The Role of Government - Legislative Update

Rep Jim Merrill

Hanahan, Daniel Island, Mt. Pleasant, Cainhoy

 

“Government should protect our borders, build our roads, deliver the mail, and stay the hell out of the way.”  

When I first heard a longtime elected official make that statement my thought was that he had stolen some antiquated notion of governing and that any such simplistic motto surely has no business in today’s world. Yet more and more I am reaching such a level of frustration with our governing and political process that I can understand the deep sentiment that elicits such a phrase. 

It has taken some time to write this column (we have now been out of session for a few weeks) because I could not quite put my finger on a proper summation for the legislative year. The pundits seem to qualify the session as a “meh” kind of effort, while the elected leadership was equally restrained. I know that there were the usual disappointments, but also a number of successful endeavors; so to describe the entire effort with such ambivalence is both disconcerting and confusing.  

I think I have figured out the cause for this lack of clarity. Simply put, there are too many people with too many agendas who are asking of government entirely too much.  

The result of this huge okra soup is a mishmash of agendas with very little potential for unanimity and less potential for significant legislative action. With the number of special interest groups, pseudo-idealogical blogs, social media outlets, and increasingly desperate “mainstream” media, there is an onslaught of different agendas and initiatives that are all designed for the “betterment” of society.  

In the old days disparate groups, out of necessity, would work together to disseminate a message or advance a common cause. These days, anyone with a computer or a cell phone can claim boundless support for an issue du jour. And the first place that most of these people seek a remedy is via government.  

Elected officials are absolutely bombarded with emails, calls, tweets, articles, internet postings, news reports, radio call-in shows, form letters, and surveys. Some less enlightened characters even resort to the actual written letter or face-to-face meetings. But the point is that very few issues have the solid support of a majority of constituents; and government is spread thin addressing too many of those varying topics.  

At a speech last week I told a local community group that government only responds efficiently to a crisis. The reason for this seems clear. When a crisis occurs everyone can acknowledge the need for action, rally behind said problem, and then focus on a solution. An example of this modus operandi is the recent South Carolina State University situation. 

It is true that had nothing been done to address the college’s finances and accreditation then these deficiencies surely would still have come to the forefront … but only as the school was being shuttered! 

What was desperately required was a good swift kick to bring clarity and compel immediate action. In other words … a known, unavoidable crisis. 

Our higher education subcommittee accomplished this plan by proposing that the school be closed until such time as its financial house was in order. While this did not go over too well with alumni and some in the media, the end result was much needed attention, a new board, new financial scrutiny, and significant reform of the school’s priorities.  

It was heartening to read recent reports that SC State is no longer on “double secret probation” and that enrollment has increased. It will now be up to them to continue and sustain these advancements; but make no mistake that there would have been few changes if not for the extreme measures taken to focus attention on a singular subject.  

This idea is to prioritize government action in order to effectively utilize limited resources.  

The road legislation that passed is another example of what has been classified, in some circles, as a pseudo-success. DOT reform and road funding were unflinchingly linked in this legislative debate. That fact alone made the situation almost untenable because not only were we discussing how to pay for roads and bridges, but also who would control those funds. 

Of course, for some observers the answer to funding problems is quite simple: raise taxes. The road situation made this argument even easier because current fuel prices are low and the gas tax in South Carolina is one of the lowest in the country. (As an aside, personally, I do not think low taxes are a bad thing.)

The bottom line is that the legislation that passed directs hundreds of millions of existing revenue toward DOT, while also using billions of dollars in bonding capacity for road improvement and expansion. The funding works well (although I am less pleased with the accompanying road project prioritization list), mostly because it uses current revenue streams and existing bond capacity instead of raising taxes. Yet to others, it is a bad bill because it did not accomplish the goal of increasing the gas tax. That is insane. In fact, we began the current fiscal year with a surplus in state dollars!    

There is absolutely nothing wrong with identifying a problem and then determining its place on the state’s list of priorities and finding a workable solution within the context of existing revenue. The simplistic approach to governing is to propose a new tax each time there is a request or need for revenue … a process that occurs all too often these days.  

When government spreads itself too thin - and it taxes too much - we lose the conservative concepts of individual freedom, personal responsibility, low taxes, and limited government… which really are the hallmarks of a successful democratic government.   

I believe it is in the best interests of the governed to force our elected officials to make difficult decisions and to establish priorities. There is nothing wrong with allowing families to keep the money they earn and spend it accordingly. And there is also not a problem with finding solutions to problems that don’t require increased taxes. In fact, maybe that old politician was not so far off base after all. And besides, I really do like telling government to “stay the hell out of the way.”