Mr. Ernest Bagwell’s remarks after a mugger got away with his wallet: “It looks like he won the first round. But he’s welcome to come back for round number two. We’ll see who wins this time.”

Anderson Independent Mail – ANDERSON COUNTY — After a young man standing an arm’s length away pointed a gun at his chest, 76-year-old Ernest Bagwell wrestled him to the ground.

Bagwell was standing in his open-sided garage when the man parked his car in the road in front of Bagwell’s driveway and silently walked up, surprising the homeowner.

With a handgun, possibly a .45-caliber, pointed straight at his chest from about a foot and a half away, Bagwell reacted and grabbed his mugger’s wrist.

“I was keeping the gun pointed away from me and he was trying to pull it back,” Bagwell said. “Like I said, I ain’t gonna give up without a fight.”

By TOM DAVIS, Guest Columnist
A few weeks ago, a $228 million Medicaid deficit was laid at the doorstep of the General Assembly, and legislators on both sides of the political aisle have been scrambling ever since to blame someone. First they said the former state Health and Human Services director was incompetent. Then they chastised the Budget and Control Board and the State Budget Office for not providing adequate oversight. And just last week they accused former Gov. Mark Sanford of underestimating health-care costs.

As a member of the agency deficit subcommittee appointed by Sen. Glenn McConnell, I will work with my colleagues to uncover the facts and then follow wherever they lead us. But one thing I know for sure right now: A primary cause of the Medicaid deficit is poor public policy enacted by the General Assembly. Specifically, the Legislature’s role in creating the problem can be boiled down to three things:

•  It ignored warnings that accepting so-called stimulus money would make it almost impossible to control Medicaid costs in the future.

•  Through a complex and sometimes-anonymous budget proviso system, it protected the profits of special interests that benefit financially from our Medicaid system.

•  And it prohibited our state’s Health and Human Services director from using basic Medicaid cost-control measures enjoyed by the directors in every other state.

In 2009, my first year as a state senator, I joined Sen. McConnell and 11 others in voting against accepting $740 million in one-time federal stimulus money to grow our state’s Medicaid program far beyond our ability to sustain it. The price for taking that money — giving away our ability to control the size of the Medicaid pool in the future — was simply too high.

But a majority of lawmakers wanted the money, and so we took it. And predictably, the number of people on our Medicaid rolls has skyrocketed. There are now more than 975,000 South Carolinians receiving Medicaid benefits, with thousands more added each month. And we are powerless to stop this growth because the original restrictions on cost containment were codified last year as part of Obamacare.

Lawmakers also have driven up Medicaid costs by dictating, through budget provisos, what care is to be provided, how much is to be paid and to whom. Budget provisos in Columbia are like earmarks in Washington; they allow lawmakers to protect well-connected special interests without having to identify themselves. Provisos simply appear seemingly out of thin air. The current state budget has 946 provisos, and here are a few that drive up Medicaid costs:

•  Reductions in fees paid to certain health-care providers are outlawed.

•  Funding for certain health centers is protected.

•  Increases in payments to specific care facilities are required.

•  Coverage for chiropractic services is mandated.

•  Reductions in pharmacy reimbursement rates are prohibited.

•  Brand-name drugs are allowed even if not prescribed per medical guidelines.

Other states trust their Medicaid directors to decide how to allocate a decreasing amount of money in order to provide the best possible health care to an increasing number of people. And yet in South Carolina we tolerate a politically driven process where those with enough money to buy access to lawmakers win and everyone else loses.

This political access by big-time Medicaid players to lawmakers, of course, is provided by lobbyists. Here in America, hiring a high-powered lobbyist is simply good business. A recent economic study of the federal American Jobs Creation Act of 2009 found that for every dollar spent in lobbying, $220 worth of special favors were obtained. So in a very cynical sense, one can’t blame the special interests for playing the pay-to-play game. But we can and should blame lawmakers.

Gov. Nikki Haley has appointed Tony Keck, a health-care expert with a record of delivering quality health care services to the needy in a tight fiscal climate, to serve as the Health and Human Services director and manage our Medicaid program. The Legislature needs to get out of the way and let him do his job, and it can start by getting rid of the special laws that protect the favored few.

There’s reason for hope. On Thursday, the Senate started debate on S.434, a bill sponsored by Sens. Harvey Peeler and Kevin Bryant to suspend four of the special-interest protections. Here’s hoping that the General Assembly passes that bill, and then kicks the proviso habit for good.

Mr. Davis, an attorney who served as chief of staff to Gov. Mark Sanford, represents Beaufort County in the state Senate.

The SC Senate finally gave h. 3003 2nd reading after 10pm Wednesday night. Even though cloture had been invoked, the opposition put up over 400 amendments to stall the process. H. 3003 got third reading on Thursday 02.24.11, it will now be returned to the House. I doubt the House will concur with the Senate version, so H. 3003 will probably get a conference committee.
Ballot only counted if elector brings valid ID to county board of registration prior to certification of election
ii. Voter can sign affidavit swearing that he suffers from a “reasonable impediment” that prevents him from obtaining an ID — and the burden of proof is left to the county board of registration (Section 1, Item (D), Sub-item 1.b.)
5. Dispute of validity of photo ID
a. Voters can cast provisional ballot
b. Provisional ballot must be determined under current voter challenge law
6. DMV charges for photo ID
a. FREE of charge for persons 17 years and older
b. $5 charge for ages 10-16 (2010 Senate version: ages 5-16)
Early Voting – Effective January 2, 2012
1. Early voting centers requirements:
a. Voting opens 11 days prior to election
b. Voting closes 3 days prior to election
c. Open a minimum of TWO Saturdays in the early voting period
d. Electors can cast only one ballot, without excuse, in county of residence
e. Minimum of one, maximum of 3 early voting centers per county
f. County board of elections may authorize up to 2 additional early voting centers after a public hearing on the matter
g. County board of elections must set hours of operation
2. Opens early voting period to all registered voters
Absentee Voting – Effective January 2, 2012
1. Maintains stipulations for absentee voting
2. Provides that a person may vote by paper absentee ballot at any time during the absentee period. Also, allows absentee voting on a voting machine for a time period beginning 30 days prior to the election and ending the day immediately prior to the election.
3. Only one absentee ballot center per county can be established and must be supervised by an employee of the election commission or voter registration board
4. Establishes factors to be considered when determining a person’s domicile
***Provisions of this act are not severable, except the section exempting voters 65 and older

part 2

http://www.wistv.com/Global/searchresults.asp?vendor=ez&qu=newswatch

As you know, I’ve been chairing the sub committee with legislation to make changes to the Department of Employment of Workforce’s (DEW) handling of unemployment claims. Before the reform in 2010, hundreds of millions of dollars have been doled out to recipients that have quit or have been fired for cause. The previous Employment Security System (ESC) mismanaged this agency for years. They’re actions combined with the great recession combined with the Fed’s constant extensions have put SC in a $ 1 billion hole.

changes include:

-If a claimant applies for a job and fails the employer’s drug test, benefits are discontinued

-repairing the “anomaly” – Some SC employers had surplus payments, very few claims, yet found a huge increase in charges. This involved a small amount of employers and can be repaired easily. Click here to view more details on the anomaly

-rate adjustments

The 2010 legisaltion creates 20 rate classes. The 45,426 employers in class 1 pay $ 4.31 per employee per year and the 5,601 employers in class 20 are charged $1121 per employee per year. As you can assume, we’ve got a lot of happy employers and some unhappy employers, however, there is no industry average above class 11. Industries hit hardest are temporary staff firms and manufacturers.

In 2010, the new rate classes were based on several factors. Some employers had laid off many employees and many in SC laid off none. In the past, employers that never used the system were unfairly charged high rates, while employers with many layoffs were creating large deficits. Some employers are even accused of using the unemployment system as a business model. In other words, “gaming” the system at the expense of other employers in SC. Along with experience ratings, the rate classes take into consideration whether the employer had a surplus or deficit in their payments.

DEW’s lookback for these rates was only 7 years. The legislature wanted to go back 10, but did not have the necessary data. Some employers claim that they’ve been paying into the system for 20+ years yet after the recession in 2008, were unfairly put in high categories.

Other employers were placed in a low category. They claim they’ve been “subsiding” the system and finally deserve some relief.

These projected rates were made public in May of last year. The accusation that anyone was withholding information is entirely inaccurate. I understand employers’ dissatisfied with rates, but the process in 2010 was as transparent as possible in dozens of meetings open to the all employer associations, the press, citizens, and members of the general assembly.

The bill’s got to be paid. The committee has considered many options. Bonding the federal debt would violate the constitution. Extending the payment out doesn’t offer much relief. The only way to give substantial relief to employers is to revisit the rate classes. The committee has looked at several scenarios. There have been members considering scenario 10. If you click here, scroll down to scenario 10 to see the chart. Whether the committee agrees with any solution or not, we have been assigned the task of assisting members that want to offer an alternative. The math is very complicated and adjustments need to go through the process with DEW.

We’ve been asked to create an amendment based on scenario 10. Scenario 10 adds $200 to class 1 and proportionally increases rates to class 12. The relief is given proportionally to classes 13-20 with class 20 getting the most reduction. Class 1 would be charged $210.30 while class 20 is reduced to $ 744.33. This plan gives relief to a small amount of heavy users, yet increases rates to more than 1/2 of the employers in SC with little or no use.