|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
South Carolina gas prices kept surging this week even as ruling “Republicans” – who are in the process of foisting massive spending increases on taxpayers – continued blocking temporary relief at the pump for millions of Palmetto State motorists.
Despite multiple attempts by leaders of the S.C. Freedom Caucus to secure a vote on a temporary suspension of the state’s gas tax, powerful speaker of the House Murrell Smith and his top budget writer, Bruce Bannister, have refused to even allow the issue to be debated.
Democrats and Republicans – including several leading candidates for governor – have proposed suspending South Carolina’s 28-cent per gallon levy until current price spikes retreat. This suspension was first championed two months ago by Democrat state senator Russell Ott and Democrat state representative Justin Bamberg.
In late March, state attorney general Alan Wilson – the frontrunner for the GOP gubernatorial nomination – became the first Republican candidate for governor to endorse the suspension.
***
Had these proposals been approved on April 1, 2026, motorists in South Carolina would have saved an estimated $120 million by now – an amount which could have easily been absorbed by the Palmetto State’s reserve funds (or by simply curbing spending in the 2026-2027 state budget).
Also, don’t discount the stimulative effect of putting that much money back into our struggling economy…
Instead, lawmakers have clenched their vice grip over this regressive levy, which the GOP-controlled legislature raised by 71% from 2017 to 2022 as part of a failed campaign to address glaring infrastructure deficiencies.
As of this publication, the average cost of a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline in South Carolina stood at $4.085 – up a staggering $1.31 per gallon (or 46.9%) from the same time last year. Nearly all of that spike has occurred in the last two-and-a-half months – following U.S. president Donald Trump‘s decision to launch an undeclared war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
***
RELATED | TRUMP PUSHES S.C. REPUBLICANS ON REDISTRICTING
***
With elections approaching, South Carolina Democrats are making sure Trump is saddled with the blame for the price hikes.
“Americans were already struggling with high costs, but Trump pushed ahead with this senseless war anyway,” sixth district congressman Jim Clyburn said.
Despite their reputation as tax-and-spenders, Democrats in South Carolina have historically called for gas taxes to be lowered – or eliminated – because they (correctly) believe the tax is regressive. Republicans, who purport to belong to the party of “limited government,” continue to move the needle in the opposite direction, however.
As FITSNews has frequently pointed out, Palmetto State gas prices tend to be among the nation’s lowest – although South Carolinians have historically spent higher percentages of what they earn on fuel due to their chronically low income levels. Currently, South Carolina’s gas prices are 12th lowest nationally.
Keep it tuned to our media outlet as we continue tracking these prices… and the responses (or lack thereof) from our leaders.
BANNER VIA: GETTY IMAGES
***
ABOUT THE AUTHOR…
Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.
***
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.
7 comments
SC Republicans blocking relief? Man, I can’t believe they got us into Iran in the first place, let alone continually threatening genocide and breaking cease fires with their Israeli buddies…
“until current price spikes retreat”
Every oil anaylyst says that would not happen any time soon, even if the Strait of Whore Moose were to immediately open. Once again the problem originates with Dear Leader.
Wait until Will finds out Senate Republicans want to spend $1 BILLION of taxpayer money for “security” for Trump’s very gay ballroom. But what’s the big deal with this $1 billion/day war to obliterate Iran’s mythical nukes that were obliterated last June and will need to be obliterated on an annual basis. Forever wars, anyone? Meantime we’re all cool with crazy N Korea having nukes, amirite?
Listen I hate taxes just as much as the next man but eliminating or halving the gasoline tax for a couple months is just a short-run gimmick, akin to the annual sales tax holiday. Let’s say an average family has 3 vehicles, each using about 18 gallons a week (roughly a fill up for most cars if you aren’t running down to the last gallon). That’s 216 gallons a month. If you cut the gas tax in half you save about 31 bucks. If you fully eliminate it for a month, its 62 bucks. That’s only going to matter for the very poorest drivers in our state (who also likely pay no income taxes at all.) For the average middle class family of 4-5 people, its chump change – it doesn’t move the needle on real economic relief. It might cover a modest dinner at Chic-fi-lay. Our gas tax is a flat per gallon rate, not a percentage of the price. It is the 30th lowest in the country – so just inside the lower half of the states, cluster with about 7 other states that are within 2 cents above or below us. The real relief we need is in income and property taxes; big, substantial cuts that could amount to at least a couple thousand dollars per year.
Congaree Catfish Top Fan, whom I really hope to befriend after disabusing myself of confusing you with “BalaBoosta” and others who insult me just because they can, I ask sincerely: is part of “conservatism” the rejection of ALL wind and solar projects, even the well-designed, well-managed among them?
And is part of that rejection, if it be part of conservatism, based solely or mainly on China’s leadership and success in those fields, not only for itself but also for “poorer” contries?
SubZero, I personally would not make a blanket statement to reject all wind and solar projects, particularly when it comes to such facilities that directly turn generators on-site for large buildings, and thus allow large facilities to reduce their draw on the commercial/public generating capacity. That being said, the devil is in the details and the factual scenario in every case matters. Sites that require new, long transmission infrastructure to connect the power plat to the grid should be avoided. Solar sites that are prone to damaging hail (which can make an entire solar farm essentially destroyed) should be avoided. Solar sites that require hundreds of acres of forestland to be cut down should be avoided. Also, early generation wind turbine assemblies don’t have a good track record for longevity/durability. Query in return: do you recognize that nuclear power plants are far more resistant to the natural elements, don’t require as much deforested land, have far greater energy production density, and release almost zero carbon emissions?
To answer your question first, I believe in de-centralized power production and household water collection and purification. Water for agricultural scale and hydropower generation is, as I was educated where it started, the basis of civilization, or at least the movement of societies from nomadic hunters-gatherers to stable food-self-sufficient organized nations.
The details, where you state the devil is, are a matter of good engineering versus stupid engineering; and there is a lot of the latter in every field, including hospital designs for example.
What puzzles me is the apparent MAGA hostility to wind and solar. I don’t see why that should be a political issue at all.
Are you interested in further exchange of views?
Why does the photo for this story appear to depict a man holding the nozzle to some window of his car, not its gas tank?