Kevin Bryant

I’m excited to know that the Public Service Commission unanimously denied the rate increase application by the Utilities Soviets of South Carolina. So if you live on these streets, at least your escalated rates won’t go up for now: Acorn Drive, Altamont Court, Arcadia Drive, Bamboo Drive, Bayshore Lane, Brown Road, Bryson Road, Clearview Drive, Club Drive Drive, Crestwood Drive, Cretewood, Driftwood Drive, Edgewater Drive, June Way, Kings Court, Lakewood Drive, Marty Court, Meeting Street, Mountain View Place, Oakwood Estates, Old Shoals Drive, Olivarri Drive, Penniger Drive, Penniger Drive, Pine Top Circle, Red Oak Drive, Shannon Drive, Town Creek Trail, Twin Lakes Circle, Twin lakes Court, Twin Lakes Drive, Twin Lakes Drive, Wallwood Drive, Walnut Way, Wellwood Drive, Whisper Lane, Wilderness Lane, Wilson Road, Windwood Drive, Woodlake Road, Woodoak Drive, Yates Circle

read the full report here

Below is the original post on the issue:

On Wednesday night, we had a public hearing for a water rate increase for a few hundred of my constituents. My remarks obviously irritated one of the high dollar attorneys for the utilities company. She insisted my statement contained unsubstantiated claims. I guess that’s what they pay these high-class lawyers to do. Here’s the letter I read to the PSC:
November 7, 2007

G. O’Neal Hamilton, Chairman
South Carolina of Public Service Commission
101 Executive Center Dr., Suite 100
Columbia, SC 29210

Re: Docket 2007-286-WS

Dear Public Service Commissioners:

Thank you very much for having a public hearing in Anderson concerning the rate increase proposal by the Utilities Services of South Carolina. I have a number of constituents with documents verifying less than average water pressure, low quality customer service and water quality issues.

There is also a comparison of neighboring water companies charging rates already less than those of the USSC. I am sure the USSC will give you several reasons to justify these rate increases. For whatever these reasons may be, I would think the neighboring water companies have similar circumstances yet the neighboring customers seem to get fairer treatment. Simply put, these customers should not be subject to funding the mismanagement practices of USSC. It is not their problem. I would like to encourage the members of the Public Services Commission to take great efforts to examine the issues raised by my constituents.

I am a retail pharmacist. In my profession, an unsatisfied customer can simply choose to shop at a different drug store in town. Utilities customers do not have an option, therefore we ask you, the Public Service Commission, to intervene and protect these working families. They simply cannot afford an unfair price increase for an essential need such as water.

With warmest personal regards, I remain

Respectfully,

Kevin L. Bryant
South Carolina Senate District 3

My hyperventilation over S. 714 is getting better as the bill was sent back to Judiciary Committee to be revisited. Normally, when bills pass 2nd reading, they breeze through 3rd as a simple procedure. I was prepared to make a last plea to the Senate to at least pause to consider the slippery slope we are heading down. Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. McConnell found it necessary to make the motion to recommit. The role call vote won 41-0!This fight may not be over, but we will have some time to educate the public of this possible Constitutional Crisis.

 Unfortunately, S. 714 was amended today to revert back to the bill as drafted. I was compelled to take the floor and argue the demerits of the bill and further more the unconstitutionality of this awful piece of legislation. “This bill is so unconstitutional, even a caveman can recognize it” was my point. Ya’ll need to remember that my mother is of the Hectorgundersoug family (Norwegian immigrants). Norwegians are know for their sarcasm. Back to the issue.

Points to ponder as we delve into this hysteria:
-The definition of political awareness organization is so broad it could essentially prohibit a group of concerned citizens from attending the local fair to distribute literature promoting animal rights unless they register with the government and disclose their donor base.
-NAACP v. Alabama 1958 was a case in the heated battle of the civil rights movement. Alabama passed a similar law that many believe was an effort to persecute those giving money to the NAACP. The Supreme Court ruled this unconstitutional on grounds of violation of our first amendment right of free speech.
-This bill could be interpreted as a jailable offence when organizations are noncompliant. Are we going to arrest every South Carolinian that is a member of the AARP if the AARP continues to promote their agenda for seniors?
-The Ron Paul revolution has impressed me. Ron Paul’s support is an inch wide and a mile deep. I’ve seen bed sheets spray painted hanging off bridges supporting his candidacy. This kind of political activism is impressive; I can’t in good conscience try to squelch this enormous effort. Could S. 714 define these freedom fighting citizens as “political awareness organizations”? Maybe so.
-The bill applies mainly to 501(c) 4s and 527s but we need to remember that the IRS is constantly questioning the qualifications of 501(c)3s. Recently, the NAACP was under investigation and the IRS almost changed their status from a c3 to a c4.
Remember I count pills for a living as I’m not the expert to argue constitutionality of an issue. However, we held our own yet my motion to table lost 18-22; closer than I ever imagined. We fought the good fight, and hopefully the House of Representatives can correct our errors or S. 714 get the Governor’s veto. I am very grateful for the unyielding members of the SC Senate that stood for freedom: Alexander, Bryant, Campsen, Ceips, Cleary, Courson, Cromer, Fair, Gregory, Grooms, Martin, Massey, McConnell, Ritchie, Ryberg, Setzler, Thomas, Vaughn*, Verdin

A bill I sponsored, S. 909 gets a hearing in the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday morning.  The legislation grants members of the South Carolina National Guard or Reserve Components that are awarded a Bronze Star Medal or higher military award for combat operations free tuition to any state supported college, university or technical education institution.

General George C. Marshall, in a memorandum to President Roosevelt dated February 3, 1944, wrote: “The fact that the ground, troops, Infantry in particular, lead miserable lives of extreme discomfort and are the ones who must close in personal combat with the enemy, makes the maintenance of their morale of great importance. The award of the Air Medal has had an adverse reaction on the ground troops, particularly the Infantry Riflemen who are now suffering the heaviest loses, air or ground, in the Army, and enduring the greatest hardships.”

The Executive Order of President Roosevelt established the Bronze Star Medal in February of 1944 for exemplary conduct in ground combat against an armed enemy. Its given to one who distinguished himself or herself by heroic or meritorious achievement or service, not involving participation in aerial flight, while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force; or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. South Carolina’s National Guard estimates that of the 8,000 members deployed since September 11 2001, 25 have received the Bronze Star Medal to date.  This equates to an award rate of .3%.

This is a scary video if it is true. If it is, what can we do about it?