As Spike Lee might say, “Please, baby, please, baby, please, baby — baby baby please.” We’re getting killed with all these attempts at recreating the Nullification Crisis. OK, it’s the 21st century. The Federal government won’t send troops into your state like it used to in the 1800s. That’s why former President George W. Bush didn’t occupy California after medical marijuana and gay marriage. But if it were 1835, you can guaran-damn-tee he would have pulled that shit. So, that’s probably the motivation of legislators trying to nullify Federal law (a law that has not been passed, by the way) dealing with expanded health care options. From everything we learned in history class and constitutional law classes, states can’t nullify Federal law. That’s kind of the deal, as it comes to the federal system of governance. But, whatever.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, you’re next, or, actually, last among the prefilers for this dubious legislation.

H. 4240: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE “DECLARATION OF RIGHTS”, SO AS TO ADD A NEW SECTION PROHIBITING THE ENACTMENT OF ANY LAW THAT RESTRICTS AN INDIVIDUAL’S FREEDOM OF CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS OR PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS OR THAT INTERFERES WITH AN INDIVIDUAL’S OR ENTITY’S ABILITY TO PAY DIRECTLY FOR LAWFUL MEDICAL SERVICES OR THAT IMPOSES A FINE OR PENALTY OF ANY TYPE FOR CHOOSING TO OBTAIN OR DECLINE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE OR FOR PARTICIPATING IN ANY PARTICULAR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM OR PLAN.

And, look, more health care, this time from the Democrats. Rep. Leon Stavrinakis is addressing insurance coverage, making sure you can’t be denied coverage because of something caused by a crime. And, let’s face it — if they can, they will. We are close with people who have or who currently work for insurance companies. However you feel about health care reform, these companies act like dicks whenever the law allows them to. Kind of like banks (looking at you, Wachovia!).

H. 4258: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 38-71-244 SO AS TO PROHIBIT A COMPANY ISSUING AN ACCIDENT AND HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY FROM DENYING OR LIMITING COVERAGE TO AN INSURED BECAUSE OF A PREEXISTING CONDITION WHICH RESULTS FROM AN INJURY OR CONDITION SUSTAINED BY A VICTIM AS A RESULT OF A CRIMINAL ACT.

Non-profits and religious organizations have one main issue between them, no matter the agenda or affiliation. It’s to have the state law changes on raffles and “social gambling” to allow for fundraising opportunities. Seriously, wouldn’t you drop $20 to participate in an Historic Columbia poker tournament? Of course you would. And, these organizations have a man on the inside. Rep. Jimmy Merrill has appeared as the guardian angel of these low-funded but well-meaning groups, submitting three bills to legalize what needs to be.

Hey, non-profits! GET YOU SOME!

H. 4267: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 19, TITLE 16, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO GAMBLING AND LOTTERIES, SO AS TO AMEND EXISTING LAWS ON UNLAWFUL LOTTERIES AND GAMBLING BY ORGANIZING EXISTING LAWS INTO ARTICLE 1, AND TO ADD DEFINITIONS; TO INCREASE AND MAKE UNIFORM PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL LOTTERIES AND GAMBLING; TO PROVIDE THAT SOCIAL GAMBLING IS NOT UNLAWFUL, AND TO CLARIFY THAT GAMES OF SKILL OR CHANCE IN WHICH NO BETTING OCCURS ARE NOT UNLAWFUL; BY ADDING ARTICLE 3, SO AS TO ALLOW CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS TO CONDUCT RAFFLES AND SPECIAL LIMITED CHARITY FUNDRAISING EVENTS; TO DEFINE THESE EVENTS; TO DEFINE THE TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ALLOWED TO CONDUCT THESE EVENTS; TO PROVIDE STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THESE EVENTS; TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE PROVISIONS SHALL TAKE EFFECT.

H. 4270: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION ON LOTTERIES AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PROHIBITION, BY ADDING A NEW PARAGRAPH SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SHALL ENACT A GENERAL LAW AUTHORIZING A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION TO CONDUCT A RAFFLE, AND WHICH DEFINES THE TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ALLOWED TO CONDUCT A RAFFLE, PROVIDES THE STANDARDS FOR THE CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE RAFFLE, PROVIDES PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND ENSURES THE PROPER FUNCTIONING, HONESTY, INTEGRITY, AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE RAFFLE IS CONDUCTED, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A RAFFLE CONDUCTED IN CONFORMITY WITH LAWS ENACTED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH IS NOT CONSIDERED A LOTTERY PROHIBITED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

H. 4245: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION ON LOTTERIES AND THE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PROHIBITION, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY ALLOW RAFFLES TO BE CONDUCTED BY CHARITABLE OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND BY GENERAL LAW MUST DEFINE THE TYPE OF ORGANIZATION ALLOWED TO CONDUCT RAFFLES, PROVIDE THE STANDARDS FOR THE CONDUCT AND MANAGEMENT OF THE RAFFLES, PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS, AND PROVIDE FOR ANY OTHER LAW NECESSARY TO ASSURE THE PROPER FUNCTIONING, HONESTY, INTEGRITY, AND CHARITABLE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE RAFFLES ARE CONDUCTED.

Few buzz-phrases have been more popular in Columbia over the past several years than “government restructuring.” The lastest round of prefiles close the book on what legislators will be looking at immediately.

One of Rep. Jimmy Merrill‘s plans this session is to get rid of the Commission on Higher Education, splitting its duties between the trustees of individual colleges and handing over grants, scholarships and such to the state treasurer. Whether eliminating one level of bureaucracy will help on the face of it, doing anything to streamline student aid would help.

H. 4227: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 59-104-63 SO AS TO ABOLISH THE STATE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND TO DEVOLVE ITS POWERS AND DUTIES TO THE INDIVIDUAL COLLEGE BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THIS STATE, EXCEPT FOR ITS POWERS AND DUTIES CONCERNING SCHOLARSHIPS AND GRANTS, WHICH MUST BE DEVOLVED TO THE OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER.

Sometimes bills are never brought up in committee, for one reason or another. Usually it involves the most inside of inside baseball among legislators. Rep. Bill Wylie seeks to make sure if a bill has a large number of sponsors, it has to be brought up within a month by the designated committee.

H. 4251: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO AMEND RULE 4.4 OF THE RULES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, RELATING TO COMMITTEES, SO AS TO REQUIRE A BILL HAVING SIXTY-FIVE OR MORE SPONSORS BE CONSIDERED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS BY THE COMMITTEE TO WHICH IT IS REFERRED AND PROVIDE FOR NOTIFICATION OF THE PRIMARY SPONSOR IF THE BILL IS TABLED OR NOT REPORTED OUT OF COMMITTEE.

Here we go with the term limits. We’ve yet to see a real benefit to term limits that outweighs the problems. Florida had tons of trouble when it instituted term limits, from a large number of inexperienced legislators who had no institutional memory and didn’t know what they were doing, to convenient redistricting. We have elections for a reason. Rep. Nikki Haley is putting up a bill that will knock out anyone with 12 years of service in the General Assembly, or four terms in the House or two terms in the Senate.

H. 4275: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2012, ANY PERSON WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST FOUR FULL TERMS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST TWELVE YEARS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN EITHER THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OR THE SENATE, IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AND TO PHASE THIS PROVISION IN ON A STAGGERED BASIS BASED ON HOUSE SENIORITY; AND TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING WITH THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 2012, ANY PERSON WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST TWO FULL TERMS IN THE SENATE OR WHO HAS SERVED AT LEAST TWELVE YEARS IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE, IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE SENATE, AND TO PHASE THIS PROVISION IN ON A STAGGERED BASIS BASED ON SENATE SENIORITY.

Seemingly on the other side of the ledger, we have a proposal from Rep. Lonnie Hosey, who wants to lengthen House terms to four years. That’s been a debate for decades — whether two-year terms make you closer to the electorate or simply more obsessed with elections.

H. 4279: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2, ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT BEGINNING IN 2014, MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MUST BE CHOSEN EVERY FOURTH INSTEAD OF EVERY SECOND YEAR; AND TO AMEND SECTION 8, ARTICLE III, RELATING TO ELECTION OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE BE ELECTED EVERY FOURTH INSTEAD OF EVERY SECOND YEAR.

It’s no surprise that the health care tussle in Congress has infiltrated the General Assembly. After all, bills were introduced in the House to allow South Carolina to opt out of a health care plan that has yet to pass the U.S. Senate or get signed into law. There’s also the problem of federalism. You see, a state cannot override a national law. If you don’t believe us, maybe you’ll listen to our good friend, Andrew Jackson.

Not that basic civics lessons ever stopped Sen. Lee Bright from being the most ignorant person in the Senate. He practically lives off it. Could someone run and beat that guy in 2012? We don’t want to have to deal with his bullshit for another term.

S. 980: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, BY ADDING SECTION 25 TO PREEMPT ANY FEDERAL LAW OR RULE THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON’S CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS OR THE RIGHT TO PAY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES.

Let’s try this again, kiddos: you cannot preempt Federal law. That’s called “illegal.” Don’t want the Democrats’ health care plan? Call your U.S. senator. Demonstrate. Write letters to the editor. But you can’t put it into the state constitution and say, “Suck it, D.C.” We tried that twice. Once invasion was threatened, and the other time ended up with a decade of military occupation. Did nobody in this state pay attention in history class?

But, God forbid Bright be the only clown to run this path. Sen. Mike Rose did the same.

S. 1010: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, BY ADDING SECTION 25 TO PREEMPT ANY FEDERAL LAW OR RULE THAT RESTRICTS A PERSON’S CHOICE OF PRIVATE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS OR THE RIGHT TO PAY FOR MEDICAL SERVICES.

At least Rose was smart enough not to only file a bill that was, on the face of it, patently unconstitutional, and put one in that could actually stand up to a court challenge.

S. 987: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 38 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 38-1-40 TO ENACT THE “FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE ACT,” TO PROVIDE THAT CITIZENS OF THIS STATE HAVE THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MAY NOT REQUIRE ANY PERSON TO PURCHASE HEALTH CARE INSURANCE, AND TO REQUIRE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF ANY HEALTH CARE PLAN MANDATED BY CONGRESS.

Ironically, while Rose is opposing the possibility of mandated health insurance, he’s mandating liability insurance for nursing homes.

S. 990: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 44-7-260 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE, TO PROVIDE THAT NURSING HOMES MUST CARRY AT LEAST ONE MILLION DOLLARS IN COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE TO OBTAIN A LICENSE, TO PROVIDE THAT A NURSING HOME MUST NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL UPON CANCELLATION OF A GENERAL LIABILITY POLICY, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A NURSING HOME LICENSE SHALL BE REVOKED UPON FAILURE TO MAINTAIN GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE.

Hold on for a second.

Kitteh!

OK, back to the regularly scheduled business. A number of bills ready to go in the Senate for 2010 deal with general fauna — protecting the furry and feathered ones, while the scaly ones are up for harvesting. Really, though, there’s some serious animal protection measures being proposed. Let’s delve in.

S. 913: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 47-5-60 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO PET INOCULATION AGAINST RABIES, TO RAISE THE MAXIMUM FEE ALLOWED TO BE CHARGED FROM THREE TO SIX DOLLARS.

Sure, there’s not much salacious about Senate Minority Leader John Land‘s bill to give vets another three bucks, but it’s a fairly routine procedure in the state, so a lot of people will be affected.

Land is also addressing the size and number of black bass caught in a couple South Carolina lakes and the Santee River. Pfft. Come and get us, game warden! We’re catching dinner here, Broseph. Play nice, and you could get some tasty blackened bass.

S. 914: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 50-13-120, TO SET THE SIZE LIMITS AT FOURTEEN INCHES TOTAL LENGTH AND THE CATCH LIMIT AT FIVE PER DAY FOR BLACK BASS IN LAKES MARION AND MOULTRIE AND THE UPPER SANTEE RIVER.

Protection of animals is no laughing matter, though. Sen. Larry Martin is going forward with a bill that expands penalties on sport fighting. If the bill passes, and you raise and sell animals to fight, you could find yourself in a heap of trouble. Plus, being that cruel puts you in a special category of evil.

S. 927: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 16-27-30, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE OFFENSE OF ANIMAL FIGHTING AND BAITING AND ITS PENALTIES, SO AS TO ADD THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO SELL AN ANIMAL WITH THE INTENT THAT THE ANIMAL BE ENGAGED IN ANIMAL FIGHTING AND BAITING.

Speaking of cruelty to defenseless creatures, Sens. Jake Knotts and Tom Davis teamed up for a bill to make it a crime to knowingly or intentionally confine an animal in a cruel manner. We’ve all seen it. The dog on chain that’s much too short, who never gets enough attention or proper care. Dozens of animals in steel cages with barely enough room to move around in. Also, that activity puts you in a special category of evil.

S. 958: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 47-1-45 SO AS TO MAKE IT UNLAWFUL TO KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY CONFINE OR RESTRAIN AN ANIMAL IN A CRUEL MANNER OR KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY CAUSE SUCH CRUEL CONFINEMENT OR RESTRAINING OF AN ANIMAL, TO DEFINE CERTAIN TERMS IN REGARD TO THE ABOVE, TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION, AND TO PROVIDE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MAY ADOPT MORE STRINGENT LOCAL ORDINANCES GOVERNING THE CONFINEMENT OR RESTRAINING OF AN ANIMAL WITH CIVIL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS.

OK, maybe we’re getting worked up about this because our kitty is sleeping next to us, twitching with his kitty dreams. But anybody that harms a domesticated animal (as in, not a deer or such thing you go and hunt) is on a level of such reprehensible horribleness that they deserve all the bad things that can happen to you in prison. However, Sen. Martin’s pig bill is a tad confusing. That is, the summary is confusing. Yes, it seems wrong to have kept pigs released for the purpose of hunting, and it doesn’t make sense to allow people to release feral hogs, willy-nilly.

S. 932: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 50-16-25 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE RELEASE OF PIGS FOR HUNTING PURPOSES, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO POSSESS, BUY, SELL, OFFER FOR SALE, TRANSFER, RELEASE, OR TRANSPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RELEASE A MEMBER OF THE SUIDAE FAMILY FOR HUNTING OR TO SUPPLEMENT A FREE ROAMING POPULATION, TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO REMOVE A LIVE HOG FROM A TRAP OR FROM THE WOODS, FIELDS, OR MARSHES OF THIS STATE, AND TO CLARIFY THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ACCEPTED FARMING PRACTICES RELATED TO MEMBERS OF THE SUIDAE FAMILY.

And maybe it’s just because we’ve always lived in cities, but goddamn if we know what “polo horse drug compounds” is related to.

If you thought the Taxation Realignment Commission was be-all and end-all of tax reform for the 2009-2010 legislative session, you would be wrong. It gets much more complicated than that. It’ll be interesting if any of these bills get out committee before the TRAC panel returns to the General Assembly with its recommendations in March.

S. 902: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 34 IN TITLE 12 SO AS TO ENACT THE “SOUTH CAROLINA FAIR TAX ACT”, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2011, AND TO REPEAL, EFFECTIVE AT THE SAME TIME, CHAPTERS 6, 8, 11, 13, 16, AND 36, ALL OF TITLE 12, RELATING RESPECTIVELY TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX ACT, INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING, THE INCOME TAX ON BANKS AND SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS, THE SOUTH CAROLINA ESTATE TAX ACT, AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA SALES TAX ACT.

This bill is sponsored by Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, and the TRAC panel is supposed to take a long, hard look at the Fair Tax. Whether or not it will suggest it is up for debate, which is probably why McConnell proposed this legislation to begin with.

Sen. Hugh Leatherman, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, is seeking to get more information on spending. His bill deals with having the state’s chief economist submit a report that accurately reflects the anticipated revenue.

S. 905: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 2-7-71 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO TAX BILLS AND REVENUE IMPACT STATEMENTS, TO PROVIDE THAT THE REVENUE IMPACT STATEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE CHIEF ECONOMIST OF THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS; AND TO AMEND SECTION 2-7-78, RELATING TO THE CERTIFICATION OF A REVENUE ESTIMATE, TO PROVIDE THAT THE REVENUE IMPACT MUST BE CERTIFIED BY THE CHIEF ECONOMIST OF THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS.

It should come as no surprise that Mr. Tea Party, Sen. Larry Grooms, as advocating for the Fair Tax as well. It seems, however, that there are a lot of allowances and twists and turns. Often, we’ve seen that whenever a “simplified tax code” is proposed, it’s never all that simple. Lo, and behold.

S. 942: A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 12 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO TAXATION, BY ENACTING THE PALMETTO FAIR TAX ACT; TO REPEAL CHAPTER 6, TITLE 12, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX ACT; TO REPEAL CHAPTER 8, TITLE 12, RELATING TO INCOME TAX WITHHOLDING; TO REPEAL CHAPTER 11, TITLE 12, RELATING TO INCOME TAX ON BANKS; TO REPEAL CHAPTER 13, TITLE 12, RELATING TO INCOME TAX ON BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS; TO REPEAL CHAPTER 16, TITLE 12, RELATING TO THE ESTATE TAX; TO REPEAL CHAPTER 36, TITLE 12, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA SALES AND USE TAX; TO ADD CHAPTER 1 TO TITLE 12, BY ADDING ARTICLE 1 TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DEFINITIONS AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 2 TO PROVIDE FOR A ___ PERCENT TAX ON THE GROSS RETAIL SALES AND USE OF GOODS AND SERVICES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 3 TO ESTABLISH THE FAMILY CONSUMPTION ALLOWANCE, THE QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR THE ALLOWANCE, THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ALLOWANCE IS CALCULATED, AND THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ALLOWANCE IS DISTRIBUTED, BY ADDING ARTICLE 4 TO PROVIDE FOR CREDITS, REFUNDS, AND EXEMPTIONS FROM THE TAX IMPOSED BY CHAPTER 1, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO REQUIRE RETAILER TO OBTAIN A LICENSE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSURE, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF LICENSEES, AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 6 TO PROVIDE FOR GENERAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF TAXES IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, AND OTHERWISE PROVIDE FOR THE EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER BY THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; AND TO REPEAL SECTIONS 11-11-155 AND 11-11-156.

OK. Um, what the fuck is up with this one? Sen. Kevin Bryant has submitted a bill that will allow South Carolinians to give extra tax money to the general fund, but the dollars would have to be put up for a specific purpose. We can see the thinking now: “Wow. This is just too goddamn weird. Let’s bury that thing in subcommittee.”

S. 968: A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 6, TITLE 12 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA INCOME TAX, BY ADDING SECTION 12-6-5062, TO PROVIDE THAT TAXPAYERS MAY MAKE VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GENERAL FUND OF THE STATE, TO PROVIDE THAT INCOME TAX FORMS MUST CONTAIN A DESIGNATION FOR THE CONTRIBUTION, TO PROVIDE THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS ACCOMPANYING THE INCOME TAX FORM MUST CONTAIN AN EXPLANATION OF HOW THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL BE USED, AND TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT TO REPORT THE AMOUNT COLLECTED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION.

It seems that the tipping point in the restructuring of the S.C. state government has happened, and with a vengeance. If a number of these bills pass and go into law, the way South Carolina does business from here on out will change dramatically. Hopefully, it will be for the better. A goodly amount of the legislation comes with Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell as the chief sponsor, which means they will blow through committee and likely sail through the Senate, at the very least.

Taking control of fixing the the complicated mess of state administration appears to be McConnell’s main concern in 2010.

S. 897: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE COMMISSION ON STREAMLINING GOVERNMENT AND REDUCTION OF WASTE AND PROVIDE FOR THE MEMBERSHIP, POWERS, DUTIES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR THE SUBMISSION, CONSIDERATION, APPROVAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FOR STAFF SUPPORT AND FINANCES FOR THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FOR COOPERATION WITH AND SUPPORT FOR THE COMMISSION; TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR ITS TERMINATION.

This bill is co-sponsored by Sens. Hugh Leatherman and Harvey Peeler, which means it’s basically signed, sealed and ready to go already. As we’ve seen with the city government in Columbia, lack of oversight and proper addressing of waste will screw everyone over. If state government can be slimmed down, service duplication eliminated and outdated programs eliminated, we may well be on the way to sessions where worrying over million-dollar revenue shortfalls won’t cause major issues.

S. 898: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 11-11-85 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A ZERO BASE BUDGET PROCESS BEGINNING WITH FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011.

This bill is also co-sponsored by Peeler, which means it’s also good to go at least as far as the Senate is concerned. As well, it well-compliments the previous measure. Now, all state agencies won’t be up for zero-based budgeting at the same time (there are four groups that will rotate — like the BCS!), but it’s a start. Our parents have worked in state agencies, so we’ve seen foolish decisions made with the best of intentions. For instance, agencies spending bank at the end of the fiscal year to justify at the very least the same funding as the previous year. That’s a horrible way to run a government, and zero-based budgeting seeks to end such things.

S. 899: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, BY ADDING SECTION 37, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT THE SENATE MUST ELECT FROM AMONG ITS MEMBERS A PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE TO PRESIDE OVER THE SENATE AND TO PERFORM OTHER DUTIES AS PROVIDED BY LAW; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8, ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE ELECTION, QUALIFICATIONS, AND TERM OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE JOINT ELECTION OF THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE, SO AS TO DELETE SECTION 9, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE SENATE MUST CHOOSE A PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE AND WHICH ALSO PROVIDES THAT A MEMBER OF THE SENATE ACTING AS LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR VACATES HIS SEAT AND ANOTHER PERSON IS ELECTED IN HIS STEAD; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AS PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, BY DELETING SECTION 10, WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE; PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 12, ARTICLE IV, RELATING TO THE DISABILITY OF THE GOVERNOR, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IF BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE STATE TREASURER TRANSMIT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES A WRITTEN DECLARATION THAT THE GOVERNOR IS UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MUST ASSUME THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE AS ACTING GOVERNOR.

Oh, Gov. Mark Sanford. What hell you hath wrought. This is the beginning of the bills dealing with the Sanford fallout, and is also chief-sponsored by McConnell. It’s as close as an omnibus rewriting of the lieutenant governor’s duties as we’ve ever seen. It never made much sense for the lieutenant governor to preside over the S.C. Senate, as it doesn’t for the vice president to have the same duties in the U.S. Senate. Having a senator actually be president of the Senate only makes sense. It’s amazing that this hasn’t been fixed years ago.

S. 900: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 23-3-16, SO AS TO MANDATE THAT THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION PROVIDE SECURITY AND PROTECTION FOR THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, WHICH MUST NOT BE DECLINED.

More Sanford fallout. Of course, the Lothario-in-Chief has always wanted to shirk his SLED protection, and definitely did so when he want on his Argentinean rendezvous. Sen. Jake Knotts signed on as a co-sponsor.

S. 901: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 1-3-630, SO AS TO DEFINE “EMERGENCY,” “FULL AUTHORITY,” AND “TEMPORARY ABSENCE” IN ORDER TO CLARIFY WHEN A LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR HAS THE FULL AUTHORITY TO ACT IN AN EMERGENCY IN THE EVENT OF THE TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF THE GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE.

SANFORD! It’s fairly obvious at this point that McConnell got fed up with the mess the state government is in, and is working to make sure we never get back here.

S. 907: A BILL TO REPEAL ARTICLE 1, CHAPTER 61, TITLE 44 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

This bill is a Peeler effort, to address the mess with the EMS. Efforts to keep people’s medical records private went too far, and has led to issues with proper emergency medical service. The bill is written to fix that.

S. 947: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT OF CERTAIN EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF THIS STATE, BY ADDING SECTION 4 SO AS TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR RECALLING AND REMOVING FROM PUBLIC OFFICE PERSONS HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICES OF THE STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS; AND PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVII, BY ADDING SECTION 15 SO AS TO ESTABLISH A SPECIFIED PROCEDURE FOR THE ENACTMENT OR REPEAL OF LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS BY INITIATIVE PETITION AND REFERENDUM AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.

Yet more Sanford-inspired legislation. This comes from Sens. Larry Grooms and Kevin Bryant. While former The State editorial page editor Brad Warthen may despise progressive election reforms, we like the Western idea: give the electorate the option for recall and initiatives. If you don’t trust the voters to do that, you might as well not trust them to vote in elections, either. Southern states (and Northern ones, for that matter), have been way too late to the party on these ideas.

And, this is the only time we’re going to say this, but you legislators need to get together and talk this shit out. There are a number of different proposals that had the same legislation introduced. It’s not unusual to have basically the same bill go into the House and the Senate, but to have the same proposal put in a number of times into the same chamber is silly. Sen. Mike Rose, you’re next up on the recall boat.

S. 995: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XV OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, RELATING TO IMPEACHMENT OF CERTAIN EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS OF THIS STATE, BY ADDING SECTION 4 TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR RECALLING AND REMOVING FROM PUBLIC OFFICE PERSONS HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICES OF THE STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE BRANCHES OF STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

And, look, Rose is for introducing the chance for initiatives, too.

S. 1002: A JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, BY ADDING SECTION 15, TO PERMIT THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS BY INITIATIVE PETITION.

Don’t totally knock him, though, because Rose does have an idea that wasn’t previously filed. He’s filed a bill that will set South Carolina on a biennial budget and a biennial session, like Virginia. Maybe he doesn’t know, but when the legislature is in session in the Old Dominion, it’s fucking in session. Legislators have no lives for a number of weeks. Neither do the civil servants that do their grunt work. It’s a bastard. And, Columbia doesn’t have the badass bars and diners that make Richmond an OK place to stay up for three months straight every two years.

S. 1003: A JOINT RESOLUTION TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9, ARTICLE III OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION, 1895, RELATING TO SESSIONS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR THE BIENNIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, TO PROVIDE FOR A SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT DATE, TO PROVIDE THE MEANS AND THE LIMIT TO WHICH THE SINE DIE ADJOURNMENT DATE MAY BE EXTENDED, AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE CONVENING OF THE FIRST BIENNIAL SESSION.

Hey, kids! Did you remember that Dec. 1 was another one of those prefiling days for the House? Well, it can be excused if you forgot, considering the thrilling back-and-forth between Gov. Mark Sanford‘s high-priced attorneys and the ad-hoc House impeachment committee that morning. Actually, speaking of impeachment….

Rep. Jim Harrison, chairman of the committee, filed a resolution taking the lesser path, censuring the man with a love of Latin women with a penchant for Austrian economic theory. Like the impeachment resolution submitted by Rep. Greg Delleney, it uses some military terminology.

H. 4219: A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION TO CENSURE MARK C. SANFORD, JR., GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR DERELICTION IN HIS DUTIES OF OFFICE AS GOVERNOR AND FOR OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT THAT HAS BROUGHT DISHONOR TO HIMSELF, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO ITS CITIZENS.

On another note, the annual tax-free holiday on firearms in South Carolina brings a lot of yuks from the peanut gallery, and for good reason. A gun is not a necessity. Food is a necessity — how about eliminating sales tax on groceries, permanently? Eh, no, it’s important to make sure that sportsmen and those of other ideas (home security, building a militia in Oconee County) can buy a weapon of several hundred dollars and not pay sales tax. Really — if you have the cash to spring for a gun, you can chip in a few more bucks on sales tax without having to wait for a special time after Thanksgiving. However, Reps. Mike Pitts and Brian White want to make sure you can still get that tax-free gun.

H. 4220: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 12-36-2120, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS, SO AS TO REENACT THE “SECOND AMENDMENT RECOGNITION ACT” EXEMPTING FIREARMS SOLD ON THE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING OF EVERY YEAR.

A lot of states and municipalities have laws against scalping. As in, it’s illegal to buy a ticket to an event — usually sports or a concert — and resell it. Some have relaxed that to say you can sell your ticket, but it has to be at face value. And if you’ve walked around Williams-Brice Stadium on game day, you know that nobody is enforcing scalping laws. Rep. Bakari Sellers is attempting to throw out the law altogether.

H. 4223: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY REPEALING SECTIONS 16-17-710 AND 39-5-36 BOTH RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION AND PRICE RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESALE OF TICKETS TO EVENTS.

Finally, a bill that is likely to go nowhere. Sure, there are tons of bills that get referred to committee every year and never see the light of day, but if you have legislation that’s likely to play well among the base of the minority party (in this case, Democrats), forget about it. Rep. John King is putting in a hate crimes bill. South Carolina is a national leader in hate crimes, according to a recent study (what a surprise), but considering the conservative opinion is that every crime is a hate crime, this bill is DOA.

H. 4224: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 18 TO CHAPTER 3, TITLE 16 SO AS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR A PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME CONTAINED IN THIS CHAPTER WITH THE INTENT TO ASSAULT, INTIMIDATE, OR THREATEN A PERSON BECAUSE OF HIS RACE, RELIGION, OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

Have a mobile phone? Of course you do. You probably yak on it and text your pals and do whatever you need to do on it, all day, all the time. In the prefiled bills, there are plenty that deal with your ability to use your phone in the car, or at a prison.

We’ll start of with the transportation bills. The first one comes from Rep. Don Bowen, and is going to hit pretty hard on females aged 16-28.

H. 4189: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-3890 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE TEXT MESSAGING, TEXTING, RECEIVING, OR READING TEXT MESSAGES OR PRINTED READING MATERIALS, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY.

Please, please, please — we hate text messaging when people are not traveling at more than 35mph, much less while behind wheel. The General Assembly shouldn’t have to pass a law to make you put the thing away. Joining Bowen in Rep. Bakari Sellers, who reminds you to not talk on your phone, either.

H. 4190: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 56-5-3890 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO USE A HANDHELD WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR VIOLATING THIS PROVISION; AND TO AMEND SECTION 56-1-720, RELATING TO THE SCHEDULE OF POINTS ASSIGNED TO VARIOUS TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT USING A HANDHELD WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE WHILE DRIVING IS A TWO POINT VIOLATION.

Don’t think that the law is the only thing you may have to worry about when you whip out your celly for the latest important call. You can now be held civilly liable, if a bill proposed by Rep. Garry Smith goes through.

H. 4206: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 15-1-305 SO AS TO ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE IN A CIVIL ACTION OF THE USE OF A CELL PHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC HANDHELD COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE AT THE TIME OF A MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT AND TO PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS.

In the past few months, there’s been quite a bit of hullabaloo about mobile phones in prison. Some law enforcement agencies are using jamming towers to make sure that inmates can’t use them, and the use of such towers has been debated in court. Rep. Herb Kirsh is putting in legislation to make it illegal for an inmate to have a phone, or to give a phone to a prisoner.

H. 4191: A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 24-3-955 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO POSSESS A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE ON THE PREMISES OF A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS FACILITY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO GIVE OR SELL A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS DEVICE OR ITS COMPONENTS TO AN INMATE OR TO A PERSON FOR DELIVERY TO AN INMATE, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION.

During the extended session, Rep. Greg Delleney attempted to introduce his resolution to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford. After extensive discussion, Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell ruled that the bill was out of order at the time but instead should be put on the table for prefiling. So, here we are.

H. 4168: A HOUSE RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XV, SECTION 1, OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1895, THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA, THE HONORABLE MARSHALL C. SANFORD, JR., IS IMPEACHED FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.

The bill officially went up today and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The cosponsors for the bill are Reps. Mike Pitts, Keith Kelly, and Gary Simrill. As of right now, it looks like desire for impeachment is slowing after it reached a fever pitch in August and September.

Harrell released the following after the bill was filed:

As we have consistently said before, the House should not take any official action until it receives the Ethics Commission’s investigative report so that we can address this issue knowing all the facts. Since, by Court order, the investigative report will be a public document once Governor Sanford receives it, I expect the committee to have access to that report.

Unless the investigation contains new information about serious crimes or serious misconduct by the governor, in my opinion, the information we have to date does not rise to a level to remove him from office. The Ethics Commission’s investigation will be used as the basis to determine whether or not the Governor’s actions rise to that level.

The Judiciary Committee will conduct its work in a deliberative manner. It is important that we take the Governor’s actions seriously and fully investigate this issue, but it is also important that we do this in a timely manner so that our state can move forward.