

In fact, we noted our surprise at this development in a column last week, singling out Fair along with Senators Harvey Peeler, Paul Campbell, Wes Hayes and David Thomas as Republicans who – based on their rhetoric – should be voting in the taxpayers’ best interests, not the best interests of Leatherman’s big government brigade.

Do we now have an explanation for Fair’s recent subservience to the status quo?

“His price is $500,000,” one Senator told us. “That’s what (Leatherman) paid for him.”

One of the holiest of the State House’s “holy rollers,” we certainly hope that Fair did not demean himself by taking these particular “thirty pieces of silver.”

If he did, that would easily be one of the most disappointing things we’ve ever heard.

If he didn’t, though, then he can easily prove his colleagues wrong by simply voting in accordance with the wishes of his constituents.

After all, Fair represents one of the most fiscally conservative Senate districts in the entire state – where Gov. Mark Sanford received 70% of the vote the last time his name was on the ballot.

Comments