Here's what happened in South Carolina this week
Welcome back!
Did you hear? It's raining dollars in South Carolina.
A Category 5 rainfall of dollars was announced this week and every lawmaker of consequence had a 32-watt smile on their faces, shinier than Belinda's headlights (sorry, you know I can't miss an opportunity to talk about my car-child).
But this was also a week of incredibly tough conversations. Let's dive into what happened:
Income tax cuts
So here's the deal, South Carolina thought that they had an extra $3 billion in the state treasury. But turns out they were wrong and instead have a whopping $4.6 billion. That's good news for the state! How the state will use the money is something that lawmakers have been discussing since last year and one of the biggest proposals this week came in the form of tax cuts.
What to know: South Carolina's new income tax proposal
Tax cuts have been proposed every year, but this year, with all this money lying around, it seems like an absolute possibility. Gov. McMaster and House Republicans are recommending lowering income taxes from 7% to 6%, meanwhile, the Senate introduced a proposal that will lower the tax to 5.7%, and would also offer a $1 billion tax rebate to taxpayers.
The proposal will save millions of dollars for taxpayers. However, financial experts are concerned about this short-term tax offering, especially when South Carolina is living with a massive debt due to its pension system. I went through financial reports and here's what I found:
For subscribers: Perception and optics: SC will cut income taxes while an unceasing pension debt persists
Convention of States
It was a room packed to the brim, when a Senate Judiciary subcommittee convened to discuss whether South Carolina should pass a bill to join the ranks of 17 other states that are calling for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution, as per Article V in the Constitution.
Its supporters say that the "federal government is out of control" and that the states need to step up and stand up to decisions made by Washington D.C. Generally, convention of state supporters have demanded three specific things:
Limiting the power of the federal government.
Pushing for a balanced budget amendment, which would mean that the federal government shouldn't spend more than the revenue collected that year. Left-leaning experts say that this amendment might limit the government's capacity to respond to a crisis, like the COVID-19 pandemic where the federal government released trillions of dollars in aid. Meanwhile, right-leaning experts ask why the burden of paying past debt should fall on the future generation.
Establishing term limits for Congressional members. This particular demand has generally had bipartisan support. No one wants to see the same politician in office for 30 years.
A few supporters of COS, some as young as 14 years of age, said that the federal government has put limits on a person's right to bear arms and had orchestrated a debilitating inflation crisis. Even Republican Senator Chip Campsen, who isn't a big fan of the convention of states bill, had started warming up to it. He said that the founding fathers such as James Madison had devised Article V to act as a check on the federal government.
However, the majority of the speakers who went first were worried. Lynn Teague with the League of Women Voters emphasized the dangers of amending the Constitution in a political time that was as divided as the present time.
And Teague's concerns were shared by other speakers who pointed out that Article V set virtually no ground rules on how the convention would take place. Without any rules in place, states could amend anything they wanted in what was referred to as a "runaway convention".
The Senate Judiciary Committee will hear the senate version of the bill this week on Tuesday.
Critical Race Theory
Last week's meeting regarding Critical Race Theory went on for five hours. Superintendent Molly Spearman spoke first and started by saying that her position on CRT had not changed and that the state’s educational standards had not changed.
She's still opposed to its inclusion in schools, CRT bias and had also rejected federal funding that put forth a “one-sided” narrative. Additionally, she said that the state needs legislation to ensure that the right kind of education was taught to children. However, she said emphatically, all the bills related to CRT were leading South Carolina onto “a dangerous path”.
Spearman said that the term CRT significantly evolved due to national politics and has snowballed into a catchall phrase. But the state must not lose sight of the end goal, she said, and that ensuring that every high school graduate is successful in college and after. She emphasized that all the teachers in the school system are qualified and are overwhelmingly committed to wanting nothing but the best for the students and that just because something causes discomfort, doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be taught.
Spearman went over concerns that several educators have held since CRT became a talking point for elections. Americans and South Carolina have a rich history and not everything is good, Spearman said. “Omitting this history because it’s uncomfortable…that’s not the American way,” she continued.
For subscribers: Critical race theory and education are likely to become talking points in 2022 elections
Spearman took the example of an event in the Upstate where a parent walked up to her and asked why schools were showing horror movies to children. Upon further discussion, Spearman realized, the horror movie the parent was talking about was about the Holocaust.
One of the most technical and pertinent points that Spearman pointed out was the lack of clarity in the current law and what it means by areas of discomfort. Just because a movie about the Holocaust makes one uncomfortable doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be taught, she said. Instead, the focus should be on providing the tools where students can see the past and learn from it.
Supporters of anti-CRT bills, such as members of the Moms for Liberty, said that though the majority of the teachers in South Carolina were competent educators, some of them wanted to “push their agenda” onto students. They suggested that cameras should be put inside classrooms to monitor teachers.
At the center of it, when it comes to policymaking, were two sets of views in policymaking: race-conscious and race-blind policies. The two policies have been at the center of any subject that has racial undertones to it, and non-discriminatory, race-blind policies have never been quite so at odds with policies that are designed to raise marginalized minorities to an equitable, level playing field.
Several educators who spoke against the bill reiterated what CRT is and isn’t. They maintained that CRT is a legal study and was initially meant to investigate racism in the legal system post the civil rights era. One brought up redlining, a practice in which minority applicants are denied services in neighborhoods because they are classified as 'hazardous' to investment.
Another advocate said that the bills also have two unintended consequences.
The first was that angry, fearful parents would bypass local educational administrators and go directly to the lawmakers every time they had an issue with something.
And that most students developed opinions of their own and that parents can influence them but not control them.
A few more things:
The Senate Education Subcommittee settled on an amended version of a bill that would establish a "scholarship funds" account that would divert $113.5 million from public schools into private schools. The current language of the bill does not impose any protections for disabled students and private schools can choose to deny admission to students on the basis of sexual orientation, religion and special needs status. The bill will head to the full education committee for further discussion.
So here's what you need to know for the upcoming week:
Tuesday, Feb. 22, 10:30 am: The House Ways and Means Committee will do a final vote and discussion on tax cuts, rainy day funds and budget bills.
At 3 p.m., the Senate Finance Committee will discuss H.3216, an anti-vaccine mandate bill that led to a heated debate back in December.
Wednesday, Feb. 23, 10:00 am: The Senate Education Committee will meet to discuss and vote on the controversial "Education Savings Account" bill.
Though they haven't listed when the debate would take place, the House version of "scholarship accounts" has also been listed for debate on the floor.
That's all from me this week!
I'll be back next week with more updates on how everything goes. In the meantime:
If there’s something I’m missing, don’t hesitate to reach out. I welcome any feedback, news tips and ideas you have. Contact me at dchhetri@gannett.com via email, @ChhetriDevyani on Twitter or call me at 864-549-8465.
This article originally appeared on Greenville News: Here's what happened in South Carolina this week
