THE STATE is Off Base.

I don’t understand. What’s not to get?

The editorial team at The State recently wrote that, “There is simply no need for a state spending cap.“

Why not?

Don Weaver of the SC Association of Taxpayers says that not only do we need spending limits at the state level, we need them locally, as well. I couldn’t agree more.

In a perfect world where government was responsible with taxpayers’ dollars and egos weren’t more important than ideology, we wouldn’t even have to have this debate. Government would do its job, take what it needed to do that job, and either return the excess to the people, put it away for a rainy day, or reduce tax rates for the following year.

Unfortunately, that’s not reality.

The reality is that state government in South Carolina grew 41% during the past three years. The General Assembly spent $1.5 billion in reserve funds leaving the state’s coffers depleted in an upcoming budget year that shows us expecting significant shortfalls.

At the local level, according to a study out of the South Carolina Policy Council, without the imposition of local level spending limits:

• The entire 2008 reduction in property taxes will be negated by the introduction of new property taxes.
• Because the 1¢ increase in the state sales tax will be in effect, the state will still collect $594 million more in sales tax revenue.
• SC businesses will pay $409 million in additional taxes above what they would have paid had the swap not been imposed – a 12.51% increase.
• SC homeowners’ initial tax cut will decrease 45% (or $281 million) from $632 million to $351 million.
• The local tax burden will continue to rise, along with the increase in sales tax.
• The state will have 6,557 fewer jobs than it would had nothing been done.
• Investment will be $852 million lower.
• Personal Income will fall by $321 million and real disposable income per capita by $79.
• Sales tax will remain higher, while tax relief will become smaller or non-existent.

The Coalition Against Government Spending, a group of business community members and taxpayer advocacy supporters, notes that at the local level:

• From 1995 to 2006, local governments raised millage in 44 out of 46 counties.
• Total average statewide millage jumped 80 mills during that time — 277 in 1997 to 357 in 2005.
• From 2000 to 2005, making rate hikes even more dangerous, the value of one mill increased an average of $98,317.
• Despite increased property tax revenues, local reliance actually decreased because of escalating local option sales taxes, hospitality taxes, and user fees and permits.
• 21 schools districts across the state announced millage hikes by December 2006.
• By nearly 70%, voters in November 2006 approved the constitutional amendment limiting local property tax reassessment.

So with all that said, let’s remember that The State says there is “simply no need for a state spending cap.” Likewise, Mr. Weaver paraphrases Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell’s oft-quoted, “I’ve had about all the home rule I can afford.”

After looking at the facts, figures, and numbers as our state’s finances spin out of control, I have to agree with Weaver and can’t understand why The State or the General Assembly wouldn’t feel the same way — especially in an election year.

– Wilson Charles