I offered a motion to take the surplus money, pay off the trust funds, then return all of the money to the taxpayer. Unfortunately, only 10 members of the SC Senate voted against the tabling motion: Campsen, Courson, Cromer, Grooms, Hawkins, Knotts, Peeler, Ryberg, Verdin, & myself.

This amendment if passed would send $250 million back to the over charged taxpayer. Every taxpayer would get $125 back. That’s $250 per couple. That’s $5.4 million per senate district.

This budget grows government by 28% over the level of just three years ago. It is clear that government can never have enough money to spend, so all I’m saying is this year let’s give the extra money, just the extra money, back to the people who earn it. With this budget, we are telling taxpayers that if they send it, we will spend it.

Perhaps these taxpayers will have used their rebate to pay their property taxes, make an extra house payment, take a long weekend vacation, buy the car a new set of tires. I have asked many constituents this question: do you want me to spend your money in Columbia or return it. 100% of my constituents have told me the same thing. I want MY money back.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of mcolleagueses disagree.

I introduced this proviso, yet it was tabled with only 8 members with me. -As a pharmacist, I witness wasted taxpayer money on prescription drugs on a daily basis. I would like to apply my 20 years of experience in pharmacy to offer solutions to the ever-climbing healthcare costs in the Palmetto State. Currently, Medicaid has a process called prior authorization or PA. This process is applied to some medications. In these situations, generic alternatives must be used first, and in the instance that the generic drug does not work; the more expensive medication may be dispensed. In no way is quality of care in jeopardy. If a consumer is paying cash for a product, naturally, they will try the least expensive option first. When the taxpayer is required to pay for medications covered by Medicaid, I believe we should take the same approach.

Prior Authorization is applied to many life threatening therapeutic classes with little or no problems, yet with exponential savings of the taxpayers’ money. We apply the PA’s to medications treating diabetes, blood pressure, esophageal reflux, and many, many more. Medicaid has 3 therapeutic classes that are exempt from prior authorization: HIV, Oncology (cancer), and mental health.My amendment removes these classes from exemption. I doubt if we’ll see much money saved on oncology or HIV drugs in the near future, yet I am confident that there is much room for savings in the mental health area. Also, we spent $600 million on mental health drugs in 2005 on Medicaid. Two drugs Risperdal & Zyprexa cost us $49 million.

For example, Zyprexa can cost up to $1200 per month. If Zyprexa was placed on PA, a generic alternative such as haloperidol may be used. Haloperidol costs less than a $100 per month. If the patient does not tolerate haloperidol, then Zyprexa may be dispensed. This process would not be applied to a patient on a maintenance regimen with stable results, only new diagnoses.

This proviso does not place any medication on Prior Authorization; it allows Medicaid more options. The Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee makes these determinations. Here’s a link to their website: http://www.dhhs.state.sc.us/dhhsnew/PATCouncil.asp

We don’t have an unlimited amount of funds for our Medicaid recipients and I am confident that this proviso will free up scarce Medicaid dollars for areas of need.

Sen. Jake Knotts offered an amendment to provide $1 for property tax relief. What this amendment does is get it up for discussion should the budget get to conference committee. The House budget called for $116 million in property tax relief, yet the Senate budget calls for none. This amendment will get us some room for discussion in conference committee. The amendment was tabled. Now the conference committee can either put in $116 million or nothing.

There has been much discussion from all parts of the state for a list of the votes taken this week on property taxes. The link below gets you to the journals of the Senate. The roll call votes on April 18 & 19 are tabling votes. “Aye” votes are actually against property tax relief and “nay” votes are in favor of property tax relief. I voted “nay” on every vote.
-Grooms I tabling motion was the 1st vote on April 18th
-House Plan tabling motion was the 2nd vote on April 18th
-House Plan tabling motion was the 1st vote on April 19th
-Grooms II tabling motion was the 2nd vote on April 19th
-Grooms II tabling motion was the 3rd vote on April 19th
-House Plan II tabling motion was the only vote on April 20th
http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/sjournal.htm

Although I have supported every effort to slash your property taxes, they have all failed. Once again proponents of reform have lost yet another battle in the “deliberative” body of the SC General Assembly. We now have a last gasp on property tax reform. This allows for a local option to remove operating expenses from your property tax bill by local government. The author, Sen. Chip Campsen (R-Charleston) has voted in favor of all of the meaningful reform proposals.
Local Option Property Tax Relief Act
Part 1 – School Operations Relief for Primary Residences, Business Personal and Other Personal Property
-Permits a county-by-county referendum on property tax relief for school operations on primary residences, business personal and other personal property.
-Counties could opt-in to just enough county-wide increase in the sales tax to provide this relief for primary residences, business personal and other personal property (see attached sheet for how much sales tax would be required in each county)
-Either County Council or 7% of electorate by petition initiative can put the Local Option Property Tax Relief measure on the November ballot
-Would eliminate approximately 50% of total property taxes on primary residences business personal and other personal property (statewide average is 49.3% – each county will vary)
-Sales tax revenue considered a part of local maintenance of effort

Part 2 – Statewide Tax Relief from a ¼ Cent Increase to the Statewide Sales Tax
-Circuit Breaker Income Tax Credit when property tax on primary residence exceeds 5% of income – 100% refundable tax credit for households at or below the median household income in SC & 50% refundable tax credit for households above the median household income
-Income Tax Credit equal to 4% of total property tax paid on commercial/rental property
-Does not affect school funding formulas

Part 3 – Other Provisions
-Quarterly property tax payment
-New property on tax roles sooner
-Local millage cap to protect business
-Rolling reserve fund in school districts to cushion volatility in sales tax revenue
-BEA balanced