Two years ago, we looked at the proposed Tax Realignment Commission (TRAC) with much skepticism. We’re going to refer to it as SHAFT because you the taxpayer are getting shafted when its all said and done. Originally, the SHAFT (TRAC) report was going to be presented to the General Assembly as a whole pie to be voted up or down with no opportunity to amend.

Back then, I introduced an amendment to force SHAFT (TRAC)  to make the proposal revenue neutral (they could not present a plan that raised taxes). I lost that battle by 1 vote. The argument was why would we want to tie the hands of SHAFT to propose a plan that couldn’t raise taxes? Exactly, lets tie the hands, feet, and gag anyone that would dare suggest we raise taxes on South Carolinians already suffering under an unsustainable amount of tax burden.

We were, however, able to whittle it down a little bit by allowing the proposal to be amended just like any other bill. After this change, I was supporting the concept, but eventually voted against SHAFT.

Here’s why.

SHAFT is nothing more that an attempt to provide cover to Columbia politicians to raise your taxes. Here’s how. The SHAFT proposal is adopted by the General Assembly. The politicians go home to screaming constituents because he/she voted to raise your taxes. The explanation? “We created a committee made up of a diverse selection of experts from all over the Palmetto State. They reported that this plan will make us more competitive. This plan will sustain our revenue sources in government so we can focus on making South Carolina a better place to live, breath, and hope…blah blah blah”.

You get the idea, right?

In the past, I’ve commented on TRAC here and here.

The Department of Commerce has a presentation in response to SHAFT (TRAC) click: here

“Absurd” regulations: Senators hear gripes about State Fire Marshal by MATT LONG on DECEMBER 17, 2010
South Carolina legislators on Thursday heard complaints that state fire marshals often unnecessarily cost businesses, non-profits, and even state agencies hundreds of thousands of dollars per year through “absurd” interpretations of the fire code.

A legislative audit released earlier this month said the Office of the State Fire Marshal had been “inconsistent” in how it enforced the fire code with regard to fire extinguishers and cooking stoves. The audit also said the Office did not give organizations an adequate way to appeal.

A three-member Senate subcommittee listened to the complaints in a hearing Thursday afternoon. The legislators were looking to see if reforms were needed in the OFSM after receiving several complaints from businesses. One member of the Labor, Commerce, and Industry Committee, Sen. Glenn Reese (D-Spartanburg), requested the audit.

The State Fire Marshal’s Office inspects all schools, hospitals, prisons, and daycares in the state, among other facilities.

State Corrections Director Jon Ozmint criticized the office for what he calls “absurd” requirements. He says one part of the fire code does not allow him to put locks on the exits at minimum security prisons.

We point out… the reason we put the lock on that door was because we had a problem with inmates stepping outside to pick up liquor, contraband, or they’re stepping outside and getting in the car with their girlfriend and leaving. So, we put the lock on there. When, then he says, “Well, I don’t care about that. The code says you’ve got to do this,” I think you’ve got a real power problem.

Ozmint says marshals need to understand that what’s needed in commercial buildings is not always the best idea for prisons. He urged the committee to hold prisons to a different standard than other structures. As one example, he criticized a requirement that sprinkler heads be in every room, including showers. Ozmint said inmates often damage the heads. Ozmint says the state then has to pay for new sprinklers, wasting taxpayer money.

He says 24-hour surveillance by guards is more efficient than fire suppressants.

I’ve been there eight years. I’ve not had one injury due to fire…Any code that requires me to put a sprinkler head in a stainless steel shower goes beyond the pale of reason.

However, State Fire Marshal John Reich says deadly fires have occurred in South Carolina prisons before. He mentioned a 1979 fire at a Lancaster County prison that killed eleven inmates. He said a separate fire did not kill anyone, but “began in a shower.”

The audit also found problems in how the OFSM interpreted a national fire code with regard to discontinued fire extinguishers. After one manufacturer, General Fire Extinguishing, went bankrupt in 2001, the agency said all General fire extinguishers had to be replaced during maintenance tests after 2005. However, the code does not require replacement unless the parts are unavailable, which was not the case in General extinguishers.

The problem generated controversy after it was revealed that marshals forced the Greenville County School District to replace all of its sprinklers, costing taxpayers more than $30,000.

But it also affected individuals on a smaller scale. Leroy Lowery, a pastor at Southside Free Will Baptist Church in Darlington, criticized what he considered over-regulation of a daycare at Southside. He said he was also told by a vendor that his extinguishers had to be replaced.

These extinguishers were in perfectly good working order, but were replaced by our vendor. His extinguishers. Our money. We believed this to be a gross conflict of interest, when the man condemning our property could then sell us his property, at his price.

Lowery said there was no realistic appeal available to him, so he had to buy the new extinguishers.

However, Linda Porter of the vendor National Fire Protection Company said there’s little financial incentive for vendors to unreasonably push people to buy new extinguishers.

The profit margin in this competitive market is very low on new fire extinguishers. We could service General fire extinguishers, and make more money than we do replacing them.

Lowery says continual conflicts over fire code restrictions eventually led his church to end its daycare program.

He says local fire marshals have the power to make life difficult for building owners, so most keep quiet.

It is because of fear. Cold, hard, paralyzing fear. What will happen if we do appeal or resist their decision? So, we keep quiet, pay the fees, and quietly build up disrespect for, and contempt of, our government.

The hearing was led by Sen Kevin Bryant (R-Anderson). Bryant, along with Reese, and Sen. Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) all vocally sympathized with Ozmint and Lowery.

Bright said he would look at how to make the appeals process easier for organizations.

Bryant said more hearings are needed so legislators can get a good picture of what kind of reforms are necessary in the agency.

We previously reported that on August 13^th the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a new prescription abortion drug called “ella” allowing Watson Pharmaceuticals to market this drug in the U.S. as an “emergency contraceptive” (EC). While proponents of ella claim that it is more effective than the so-called “morning-after-pill,” Plan B, ella can also function as an abortion drug more like RU-486. On December 1st, Watson Pharmaceuticals began to aggressively promote ella over the internet and in pharmacies.

Because ella is similar in its chemical make-up to the abortion drug RU-486, it therefore can destroy an implanted embryo, in addition to other modes of action such as preventing fertilization or preventing implantation. Until now the FDA has drawn the line between EC and abortion based on whether a drug prevents an established pregnancy or ends an established pregnancy. Therefore, approving ella as an EC even under their own definition of an abortifacient is doubly misleading.

Because of the FDA’s approval of ella as an EC, pharmacists may believe they must cover ella as a prescription drug. However, many pharmacists do not know about the dangers of this drug or that it functions like an abortion. Many major pharmacy chains may not know ella can cause an abortion, and need to be aware of these concerns before they begin stocking this abortion drug.For this, we need your help.

Please send an email to the pharmacy you most frequent, asking that they not stock ella, the abortion drug. Follow this link, where you can select your pharmacy corporation and email them directly. Sample text is provided. Now is the time to let pharmacies know you do not want them providing this drug.