Slippery Sine Die
As we’ll be discussing later today, the 2009 session of the S.C. General Assembly may have been the least productive ever – which is truly saying something.
Basically, lawmakers sat around for five months arguing with the governor over the state’s $20.7 billion budget – and in particular a pot of federal “stimulus” money that amounts to just under $350 million this year.
Beyond that?
Not much happened.
Lawmakers didn’t lower anybody’s tax burden. They didn’t cap spending. They didn’t enact government transparency. They didn’t provide parents with more choices. And they didn’t modernize South Carolina’s ass-backward form of government.
In fact, every piece of major legislation introduced this session is dead (or dying), although in some cases that’s a good thing.
For example, take Sen. Glenn McConnell’s bill establishing a legislative police force, the Kapitolpolizeitruppe, or his equally vindictive effort to wrestle control of the State Ports Authority away from future governors.
Fortunately, both bills died, as well … or did they?
McConnell, it turns out, is (ab)using a required procedural bill to breathe new life into these two “turf wars.”
How so?
Well, at the end of each legislative session, lawmakers must pass a resolution outlining the terms of their adjournment – along with a list of important items they are “allowed” to consider in the event they are called back by Speaker of the House and Senate President prior to the commencement of the following year’s session.
It’s called a Sine Die resolution, and it permits the legislature to reconvene at a later date to take up things like the governor’s budget vetoes, for example.
Or “stimulus” funds, as the case may be.
Of course this year’s Sine Die resolution departs from protocol on two key points.
Specifically, once it has dealt with vetoes, “stimulus” money and routine procedural votes (appointments, local legislation, etc.), the reconvened General Assembly would be specifically directed to take up …
(10) receipt, consideration, and actions upon S.351, relating to the State Ports Authority; and
(11) receipt, consideration, and actions upon S. 576, relating to the establishment of the Capitol Police Force.
Amazing.
Of all the bills that could have been inserted here, McConnell insists on lawmakers taking up these two vendettas?
Why didn’t McConnell use his power to push for long-overdue government restructuring (which he has “fought” for in the past)? Or use it to get a spending cap adopted (another reform he has “pushed”)?
What about tax cuts or parental choice? McConnell says he’s for both of those things, too, doesn’t he?
What about payday lending reform? Tort reform? Or – for you liberals out there – a cigarette tax hike?
What about a 24-hour ultrasound bill for pro-life advocates?
Or a voter reform bill for GOP activists?
What about your “economic development ambassador” bill, Rep. Bill Sandifer?
Or your “venture capital” bill, Mr. Speaker of the House?
Apparently, there wasn’t room in the resolution for any of those things, either.
Glenn McConnell, as always, was looking out for No. 1 …
Comments
By CNSYD on May 20th, 2009 at 9:41 am
As if when the upstate ruled the roost they didn’t push their agenda.
By A. Question on May 20th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I do not understand why these two items are so important to Sen. Glen.
What benefit will Sen. McConnell derive from having his hand in the SPA cookie jar?
By irrelevant as the Gov on May 20th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
both bodies had to approve….just because it doesn’t fit Mark’s schedule of ideas….well to bad
By CNSYD on May 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Perhaps it was that he doesn’t see having a guy from the upstate who builds kayacks in charge of the ports.
By S.C. Socialist Party on May 20th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I love to see these “republicans” wanting to become intimately involved in the central planning of our port operations.
I bet McConnell has probably been dying to call the Democratic party the socialist party – while he himself squeezes in laws under the table to have control of a business best suited for the private sector. This type of state control would make Obama proud and the hypocrisy of it all makes me ill.
By CNSYD on May 20th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Socialist, you want more private sector run business like AIG, BankAmerica, etc.?
By Socialist spotter on May 20th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
CNSYD
Yes I want more private sector companies and I want the federal government to let the dumb ones go bankrupt.
All the federal government had to do was let dumb ass AIG , Bank of America,and Morgan Stanley go bankrupt. It is very simple.Then the federal government backs up all depositors with FDIC funds. No taxpayers – little guys- get hurt .Instead Paulson and Geithner scared you and told you the world would come to an end unless taxpayers bailed out this jokers(their friends) with 800 billion dollars- and the politicians ran around crying the sky was falling and the MSM and people like you took it hook line and sinker.
Companies go bankrupt all the time-the thing you need to learn is that when the government says someone is too big to fail- its bullshxxt.
By malcom on May 20th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
No, CNSYD, of course not! We want all SC businesses run the way our schools are run! Or how about just closing all the doors on every single private business in the state, pooling their resources and investing all of it in Bobby Harrell’s hydrogen economy? Better yet, let’s just let Bobby and Hugh Leatherman have all our money, and they can decide who gets how much back and tell us exactly how they want us to spend it.
The private sector ain’t perfect, but when government leaves it alone, businesses fail or succeed on their own merit, and their private investors either keep the profits or pay the costs. That’s capitalism, and it works better than communism. That simple.