Educators opposed Haley Public Employment Tax

After writing last night about the Haley Public Employment Tax -- the 4.5 percent tax levied by the Budget and Control Board last week against all public employees in the form of an unnecessary health insurance premium increase -- I learned this morning that representatives of one educator organization -- but only one -- was present and "opposed the increase in the strongest terms."

The South Carolina Education Association, in its "Member Matters" newsletter last week, wrote to its members,

It was a stunning slap across the face of every SC public school and state employee. After years of furloughing, firing, and finding fault with its own school and public employees, yesterday South Carolina, through its Budget and Control Board (BCB), summarily penalized state and public school employees and retirees with a whopping 4.5% increase in their health care insurance costs, effective January 1, 2012. They slapped taxpayers with an additional 4.5% premium increase for their public employees. The Board is composed of Governor Nikki Haley, Treasurer Curtis Loftis, Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman, House Ways and Means Chairman Brian White, and Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom.

The SCEA lobbying team was present and opposed the increase in the strongest terms, but regretfully, it was the only education association to do so.

Why wouldn't every organization representing educators have taken a stand against this tax on public employees? Why was The SCEA the only one to speak up?

According to The SCEA, the Budget and Control Board, chaired by Her Excellency Nikki Haley, isn't through attacking public employees. Next stop: Pensions.

The SCEA believes that even this abuse is not sufficient to mollify Governor Haley and her allies’ determination to punish public employees. They are now looking for ways to attack the state’s employee pension plan and reduce members’ pensions. All school employees should be on the alert for further information from The SCEA. Members should encourage their colleagues to join the association today.

The organization seems to be building relationships with some leaders who don't see eye-to-eye with Haley -- including Eckstrom and Loftis.

In the last election, The SCEA supported and recommended that its members support Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom. Our perception of him as a friend of public education was confirmed yesterday when he, as a member of the BCB, proposed a lower increase--3.5%--and pointed out that even that amount was more than the law requires. Only Treasurer Loftis supported his proposal. The positive impact of member participation in campaigns and elections cannot be overstated. We ask all members to carefully review The SCEA’s candidate recommendations next November and work to support true friends of education.

Guess this means Loftis still isn't on Haley's Christmas card list, and isn't trying hard to get there.

'Haley Public Employment Tax' levied on public employees

From the beginning of her political career -- seems like only months ago -- Governor Nikki Haley has made it clear that she thinks taxes are too high and should be cut.

Which made it stunning news last week to hear that she had initiated, supported and led passage of a brand-new tax on public employees. Apparently, some taxes are good and fine, depending on who is subject to pay them.

This is a tax that only affects public employees, so it is appropriate to call it a Public Employment Tax.

And, as Haley was its inventor, it's entirely appropriate to call it the Haley Public Employment Tax.

It will be interesting to hear Haley deny that it's a tax of her invention; I understand that the proposal came to the Budget and Control Board as an agenda item from her board staff, she gives final approval to the agenda, she chose the director of the board, and she chairs the board. Therefore, it's her proposal, and she led it through to passage by the board.

So the Haley Public Employment Tax is hers to own.

I've read and re-read the coverage by The State to understand this tax:

Families covered by the state’s health insurance plan will pay $143 a year more for health insurance under a new plan approved Tuesday by the State Budget and Control Board.

The 9 percent increase will be spread equally between employees and employers, with each paying 4.5 percent more.

But why was nine percent necessary? According to the board's consultants, only 4.5 percent was necessary, and that was fully funded in the budget this year. Why was it necessary to tax public employees another 4.5 percent out of their pockets?

“We have never increased rates unnecessarily. This is the first time. It is unprecedented in state government,” said Sam Griswold, president emeritus of the State Retirees Association. “To me, you are building a profit into the system.”

Haley denied the system was turning a profit, saying any money left over automatically goes to pay down state pension debt.

Pension debt? Has anyone ever heard of this? If the system is fully funded and healthy, there shouldn't be any such thing as pension debt, should there? Which means that the additional 4.5 percent tax on public employees' salaries is, in fact, a profit to the system.

The insurance plan insures 408,605 people, close to 10 percent of the state’s population. That includes employees, retirees and their families. In addition to state employees, the plan also covers teachers and some employees for local governments and school districts.

Employees covered by the plan were hit with huge increases in the mid 2000s, including a 39.6 percent increase in 2003, according to the Budget and Control Board. Historically, employers – the state, city, county or school system – have borne the brunt of premium increases, with nine increases since 1999. Employees’ costs only have been increased five times since 1999, the last one coming in 2005.

Only five times since 1999? That's five times in 12 years, or, an average of slightly less than every other year during that period.

Henry Price, a retired USC journalism professor, attended Tuesday’s meeting to hear for himself the future of his health insurance premiums. He said he pays about $250 a month for his and his wife’s health insurance, and the increases will add an extra $120 a year to his bill.

“I think 3 1/2 (percent) covers the problem. Four-and-a-half is adding extra money into the system,” Price said. “You can say, ‘Well, it’s just pennies.’ But pennies mount up.”

Quite right. And the net result is going to be that next legislative session, when budget writers see that the health plan is now receiving a profit thanks to the Haley Public Employment Tax, they're going to feel compelled to take back some of the state's employer contribution. Mark my words.

Well, that was The State's coverage, but I trust what Sam Griswold says about public employment and employee benefits. He's the president emeritus of the Retired State Employees Association, and beyond that, he's neck-deep in experience working with the Budget and Control Board and the state treasury.

"The premise of our concern with the increase in health insurance premiums of 4.5% is that they were not needed to fund the program and were thus unnecessary," Sam wrote in a message to retired state employees and others last week.

Sam is so well-versed in this business that he prepared data to present to the Budget and Control Board last week -- but his data never made it into the agenda materials given to the board members, and were not posted on the board's website.

Want to see his data document for yourself?

Enjoy:
Griswold PageAnd here's his explanation of it:

I will explain this page to you and show you why this increase was not needed.

Focus on the two columns labeled Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 (s1 and s2). S1 assumes the imposition of the 4.5% employee rate increase. S2 assumes NO rate increase. The program is required by law to maintain a reserve fund to pay claims for up to 45 days in case an epidemic occurs or some other projection of claims costs is in error. The first line is the amount of that reserve fund being carried over from 2011. The second line is the amount available to pay claims. The difference between the two columns is $19 million and represents the increase of 4.5% from employees in s1.

The third line is interesting. This line transfers $158.9 million out of plan income to the Other Post Employment Benefits Trust Fund. This Fund was set up a couple of years ago to conform to new government accounting standards requiring that the projected cost of providing health insurance to retirees be included in the State's liabilities on its balance sheet. This fund was set up to reflect that the State acknowledged this liability. The law states that each year any funds not needed to run the insurance program will be transferred into the OPEB fund. Last year the transfer was $16 million. So this year, 2012, in this particular line, is $158.9 million not needed to run the insurance program.

Go to the last line in the top box. This is the amount we have available in 2012 to pay claims. S1 is $19 million larger than s2. Your increase.

The second line in the second box shows how much we expect to pay in claims. Subtracting the claims from the revenue ends up with Projected Ending Claims Reserve at 12/31/2012. That amount is $233 million in s1 and $214 million in s2 (your $19 million showing up again and it has NOT been spent). This is the amount of the operating reserve that is supposed to be able to fund an additional 45 days of claims payments if needed.

Now the fun part: go to the bottom line of the third box. This line tells you how many days of reserve we have and the excess days that are funded. Under s1, we see 51.8 days which is 6.8 days more than the 45 day reserve required by law. Under s2 (remember this is the figure with NO rate increase) we see 47.6 days which is 2.6 days more than the 45 day reserve needed.

THE CONCLUSION: Had no increase been imposed on employees/retirees, the program would have had enough funds to pay every claim, maintain an operating reserve that complies with state law--even exceeds it, and still transfer a record amount of $158.9 million into the OPEB Trust Fund. The 4.5% increase on employees/retirees was not needed.

Sam Griswold is no joke.

The same cannot be said for those occupying our seats of power.

So, I wondered if my interpretation of the Haley Public Employment Tax was accurate. And Sam said, "It was an increase not needed by the program to operate at full funding. It is the imposition of a tax."

So there is a tax that Haley has found she can love and can raise. It happens to be levied against all the men and women who do the state's work for meager compensation, and pray daily not to get sick and require health care provided by the state's ever-more-costly, ever-weakening health plan.

Is there a tax break for you?

I was a little surprised to see that the Greenville News published an opinion-editorial yesterday that advocates for a fairer tax system in South Carolina, even if that means adopting new taxes. Written by Erwin Maddrey, a respected Upstate businessman, the column draws attention to the South Carolina Tax Realignment Commission (TRAC) report that spells out in clear detail how our leaders have crafted tax breaks for their favorite constituents over the years, and how those accumulated tax breaks have hobbled the rest of us.

That is the spoils system, after all: Those who win the spoils spoil what's left behind.

But Maddrey is thoughtful about his commentary and finds two notes to mine for optimism:

South Carolina’s tax system is unfair to taxpayers and inadequate to meet the basic needs of our state. These are two findings of the South Carolina Tax Realignment Commission (TRAC). The good news is that citizens can get involved to address this significant problem for our state and that overall tax rates can be lowered in the process.

Surely he's talking about North Carolina, where citizens can get involved to address their state's issues, because in South Carolina, citizen involvement is invited only if it supports the prevailing regime. Can you identify a single example of citizen involvement that led to the reversal of a program or practice favored by the legislative majority in the past decade? In the past two decades? Three?

As for overall tax rates being lowered: Isn't that the problem? Our lawmakers hear "responsibility" and start mau-mauing about interpretations and home rule; they hear "tax cuts" and stampede all over one another to sign up in front of the camera.

As stated in the TRAC final report issued this past December, South Carolina’s current tax structure is “significantly hindered by structural deficiencies that if not addressed will continue to negatively impact the state’s ability to produce stable revenues for even the most basic of government services and its ability to produce a system that is fair in its treatment of all taxpayers and not just an increasingly select few.”

I have to say that I appreciate Maddrey's -- and the TRAC commission's, for that matter -- sense of fair play. But the system that benefits "an increasingly a select few" is the South Carolina system. I think we own the patent on it, or the copyright. Our state flag might as well be that plan's trademark. From the era of colonial and early-state rule by Charleston's aristocratic elite, to the period of rule by manufacturing industrialists, to the period of iron-grip rule by the solipsistic demogogues, to the modern era wherein tax cuts define who's in the in-crowd, that "increasingly select few" has never been out of power. The only difference in South Carolina's whole spotted history has been the names at the top of the heap.

And that hasn't varied so much.

TRAC was established in 2009 by the South Carolina General Assembly to “undertake a thorough assessment of the state’s current tax structure to determine its ‘adequacy, fairness and efficiency’ to ensure the state remains an ‘optimum competitor in its efforts to attract business and individuals to locate, live and invest’ in South Carolina.”

The TRAC report points out that the current state tax system is not fair due to the large number of tax breaks enacted by the General Assembly. More than 80 items produced in the state are exempt from the state sales tax. The state annually exempts $2.7 billion in annual tax revenue while only collecting $2.5 billion.

This is tragic. We collect fewer dollars in tax revenue than the amount of dollars exempted by our elected leaders from taxation. Is this not the definition of corruption, doling out favors in state law depending solely upon who you are and how you can benefit the people in power? If so, where's SLED? Maybe we need another Operation Lost Trust, because a lot of South Carolinians have certainly lost trust in their government's competence and intentions.

In addition our state tax system has failed to keep up with the shift in personal consumption from goods to services. More than 60 percent of personal expenditures are now for services. Yet only 20 percent of services are taxed with little or no rationale as to why some are taxed and some are not.

I think everyone knows why some things don't get taxed. The best way to look at it is this: If you provide a service and your service is being taxed, it may be because you don't contribute to the right members of the legislature.

If only ignorance of the state's political system was tax-deductible...

As personal spending on services continues to increase as a percentage of the state’s economy, the negative impact on state revenues will continue to grow.

Another growth area is Internet purchases.

Our state has an inefficient and cumbersome system for collecting sales taxes on these items and suffers from low compliance. This lack of compliance harms local businesses whose sales are fully captured by our tax system.

Compliance is a matter of even application of law. Here again, as Bob Walker used to say, if the law isn't being applied evenly to everyone, it may as well not be a law; in this case, the law is merely a guideline, to be applied at the prerogative of those empowered to enforce it.

By eliminating many, if not most, of these tax exemptions and recognizing the growth of the service sector and Internet sales, overall tax rates can be reduced while still achieving the same amount of revenue.

Narrowing the tax base has resulted in a less stable system of state revenue. The drop in state revenue during the recent economic recession has been made much worse because of the narrowing of our base.

For example, Act 388, which eliminated school operation property taxes on owner-occupied, primary residences and added a penny to the sales tax, is currently costing state government approximately $100 million a year.

This lack of stability contributed to the 29 percent decrease in the state general fund budget in the last two years resulting in dramatic funding cuts for all types of essential government services. Public safety, services for the disabled, higher education, public education and all other services were forced to greatly diminish the extent and quality of what they do to improve the quality of life in South Carolina and our state’s ability to attract and create jobs.

Honestly, Maddrey's heart is in the right place. But is anyone surprised that our state government -- our General Assembly, in Columbia, governing the state of South Carolina -- laid plans that resulted in a 29 percent decrease in the state's general fund budget in the past two years? Come on. If the state's governing team during those years had been comprised of Harry Ott, Gilda Cobb-Hunter, James Smith, Joel Lourie and John Matthews, working with a governor named Tommy Moore, and their results were a 29 percent decrease in the general fund budget, I'd understand the surprise and shock. But it wasn't. Look at your inputs to get a sense of what outcomes to expect.

Long term our current tax system is unable to meet essential needs in the state. For example, the state budget for road maintenance is barely more than one-third of what is needed. According to the state Department of Transportation’s “State Program, Fiscal Year 2012” report, South Carolina needs $949 million in the coming year to achieve a “minimum acceptable” level of road maintenance. If that were accomplished, the state would need $765 million a year going forward to maintain this level. The General Assembly’s 2012 budget for road maintenance: $330 million, which is a 1 percent decrease from last year.

"Minimum acceptable" is our state motto. If it isn't, it should be.

To our state's Libertarian-leaning leadership team, we're going in exactly the right direction. Ultimately, their goal is to shift all functions now funded by the state treasury to the private sector, enable contractors to provide the services our citizens require, and allow the free market to govern what fails and what thrives.

The best tax system has a broad tax base, lower tax rates and a strong foundation of property, income and sales taxes (referred to as the “three-legged stool”). However, over the years the General Assembly has narrowed the tax base and created inequities in all three forms of taxation. This distorts economic decisions by businesses and consumers, leads to insufficient funding of essential services, harms the state’s ability to attract investment and spur job creation and results in higher tax rates.

Higher tax rates on some, Mr. Maddrey, only on some.

Shall we invest in children, or pay business to hire workers?

That's the choice being described in today's The State, as lawmakers get back to work on the $5.8 billion budget plan -- the plan that is supposed to become effective July 1.

The State explains:

The Senate budget would split money added by growth in the state's economy -- with $100 million paying for business tax relief and $105 million paying for K-12 education.

House members want $150 million in tax relief for businesses. Their insurance rates rose to start repaying almost $1 billion in federal loans that the state had to take out in order to continue paying unemployment benefits after the state's unemployment insurance fund went broke in 2008. For some companies, taxes increased by as much as 600 percent per employee, and companies have said the tax hike might cause them to delay hiring.

Debt from poor legislative choices -- or was it former Governor Mark Sanford's decisions that led to the depletion of the unemployment insurance fund? -- now leave the state's children in want, with lawmakers mulling over whether to give them half-loaf or a quarter-loaf.

It is as it has been for all of South Carolina's generations: Our decisionmakers see the needs but find all manner of competing interests to drain the treasury before getting to the question of giving every child access to a quality education.

Who wins? That's been the same for generations, too.

State Rep. Dan Cooper, R-Anderson, the House's top budget writer, says the debate over spending on education or tax relief is the biggest remaining issue. An agreement could be worked out this week, he added.

South Carolina falls to last place, again

Cindi Ross Scoppe in Wednesday's The State:

THE TAX Foundation’s latest rankings of state taxes are out, and we’re No. 50. As in, no state collects less in taxes per resident than South Carolina does.

If that surprises you, then you’ve come to the right place. Much of what we think we know about taxes in our state is simply wrong. And while people are entitled to whatever opinion they want about whether taxes are too high or too low or just right, those opinions ought to be based on facts.

No one should be surprised at this. I recall a debate in the Senate from some years ago when a half-dozen men tied up the Senate calendar one afternoon arguing over this same simple point. One whipped out a little booklet produced by some manufacturers lobby telling us that South Carolina was the highest-taxed people in the region. Another brandished some chart printed from the internet showing we were in the top five highest-taxed states in the nation. And a third wanted to refer only to an apples-to-apples comparison published by some governors' association arm showing that we were somewhere in the middle.

Of course, NO one wanted to listen to that last guy.

Of course, No. 50 isn’t the whole story. Anyone who tries to tell you that a single number sums up tax rankings is misleading you. This particular ranking, for instance, doesn’t include taxes collected by local government, which makes it not quite but nearly meaningless, since the division between state and local duties varies so much from state to state.

...
Our tax rate — which is the percentage of our total income that we pay in taxes — ranks 43rd. That means seven states have a lower tax rate than we do. (Our income, by the way, is $33,954 per capita, which ranks 46th nationally. Not something to celebrate no matter what you think about taxes.)

Per capita is $33,954, yet when someone suggests raising the highest tax rate for the wealthy, these folk earning $33,954 squall and cry, no, no, no, we can't raise the tax rate on the wealthy, I don't want to pay any more in taxes.

Scoppe's column includes a great deal more context, but here is a digest of figures to consider quickly:

50th. State tax collections per capita, at $1,577. The U.S. average is $2,339.

49th. Combined state and local tax burden per capita, at $2,742. Only Mississippians paid less, at $2,678 per capita. The U.S. average is $4,160.

43rd. Combined state and local tax burden as a percentage of state income, at 8.1 percent. The U.S. average is 9.8 percent.

35th. State tax revenue per capita, at $4,665. This figure and the next one count not only taxes but money from fees, licenses and federal funds.

36th. Combined state and local revenue per capita, at $7,006.

38th. Individual income tax collections, at $519 per capita.

44th. Corporate income tax collections, at $48 per capita. This says more about how little corporate income we have than about how much we tax corporations. Nonetheless, we score a similar 41st on a more complicated “corporate tax index” that is part of the foundation’s business tax climate index.

16th. Combined state and local sales tax, at an average of 7.25 percent. (The 6 percent state-only rate ranks 15th.)

39th. Combined state and local sales tax collections per capita, at $711. The fact that our sales tax rate ranks so much higher than our sales tax collections reflects our overabundance of sales tax loopholes, our reluctance to tax services and our poverty.

47th. State gasoline tax, at 16.8 cents per gallon.

41st. State cigarette tax, at 57 cents per pack.

25th. State spirits excise tax, at $4.97 per gallon.

11th. State table wine excise tax, at $1.08 per gallon.

5th. State beer excise tax, at 77 cents per gallon.

24th. State and local cellphone taxes, at 9.52 percent.

45th. Property taxes on owner-occupied housing as a percentage of median home value, at 0.5 percent. The U.S. average is more than double that: 1.04 percent.

36th. State and local property tax collections per capita, at $963. The U.S. average is $1,352.

And our Tax Freedom Day, on April 3 last year, was earlier than it was in 39 states.

Seems clear to me that people living in South Carolina pay less in taxes as a percentage of their income that people living in any other state in the nation. Funny; that's not what our lawmakers say in their stump speeches. But Scoppe addresses that, too:

What that means — like much of the information in this report — is that when people complain that taxes are too high in South Carolina, they’re not using any objective standard. Either they’re reflecting the fact that they are among those being hurt by our Swiss-cheese tax code or else they’re just saying they don’t want to pay taxes.

Scoppe's point reminds me of a little bit of Governor Jimmy Byrnes's address to educators sixty years ago last month. He said:

Naturally there is opposition to the Sales Tax. There is opposition to every tax, but I have failed to find any man who is really in favor of improving our educational facilities who will suggest a substitute tax plan.

I can understand the position of the man who thinks it is a waste of money to educate the children of people he calls "common people." He is willing that we should continue to have more illiteracy than any state in the Union. I disagree with him but I understand him.

I cannot understand the position of the man who says he is in favor of increasing teachers' salaries, improving the transportation system, constructing new school buildings, and yet opposes the sales tax and offers no substitute. He wants to help the children -- provided it does not cost him anything.

That cannot be done. It will cost money. But the education of our children is the primary duty of our State just as National Defense is the primary duty of the Federal Government.

Seems that we in South Carolina didn't want to pay taxes sixty years ago to support our public services, and we don't want to pay any taxes today to support our public services.

None of state's congressmen support most-popular revenue plan

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken on March 2, 81 percent of Americans support putting a surtax on federal income taxes for those who make more than $1 million per year. Seeing that the vast majority of Americans favor such a notion, and the needs for federal aid to states stands at an all-time high, U.S. Rep. Jean Schakowsky of Illinois has drafted a bill to do precisely that.

Schakowsky has collected support in the form of co-sponsors for her bill from across the land, from Raul Grijalva in Arizona to Keith Ellison of Minnesota, to John Yarmuth of Kentucky and Steve Cohen of Tennessee, to Donna Edwards of Maryland and Pete DeFazio of New York, and others. Missing from her list of co-sponsors is a single name from South Carolina.

Here again, an idea identified by a majority of Americans as a good one is decidedly out-of-favor here at home.

Income inequality in America is the worst we’ve seen it since 1928. Wages have stagnated for middle and lower income families despite enormous gains in productivity. Where has all the money gone?

“In the United States today, the richest 1% owns 34 % of our nation’s wealth – that’s more than the entire bottom 90%, who own just 29% of the country’s wealth,” said Rep. Schakowsky. “And the top one-hundredth of 1% now makes an average of $27 million per household per year. The average income for the bottom 90% of Americans? $31,244. It’s time for millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share, which is why I introduced the Fairness in Taxation Act. This isn’t about punishment or revenge. It’s about fairness. It’s about avoiding budget cuts that harm middle class families and those who aspire to it. We can choose to cut education, job creation and health care, or we can choose to ask those who can contribute more to do so.”

Is it the case that South Carolina's population includes so many millionaires that their numbers outweigh the will and needs of the remainder? Is that what holds back our legislative delegation in Washington from supporting a popular tax proposal?

I stood last Saturday among the 2,500 at the State Capitol in Columbia and, honestly, though I didn't do a poll of the rally crowd, I doubt there was a single millionaire present.

And to date, I haven't seen a single protest or demonstration organized by or for South Carolina's millionaires.

The current top tax bracket begins at $373,000 in income and fails to distinguish between the “well off” and billionaires – like the top 20 hedge fund managers whose average income last year was over $1 billion.

The Fairness in Taxation Act asks enacts new tax brackets for income starting at $1 million and ends with a $1 billion bracket. The new brackets would be:

* $1-10 million: 45%
* $10-20 million: 46%
* $20-100 million: 47%
* $100 million to $1 billion: 48%
* $1 billion and over: 49%

The bill would also tax capital gains and dividend income as ordinary income for those taxpayers with income over $1 million.

Schakowsky has even lined up support from some conscientious millionaires:

“I think very wealthy people like me should pay substantially higher taxes, since we have done exceedingly well in the last few decades,” said Katharine Myers, a millionaire from Pennsylvania whose income comes from royalties from the Myers-Briggs personality test, created by her mother-in-law, which she has managed with Peter Myers since the 1980s. “Our taxpayer-funded government contributed to my success.” Myers has been a supporter of United for a Fair Economy and its Responsible Wealth project for many years.

But none from those elected to represent impoverished South Carolinians in Congress.

Congresswoman Schakowsky has shown that there is another way,” said Steve Wamhoff, tax expert from Citizens for Tax Justice. “Her proposal would make the federal income tax more progressive by introducing higher rates for taxpayers with income in excess of $1 million. Millionaires have benefited disproportionately from the tax cuts enacted over the past decade, so it seems entirely reasonable that they share in the sacrifices needed to get our fiscal house in order.”

“The budget cuts being debated in Washington shamefully require middle class families to pay the price for the recklessness of the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers who broke our economy,” said Brian Miller, Executive Director of United for a Fair Economy. “Instead of punishing middle class families and de-funding America, the Fairness in Taxation Act asks those who have benefitted so heavily from the economic bounce of Wall Street to share responsibility for getting our nation's finances on track.”

“Any sensible program for deficit reduction must begin with changing the massive tax cuts for the very wealthy,” said Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future. “Those tax give-aways were a major cause of our current deficit. In an era of excessive inequality we should end Bush era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. We need progressive revenues not just to bring down deficits, but also to finance investments in job and sustainable growth. The introduction of the Fairness in Taxation Act is an important step that will be popular with the American people.”

Are there any conscientious members of Congress representing South Carolina? Even one?

South Carolina finds rock bottom; lawmakers dig harder

Andy Brack, publisher of the Statehouse Report, announced in the current edition of Free Times that South Carolina has beaten every other state in the union in a key economic indicator: the amount of tax revenue collected by our state.

Four years ago, according to the nonprofit Tax Foundation, South Carolina collected an average $1,894 per person in tax revenues -- an astoundingly low number when considering that the average includes all of South Carolina's taxpayers who are millionaires. That figure ranked us 44th out of 50.

But last year, we beat that by more than $300, as the state collected an average $1,577 per person and left us holding 50th position, dead last.

Brack explains how difficult it was for South Carolina to earn the distinction.

Over the past five years, state lawmakers have passed tax cuts worth $640 million annually, which has led so far to $1.42 billion in lower state revenues in the same time span. And if you think government has grown massively, it hasn’t. The state’s budget has grown an average of 1.4 percent over the past 15 years — the same rate as population growth, according to state figures.

That was a heavy lift, indeed, and lawmakers deserve full recognition for their work.

Not everyone is crowing over the win, Brack writes. The late Governor Carroll Campbell's chief economist, Harry Miley, is "flabbergasted." Campbell and Miley, longtime residents will recall, did much to move South Carolina's economy into the twentieth century. Miley's tone is far from celebratory: "...dead last on paying for government services? That just doesn’t seem very smart in the long run. You can’t fund your infrastructure. Your infrastructure crumbles.”

Brack finds some lawmakers who aren't happy with the ranking either, finding the average collection per citizen not low enough.

So, with news from the Tax Foundation that we collected less per capita at the state level in 2009 and we have just about the lowest tax burden per capita of anyone, you’d think state lawmakers would be throwing some kind of party.

Nope: They want to lower those awful, high taxes more, as witnessed by legislation introduced by state Rep. Jim Merrill (R-Berkeley) to cut property taxes on “just about anyone who bought property in South Carolina after 2006,” according to a March 3 story in the Post and Courier. His biggest ally: South Carolina realtors. The cost: A cut to cities, counties and schools of another $220 million to $260 million at a time when their budgets are reeling, too.

When rock bottom isn't low enough, how do you get lower? You dynamite the rock and never mind the collateral damage.