Gov. Nikki Haley's Critics Have a History of Sticking it to SC Taxpayers

ATR ^ | 2012-08-23 | Patrick Gleason

[92nina]

As ATR noted last week, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has come under fire for simply asking state government employees to contribute a modest amount to help the state cover the rising cost of their health insurance. Listening to the heat that Gov. Haley is taking for this fiscally prudent decision, one would be surprised to find out that Haley’s action will result in government workers paying just a paltry $8 per month extra. Her critics in the legislature and in government employee unions would rather South Carolina taxpayers foot the entire bill.

Given the record of some of her loudest critics in the legislature, such as Speaker Bobby Harrell and Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman, it’s not surprising that they are opposing Gov. Haley’s effort to defend Palmetto State taxpayers.

During the economic doldrums of 2010, both Harrell and Leatherman championed a $135 million tax hike on tobacco products. This tax hike hit those South Carolinians who can least afford it the hardest; smokers make less than $40,000 per year on average. Worse, this economically inept tax increase made the state’s finances more reliant on one of the most volatile sources of revenue and did great harm to small businesses in South Carolina, particularly those near the border. ATR confirmed the following for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution earlier this year:

Georgia saw a net increase in cigarette sales of nearly 1.3 million packs in the six months after South Carolina raised its excise tax rate in July 2010, ATR says. Cigarette tax revenue did decline slightly in South Carolina in the first 12 months since its increase, records show.

So Harrell and Leatherman passed a tax hike that reduced revenue and drove business to Georgia, hurting South Carolina employers - talk about real men of genius. Harrell and Leatherman seem to have a penchant for policies that hurt both South Carolina taxpayers and the state's finances. No wonder they oppose Haley’s recent decision.

In addition to their support for higher taxes, Harrell and Leatherman have also presided over unsustainable increases in government spending. General fund spending in SC has increased by more than 52% since Harrell entered the legislature in 1992. Making that growth look modest in comparison, since Leatherman took office in 1981, South Carolina has seen a whopping more than 190% increase in general fund spending, a pace that far exceeds growth in population and inflation.

In the meantime, Gov. Haley is now being sued for her actions by spending interests such as the South Carolina Education Association, who dubiously claim that what Haley did is illegal. Haley's move, if upheld by the courts, will save taxpayers roughly $5.8 million.

Read more: http://atr.org/gov-nikki-haleys-critics-history-sticking-a7157#ixzz24rsOuRV8

[92nina]

Some of Gov. Haley's harshest critics in SC are "Republican" legislators who have a troubling history of supporting tax hikes and overspending

[EGPWS]

Listening to the heat that Gov. Haley is taking for this fiscally prudent decision, one would be surprised to find out that Haley’s action will result in government workers paying just a paltry $8 per month extra.

Well golly gee, don't they sacrifice enough?

After all they already stoop to being public servants!

[napscoordinator]

What did South Carolina (Very Red State) do with all the money they forced the tobacco companies to pay? South Carolina has little poverty and barely any bad cities so what did the Governor do with all the money? Why is nobody asking that?

[House Atreides]

“.... what did the Governor do with all the money? Why is nobody asking that?
***************************************************************
Looks as if you support the RINO Republicans in the SC legislature? The GOPe in South Carolina hate Nikki Haley because she doesn’t go along with their corruption.

[napscoordinator]

I don’t give a dang who hates who. I care only about where the money went.

[buckalfa]

SC actually is quite a poor state, with most indicators ranking them down with West Virginia and Mississippi in per capita income, unemployment and education levels. Urban/rural blight and decay is prevelant, you just do not see much of it from the interstates.

Where has all the tax money gone over the years? Federal mandated expenditures for education and Medicaid and welfare. Throw in burgeoning state employment of bureaucrats, corporate welfare, mixed with above average corruption you have the equivalent of Boss Hogg (the legislature) running the state instead of the governor.

Like much of the country, demographic changes are causing the state to shift to a deeper shade of purple.

[wally_bert]

Pretty much correct.

Last year I spent a good part of it as a roving Dell contractor swapping out systems for DSS and saw parts of this state I had never been in and I am a lifelong resident. Many counties are in lousy shape once off the interstates.

I was a state employee for about 10 years but left essentially in disgust seeing the terminally lying, lazy, lame, and stupid almost always being the ones rewarded. Every now and then a commoner would get a token acknowlegement probably for show.

There is the 50K list of state employees that the worthless state paper probably still publishes. Some of the names I know and there was one or maybe two that I knew that actually produced and did actual work. Some of the others have no business even delivering the state.