S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley and her “Republican” allies on the S.C. Budget and Control Board (B&CB) approved a nine-figure taxpayer-funded bailout for one of her cabinet agencies on Tuesday – although it remains to be see whether this controversial decision will stand.
It also remains to see how Haley’s Tea Party base will respond to its so-called heroine signing off on deficit spending.
Led by Haley, the B&CB voted on Tuesday to permit the S.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to run a $100 million deficit during the current fiscal year. The board also pledged another $125 million to the agency in the event it is unable to get its house in order by the end of June, which is when the current fiscal year ends.
“I am not comfortable with deficits,” Haley said. “I will never be comfortable with deficits.”
Well … except for these deficits, apparently.
Meanwhile, Haley and the B&CB failed to take action on an estimated $4.8 million deficit at the chronically-underfunded S.C. Department of Corrections – which had previously been reporting a $7.5 million shortfall.
Earlier this week, Haley announced that a $28.8 million deficit at yet another cabinet agency – the Department of Social Services (DSS) – had been resolved by reducing monthly welfare checks from $270 to $216 and “recalculating” the red ink. No word yet on whether those “recalculations” included lower salaries for top bureaucrats, but given Haley’s pay grades we doubt it.
This B&CB meeting was hugely controversial even before these five “Republicans” began doling out tax dollars for deficit spending. Specifically, several S.C. lawmakers are questioning whether the B&CB has the statutory authority to give a state agency permission to spend money it doesn’t have.
“It’s not readily understood how the (board) can legally meet and make agency-related financial decisions while the General Assembly is in session; they were supposed to (be) off-session decision makers,” one state lawmaker told FITS over the weekend. “Secondarily, where in the statute does the (board) have the authority to provide cover for the unconstitutional act of an agency operating in a deficit?”
Those are good questions, and there seems to be precedent favoring this interpretation. Last month, in fact, the S.C. Supreme Court struck down a veto from former S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford because it overstepped his executive authority regarding agency budgets.
For those of you unfamiliar with how state government in South Carolina “works,” the B&CB is a quasi-executive, quasi-legislative entity that was set up to prevent S.C. governors from exercising true executive authority over their own branch of government. Along with the swarm of statewide offices we elect, it’s one of the main reasons that S.C. governors exercise considerably less power than governors in other states. It’s also one of the reasons why there’s no real accountability in state government – which has led to all sorts of disastrous consequences for taxpayers.
We oppose the B&CB’s very existence, and have repeatedly recommended that it be disbanded and all of its functions placed within the governor’s cabinet (which would benefit Haley and future governors). Unfortunately, legislative leaders are moving in the opposite direction and hoping to claim some of the board’s most essential functions for themselves – which would obviously be a step backward for accountability.
To be fair, these deficits were not created by Haley – although two of her colleagues on the B&CB share responsibility for them. Specifically, Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman and House Ways and Means Chairman Danny Cooper – two of the most fiscally liberal lawmakers in state history – played central roles in creating this crisis by repeatedly meddling in executive affairs.
Under former Gov. Mark Sanford, DHHS attempted to make cuts to its budget in 2008 – but legislative budget writers blocked those efforts. Lawmakers have also refused to let DHHS cut provider rates – making South Carolina the only state in the nation operating under this restriction. On top of that, lawmakers have stripped at least $500 million from the DHHS budget over the last three years – spreading that money around to other state agencies.
Of course Haley is clearing on the same page with these RINOs.
In fact, adding yet another layer of controversy to this meeting, Haley discussed the health care budget behind closed doors a week ago with Leatherman and Cooper – a meeting that the executive director of the South Carolina Press Association says violated state law.
“You can’t talk about the budget without talking about Medicaid and the deficit,” Rogers told the Associated Press earlier this week. “That is a quorum of the Budget and Control Board and they’re discussing budgetary matters that conceivably could come before the Budget and Control Board. That’s by definition a meeting of a public body and it has to be open to the public.”
Haley has also been pilloried by editorial boards over this latest example of her “transparent” hypocrisy.
On a positive note, Tuesday’s meeting of the B&CB was the first such gathering to be held in the board’s new location – a larger venue that provides for expanded public access to its proceedings.
So … what do you think? Should Haley and the B&CB have granted a taxpayer-funded bailout to a state agency running a deficit? Vote in our poll and share your thoughts in our comments section below …
Loading ...***
By Fitsnews_Fan February 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Unbelievable….
By ceilidh10 February 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm
She was against bailouts before she was for them? I thought she was a conservative!
By James the Foot Soldier February 8, 2011 at 1:21 pm
How about if one of the “several” SC lawmakers step up to the plate and file a lawsuit seeking an immeidate injunction to halt the deficit spending and/or the usurpation of legislative power by the B&CB?
They would be the logical plaintiffs in such action as it is their power being stripped…
OR…
Will it be revealed they are just a bunch of pussies whispering under the cloak of anonymity because they are asceered of Messrs. (and madamme) Leatherman, Harrell, and McConnell?
By Sambo February 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm
the B&CB is a quasi-executive, quasi-legislative entity that was set up to prevent S.C. governors from exercising true executive authority over their own branch of government.
Right.
To prevent NEE-groids from ever getting “uppity” if elected governor.
To maintain our plantation ways.
“Fetch me a Doctor Pepper, Sambo.”
By Workhorse Taxpayer February 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Not ONE of the so-called Rock Star “Reformers” on the B&CB showed conservative fiscal restraint today. Business as usual in Columbia, just sayin.
By rose wilkins February 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Talk about coincidence. http://www.fitsnews.com/2010/10/20/another-haley-relative-on-the-taxpayer-dole
By dwb619 February 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm
How’s that TEA Party thang workin’ for ya?
By Aaron February 8, 2011 at 4:17 pm
“Walk like an Egyptian” BABY!!!
We need to overthrow ‘em… Secede – I know Willy don’t like it, but what choice do ya have?
If Niki-bopper won’t listen to the citizens, let our folks do the talking…
Toss her out.
By Groundball February 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm
…somebody has some ‘splaining to do!
By sc411 February 8, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As for thr legality, see SC Code of Laws, Section 1-11-495. In part it reads “If the board makes a finding that the cause of, or likelihood of, a deficit is unavoidable due to factors which are outside the control of the agency, department, or institution, then the board may determine that the recognition of the agency, department, or institution is appropriate and shall notify the General Assembly of this action or the presiding officer of the House and Senate if the General Assembly is not in session. The board only may recognize a deficit by a vote of at least four members of the board.
(C) Upon receipt of the notification from the board, the General Assembly may authorize supplemental appropriations from any surplus revenues that existed at the close of the previous fiscal year. If the General Assembly fails to take action, then the finding of the board shall stand, and the actual deficit at the close of the fiscal year must be reduced as necessary from surplus revenues or surplus funds available at the close of the fiscal year in which the deficit occurs and from funds available in the Capital Reserve Fund and General Reserve Fund, as required by the Constitution of this State. ”
Sounds like what they did….
By William Harton February 8, 2011 at 6:34 pm
What was all the texting about that the Governor was doing?
By James February 8, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“It’s not readily understood how the (board) can legally meet and make agency-related financial decisions while the General Assembly is in session; they were supposed to (be) off-session decision makers,” one state lawmaker told FITS over the weekend. “Secondarily, where in the statute does the (board) have the authority to provide cover for the unconstitutional act of an agency operating in a deficit?”
So, why don’t you tell us which state lawmaker cannot read the SC Code or the SC Constitution.
By George Bell Timmerman February 8, 2011 at 9:46 pm
James, right you are. The sad part is attempting to ID the state lawmaker would be challenging as a substantial majority of them have no clue about this process or many others. Whether one likes it or not– it is the process the General Assembly authorized the BCB to follow more than twenty years ago.
At the end of the budget year any surpluses will be applied toward this action.
By James the Foot Soldier February 9, 2011 at 8:23 am
sc411, thank you for citing the SC Code.
Did the DHHS follow that section’s requirement to:
“It is the responsibility of the agency, department, or institution to develop a plan, in consultation with the board, which eliminates or reduces a deficit.”
or
Did they just see the “surplus” and raid it before other agencies could get their grubby little paws on it?
By Recovering Lobbyist February 9, 2011 at 10:38 am
A. They don’t have a choice. The alternative is to shut down medicaid. I don’t like it either, but shutting down medicaid is not a solution.
B. This is why we need to restructure state government. You can’t hold accountable two legislators who are elected by 30,000 (Dan Cooper) and 90,000 (Hugh Leatherman) people.
C. This is what Mark Sanford was saying when he said not to take stimulus dollars. The strings attached to the stimulus money is the added expense to the unemployment insurance program and the medicaid program. The decision by the legislature to accept those strings is coming home to roost, and medicaid alone is under funded by more than the total amount of stimulus money our state received.
Say it together everyone: Mark Sanford was right.
By sc411 February 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm
The Medicaid budget shortfall has been discussed for several months. While I can’t find the post on FITS now, I recall a letter from Sen. McConnell to HHS Director Forkner expressing his displeasure. Regardless, as Will points out, it’s the General Assembly that chose to use over $500 million in HHS reserves to fund other agencies and continues to siphon the enhanced federal funds coming to Medicaid to prop up the general fund. Of course, provisos rescricting the ability to make rate and other cuts in order stay within the budget only added to the problem.
Pingback: Tea Party Leaders Fear Haley Capitulation
Pingback: A “Snip” Of Savings? | South Carolina News Press | South Carolina Breaking News Headlines | SC