The Anderson County Council passed a resolution asking for this legislation. I plan to introduce it this week. It amends home rule, so it may open up a good debate on home rule. We’ll see.

Section A is current law, Section B is new

A BILL: TO AMEND SECTION 4-9-660 OF THE 1976 CODE, RELATING TO THE AUTHORITY OF A COUNTY COUNCIL AND ITS MEMBERS OVER COUNTY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES, TO PROVIDE THAT A COUNTY COUNCIL MAY GRANT ITSELF THE AUTHORITY TO EMPLOY AND DISCHARGE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND INTERNAL AUDITOR.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Section 4-9-660 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

“Section 4-9-660. (A) Except for the purposes of inquiries and investigations, the council shall deal with county officers and employees who are subject to the direction and supervision of the county administrator solely through the administrator, and neither the council nor its members shall give orders or instructions to any such officers or employees.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions in subsection (A), the council may by resolution grant itself the sole authority to employ and discharge the County Attorney and Internal Auditor. In the absence of a resolution granting that authority to the council, the county administrator shall have the sole authority to employ and discharge the County Attorney and Internal Auditor.”

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

Congressional Republicans are off to a good start to poke the electorate in both eyes this week. They have 2 choices: 1-raise the debt ceiling for a promise of spending cuts, major reforms, and a balanced budget amendment or 2-Refuse to raise the debt ceiling and guarantee immediate spending cuts, major reforms, and a balanced budget amendment.

Am I missing something here? Did we elected conservatives to give us promises of sweeping reform and sweeping spending cuts, or did we elect conservatives to get the job done? As an old friend of mine often says “I’ve seen this movie before”! What’s not to get?

JANUARY 15, 2011 4:00 A.M., Down for a Deal , Republicans signal they’re willing to compromise on the federal debt ceiling. from National Review

The 2010 midterms were a windfall for Republican candidates stressing the need to seriously tackle runaway federal spending and debt. In the coming months they will face their first significant test, when they are asked to raise the national debt ceiling, currently set at $14.3 trillion. One might expect that most Republicans, and especially the freshman members, would be lining up in firm opposition. Far from it.

In fact, the loudest (and, of late, the only) voices of opposition to a debt increase belong to old hands like Reps. Ron Paul (R., Texas) and Michele Bachmann (R., Minn.). Both have vigorously argued their case in the media — Bachmann is asking people to sign an online petition to urge their representatives not to increase the debt limit. Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.) has also weighed in, calling on Republicans to “resist” raising the debt ceiling but stopping short of outright opposition.

Of course, it’s not as if Republicans intended to hand President Obama a free pass on raising the debt. The growing consensus within the GOP is to seek a trade-off — increasing the debt ceiling in exchange for significant spending cuts. Some have pressed for structural reforms such as a balanced-budget amendment or far-reaching entitlement reform, but few have been willing to suggest that refusing a debt increase is a viable option. As Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) told a forum at the National Press Club: “You can’t not raise the debt ceiling. . . . Just refusing to vote for it is not a strategy.” …

Just looking back at past posts and found this gem. Looking back, the answers I gave were beyond my ability. I was obviously blessed during this intverview with Paula Zahn:
Paula Zahn Transcript
MARCH 29, 2003
ZAHN: Thank you. Are you, through this bill, trying to scare women away from having abortions?
BRYANT: No, we’re not trying to scare women about having an abortion, but we just want to show her all the facts, show her how the baby is developed in the womb with 10 fingers and 10 toes. And when she makes this decision — and this doesn’t do anything with that choice, but it does add information and makes the choice more informed. And that’s the goal of the legislation.
ZAHN: But you do feel that looking at this ultrasound makes a difference. And I know some people dispute the statistics that you have used to try to get this bill through, but you think the more women who look at these ultrasounds, the more they’ll be discouraged to go through with an abortion.
BRYANT: Well, we feel that the right choice is to carry the child. That’s our opinion. And we’ve seen 80, 85 percent of women who do view an ultrasound of the baby in their womb do, most of the time, indeed, decide to carry that child and deliver the child. So, we believe that it adds honor, adds respect to the life in the womb.
ZAHN: Senator, I want to put up on the screen now something that a well-known bioethicist said about this proposed law. “We don’t require people who are undergoing any surgical procedure to view models of what their heart looks like or what their stomach looks like before they’re operated on.”
So his question, essentially, is why should abortion be any different?
BRYANT: Well, this isn’t a heart or it’s not a lung. This is another living human being that has rights and should be honored. So, I believe that it’s a different situation here, because we’re dealing with a baby.
These ultrasounds show a beating heart with four chambers. It shows a developed spinal cord where you can see different vertebrae. It’s way more developed than one would imagine. It’s certainly not a blob of tissue or another organ of the body.
ZAHN: Planned Parenthood, as you know, is also opposed to this bill. And I also want to share that criticism with you tonight.
BRYANT: Yes.
ZAHN: They write, “Women are intelligent and thoughtful human beings who would not go forward if they did not think this was in their best interest. This bill is nothing more than politically driven. It’s unnecessary and an attempt to restrict abortion by scaring and intimidating women.”
Are you trying to suggest that women can’t make informed decisions without looking at this ultrasound?
BRYANT: I believe that the decision would definitely be informed if they do see this ultrasound, and I do believe there are some involved in this debate that simply are disappointed when someone chooses to carry the child. That’s what it appears, anyway.
ZAHN: What really upsets people, though, is why some people think it’s OK to even insist that women who have been raped by a family member or by a stranger should also be subjected to looking at this ultrasound. Is that fair?
BRYANT: Well, that is — well, that’s — that was proposed in the House. And that amendment was tabled. I believe it will probably be proposed again in the Senate, even though I won’t support that amendment.
It would still be — the bill would still be something I could support if that’s in there. And, you know, we’ll just have to take it when it comes.
But the thing is, we still have a life, regardless of circumstances, a developed baby. And I believe that baby should be part of that decision process that the patient undergoes.
ZAHN: Senator Kevin Bryant, got to leave it there. Thanks for coming in tonight.
BRYANT: OK. Thank you, Paula.
ZAHN: Our pleasure.
As the Senate takes up H. 3355 next week. Your thoughts, questions, & comments are certainly welcome.

Source AOL News: Today, Republican Nikki Haley was sworn in as governor of South Carolina, becoming the first woman to hold that position in the state, and the second Indian-American governor to be elected governor in the country (Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal was the first).

Haley is a favorite of the Tea Party movement, and she returned the affection in her inaugural speech:

Our state has an incredibly powerful and rich history. It is one that has not always been pleasant, but one that can teach us many great lessons.

We have a history of fierce independence, and that independence has some remarkable relevance for us today. While in 1773 it was the Tea Party in Boston that became famous, there was also a whole lot of tea dumped in the Charleston harbor that December. We declared independence from Great Britain some four months before Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. And at Kings Mountain just over our northern border, our local militia – not professional soldiers – helped turn the tide of the Revolutionary War that brought us the freedom we still enjoy to this day.

Let’s see: tax protests, tea parties, the grassroots beating the professionals – it does have a certain familiar ring to it.

Haley also addressed current economic realities, saying she would resist raising taxes and planned to cut state spending in an effort to revive South Carolina’s nearly $1 billion budget shortfall. She also took a swipe at the federal government for what she sees as a burden passed on to her state:
Nearly two years ago, the federal government in Washington decided to transfer its irresponsible fiscal practices to the states. And our state, like every other, accepted it. When we produce this year’s budget, we will see the heavy price we pay for having done so.

Conservatives like Moe Lane at RedState.com cheered Haley and her historic inauguration. “We at RedState have been waiting for this moment for quite some time,” Lane wrote. South Carolina Sen. Lindsay Graham said Haley’s speech “set the right tone.”

As for Haley’s future, there are already rumors about what might happen by the time 2012 rolls around. Last summer, a GOP insider remarked, “She could be what Sarah Palin was supposed to be.”

I’ve never been able to separate moral issues from fiscal policy. I’ve always encouraged social conservatives to focus on government spending as government waste is immoral also. Here’s an encouraging resolution passed by the SC Baptist Convention from www.scbaptist.org:

Financial Responsibility
WHEREAS, The manner in which we use our money is an indicator of our spiritual condition and a reflection of our faithfulness (Matthew 6:21); and
WHEREAS, Scripture affirms that the borrower is slave to the lender (Proverbs 22:7); and
WHEREAS, The current state of America’s economy has been brought about, at least in part, by excessive use of debt; and
WHEREAS, Financial stewardship is a moral imperative (1 Corinthians 4:2 and Luke 12:48), which affects the lives of families, churches, states and nations; and
WHEREAS, Many of Jesus’ parables related topics of money to larger spiritual themes; and
WHEREAS, The proper use of our financial resources includes limiting our indebtedness (Romans 13:8); therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That we, the messengers to the 190th annual meeting of the South Carolina Baptist Convention meeting in Columbia, SC, on November 16, 2010, encourage financial responsibility among the members of South Carolina Baptist Churches, the member churches of this Convention, the State of South Carolina, and the United States of America; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage individuals, churches, the State of South Carolina, and the United States of America, to reduce existing indebtedness, while taking steps to minimize any further indebtedness; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage the member churches of this Convention to teach financial concepts from a Biblical perspective to the members of their congregations; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we ask appropriate convention staff to provide access to a copy of this resolution to the member churches of this Convention and to forward a copy to members of the South Carolina House of Representatives, the South Carolina Senate, the Governor of South Carolina, and to our Federal elected officials.