|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by WILL FOLKS
***
South Carolina legislative leaders tentatively agreed to a state government spending plan for the 2026-2027 fiscal year – which began three weeks ago – following extended negotiations at the state capitol in Columbia, S.C. on Wednesday evening (July 22, 2026).
Negotiators for the S.C. House of Representatives and State Senate – both of which are controlled by ostensibly Republican supermajorities – announced the deal after spending most of the month at loggerheads.
“We have reached an agreement on how to move forward on the state’s budget.” S.C. House ways and means chairman Bruce Bannister told the assembled crowd of lobbyists and reporters.
A detailed spreadsheet documenting the terms of the agreement are scheduled to be released to the public on Thursday (July 23, 2026). It is not immediately clear when lawmakers will vote on final proposal. That will likely depend on when S.C. House speaker Murrell Smith and Senate president Thomas Alexander decide to call them back into session.
For now, the deal was unanimously approved by Senate finance chairman Harvey Peeler, banking chairman Tom Davis and minority leader Brad Hutto for the upper chamber – and Bannister, outgoing majority leader Davey Hiott and state representative Jackie Hayes for the lower chamber.
***
The agreement approved on Wednesday evening by a panel of House and Senate negotiators is likely to clock in at more than $42 billion – although its final size is not yet known. At a minimum, lawmakers are spending at least $3 billion more than the previous year’s budget on the Palmetto State’s results-challenged government.
The plan also included a controversial $150 million corporate welfare handout for crony capitalist Scout Motors that was tucked into three separate sections of the spending plan.
“We will allocate the money,” a legislative source confirmed. “We are legally obligated to do so.”
Scout has already received more than $1.3 billion from South Carolina taxpayers.
That marks a major defeat for taxpayers… many of whom are struggling to make ends meet while so-called “conservative” lawmakers blow virtually every penny of new money that comes into their coffers on dubious economic development deals.
***
RELATED | STATE HOUSE NEPOTISM SCANDAL?
***
Another defeat? The final deal included only $82 million in property tax relief for South Carolina senior citizens – well below the $250 million originally proposed by S.C. Senate leaders. Also, the property tax cut proposal does nothing to prevent local governments from simply raising taxes to offset the so-called “relief.”
As for the pork barrel spending appropriations that bogged down the final days of debate, negotiators decided to punt on those… at least temporarily.
According to Bannister, these spending items will be rolled into a single, standalone piece of legislation after a yet-to-be-appointed ad hoc committee conducts a prioritization of the projects. Lawmakers did not provide any guidance as to when this ad hoc committee would be named, who would serve on it, when its deliberations would be conducted or what criteria would be used to “prioritize” the projects.
Rest assured, we will have much more on those spending items – and the political machinations behind them – in future posts.
Our media outlet consistently encouraged state senators not to cave on the House’s demands for more state spending – and to hold the line and keep appropriations at their current levels. That would have freed up the billions of dollars now destined for the black hole of bureaucracy for potentially transformative tax relief instead.
Senators failed to do that… ultimately surrendering to the House’s escalating fiscal liberalism.
***
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.
