Guest Column: Holding South Carolina’s ‘Freedom Caucus’ To Account

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by TOM DAVIS

Enough is enough. With the piece published recently on this site, the disinformation regarding S.915 – a bill that would bring coherence to the fractured way our state delivers public-health services to its most vulnerable populations – has reached an intolerably absurd level. All of this comes from the 17 legislators in the South Carolina House of Representatives who call themselves the Freedom Caucus – and it is past time they were held to account. 

In a press release issued after S. 915 was blocked by one of its members on the last day of the legislative session, the caucus claimed “the bill was unwieldy, at over 200 pages long, and includes no projection of cost to the taxpayers,” and suggested that it “be divided into multiple smaller bills to ensure legislators can see an accurate fiscal projection for each agency transition.”

Yes, S. 915 consists of over 200 pages, but all but six of those pages – aside from the medical freedom amendments sponsored by my colleague Senator Shane Martin; more on that later – are ministerial changes to the South Carolina Code necessitated by renaming the existing public-health agencies and realigning and/or consolidating the services they provide. Those agencies’ names appear in numerous sections throughout the code, and it takes many pages to make those language changes. But the substance of the restructuring being proposed in S. 915 is set forth in only six pages. 

***

The Freedom Caucus’ suggestion that S. 915 be divided into multiple smaller bills fails to understand the nature of the problem and – perhaps more troubling – evidences a profound ignorance about how to legislate. The state currently has multiple public-health agencies that provide overlapping and duplicative services to South Carolinians with mental disorders, substance-abuse addictions, physical disabilities, age-related impairments such as dementia, etc., in a way that results in horrible outcomes (43rd worst in the nation) at a very high cost. 

It is the most fragmented public-health structure in the nation, the only one where agencies act independent of one another without oversight by cabinet directors accountable to the governor, and this structural problem cannot be addressed with a series of bills. S. 915 deals with how public-health services are delivered in South Carolina, and a piecemeal delivery system cannot be fixed with piecemeal legislation. That makes no sense. 

The caucus’ complaint that S. 915 has “no projection of cost to the taxpayer” is equally specious. While the South Carolina Revenue and Fiscal Affairs (SCRFA) office does in many instances provide fiscal impact statements on legislation, it cannot monetize savings associated with increased gubernatorial accountability over executive branch functions with any degree of certainty, in part because such depends upon the skill of the chief executive. (For instance, the savings associated with the restructuring effected under Governor Carroll Campbell’s leadership in 1993 were not monetized in advance).   

***

“Fewer agencies, more coordination…”

***

But the inability to precisely monetize the savings in advance – and the realization of those savings being dependent on the skill of the governor – is not an argument for blocking S. 915. The best the legislature can do – and what it has an obligation to do – is to put a services-delivery structure in place that enables a governor to achieve efficiencies and cost savings and allows the people of South Carolina to hold the governor to account if they are not.  

Let’s look at the current state of play. The state has independent agencies answerable only to unelected commissions, each competing for legislative appropriations. Does the caucus truly think this is preferable to agencies directly accountable to the governor via a cabinet director, and which are compelled by the cabinet director to eliminate any appropriation requests that are redundant? 

Moreover, the caucus’ claim that such accountability “creates a bureaucracy over the bureaucracy” completely misses the mark. If S. 915 were enacted the number of agencies would decrease. Fewer agencies, more coordination – how is that not preferable to more agencies, less coordination?  

This caucus’ complaint descends into pure paranoidal fantasy: “Instead of listening to the people of South Carolina, the bill was developed by a partner group of the World Economic Forum. This group seeks to push ‘inclusive capitalism’ and the UN Sustainability Goals. We need to go back to the drawing board, hold public hearings across the state, and come up with a bill that truly streamlines state agencies, not pads the pockets of big political donors and globalists.”

***

“The implication that we did so to ‘pad our pockets’ is insulting…”

***

What does making sure our state’s public-health agencies deliver services to our most-vulnerable populations in an effective and cost-efficient way have to do with “inclusive capitalism” or UN Sustainability Goals? How does that pad the pocket of “globalists?” This is nothing more than an attempt to transplant Matt Gaetz’s and Marjorie Taylor Greene’s congressional nonsense into South Carolina.    

And as to the caucus’ claim that “we need to go back to the drawing board, hold public hearings across the state, and come up with a bill that truly streamlines state agencies,” consider this: The due diligence behind S. 915 involved six town halls and two surveys covering more than 630 constituents across all counties. I know because I participated in that process, as did DHHS director Robbie Kerr and DOA director Marcia Adams.

The implicit accusation that we did so to “pad our pockets” is insulting.

---

[Another note about process: Over the past two years, I chaired five Senate Medical Affairs subcommittee meetings in connection with this proposed restructuring, with three of those meetings lasting over four hours, and testimony was received from all agencies affected by S. 915. Director Adams and Director Kerr and members of their respective staff spent countless hours meeting with leaders of and employees in these agencies to receive their input. Tellingly, to best of my knowledge, at no time did any member of the Freedom Caucus bother to attend.] 

---

The caucus also claims that S. 915 “would put in the hands of one person – either the Governor or an unelected bureaucrat – the authority to compel Sheriffs to enforce mandates and quarantines.” What the caucus refers to here, however, is an existing law that’s been in the code for decades. (See, Section 44-1-100.)  The bill blocked by the caucus would have removed this mandate. 

Finally, as to the caucus’ favorite epithet: “Health Czar.” This is perhaps the biggest lie of all, deployed with the cynical intent of leveraging the public’s understandable frustration with and distrust of the federal government’s responses during the Covid-19 pandemic. But the effect of S. 915, in part thanks to the amendments proposed by Senator Martin, would be the exact opposite of what the caucus claims to fear. Here’s why: 

***

***

Powers held by an unelected bureaucrat would be devolved to the governor. The mandatory obligation of sheriffs to enforce healthcare mandates would be made discretionary. The powers by the state to impose quarantines would be limited to “persons exposed” to the infectious disease. And health department obligations to monitor the safety and efficacy of vaccines and to ensure an individual “has had time to thoughtfully and voluntarily accept or decline the vaccine or treatment free from coercion” would be created. 

Thanks to the so-called “Freedom “Caucus and its mindless obstructionism, however, none of those medical-freedom provisions will be included in the South Carolina Code. None of the existing powers of a healthcare bureaucrat to comply a sheriff to assist with enforcing mandates and quarantine would be curtailed. And none of the increased accountability for agencies to deliver public-health services in an efficient and cost-effective way would be created. The members of the FC knew all this because I explained it to them in person on the floor of the House on the last day of the legislative session, but they decided to block S. 915 anyway. 

These “freedom fighters” deserve nothing but our contempt for elevating their perceived political interests – and I say “perceived” because I believe their lies will ultimately catch up with them and get them booted out of office – over the interests of South Carolinians. 

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR …

Tom Davis represents Beaufort and Jasper counties in the South Carolina Senate.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.