Ray Cleary’s $10 Tax Hike

By fitsnews • on October 21, 2009

South Carolina’s “Republican” lawmakers love to brag about how they support “lower government and less taxes,” but the truth is that they have presided over not one, but two of the most massive expansions of government in state history over the last dozen years.

They’ve also imposed God only knows how many new fees onto taxpayers, which is one reason the mysterious “other funds” section of the S.C. budget has soared from $5.4 billion to $7.2 billion over the last six years.

Now, with South Carolina’s artificially-inflated (err, “stimulated”) revenues heading for a fiscal cliff – lawmakers are desperate to milk every last dime that they can from the recession-ravaged South Carolina taxpayers.

Lawmakers, for example, like S.C. Senator Ray Cleary – one of the biggest “Republicans In Name Only” in the S.C. General Assembly.

Not content with foisting some new nanny state dental program on the taxpayers, Cleary is now seeking to charge a $10 fee for every lot or housing unit that’s governed by a neighborhood Homeowners’ Association.

That money would go (ostensibly) to the S.C. Department of Consumer Affairs – an agency that ran a $748,000 debt last fiscal year.

Sadly, this is standard operating procedure in Columbia – government fails to live within its means and so some RINO lawmaker like Cleary proposes taking it out of your wallet.

Except Cleary’s fee would raise a lot more than $748,000 – it would raise millions, none of which we would be able to track because lawmakers don’t put any of this money on a budget line for taxpayers to inspect each year.

Sick of the sneakiness? Sick of government ripping you off?

Don’t worry … help is on the way.

In addition to calling out RINO’s like Cleary for being the tax-and-spend liberals that they are, FITS is going to be starting a new project this year that will expose each and every one of these backdoor fee hikes.

Stay tuned …

Comments

By PasserBy on October 21st, 2009 at 9:38 am

I’m guessing he’s either doing this hoping it won’t be noticed, or knowing that he’ll be “backed down” on the figure – say, from $10 to $1 per home. Then, it’ll be a “win” because he will have “saved” $9 per home, and there will still be enough to fund Consumer Affairs going forward.

Also, once a new fee gets in place, it *never* goes away, even if/when the economy recovers. I don’t think this one would be any different.

By Sally on October 21st, 2009 at 10:32 am

I have inside knowledge of how the Dept of Consumer Affairs works:
Take a kindergarten, fill the little minds with a sense of government entitlement, have middle management that is “away from their desk” for 50% of the day, and add to the mix a chief executive that loves publicity…and you get that department.

It is a disgrace; fortunately it is a small agency.

Don’t even get me started on the Employment Security Commission, where people (senior staff and legislators) should be doing the honorable their and falling on their swords.