IDENTITY THEFT S. 453  

• The Financial Identity Fraud and Identity Theft Protection Act 

·        This legislation has been a priority for the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee for the past three years.  The Committee worked with the Department of Consumer Affairs, consumer groups, business leaders, industry specialists, SLED, and consumers who have been victimized in our efforts to draft a bill that will protect South Carolinians against identity thieves.

 ·        The bill includes protections that will shield our citizens from the devastating crime of identify theft.
 
 ·        Some of the provisions in the bill follow:
 
 Ø      Provides consumer the ability to place, remove or temporarily lift a security freeze on their credit report at no charge
 
Ø      Provides means for the removal of erroneous information on a credit report
 
Ø      Requires that consumer be notified by credit reporting agency if address given for credit is different than address on file
 
Ø      Provides consumer with the means to get a criminal charge dismissed if the crime was committed by a person who stole their identity
 
Ø      Establishes database of victims of identity theft at SLED
 
Ø      Provides mechanisms for protection of social security numbers
 
Ø      Regulates how a person’s social security number can be posted, displayed or communicated
 
Ø      Sets requirements for sanitization of public and business IT equipment before discarding and requirements for the disposal of printed data
 
Ø      Provides for notification to consumer of security breaches
 
Ø      Makes it unlawful for a person to rummage through or steal household garbageProvides for penalties, damages, attorney fees and costs for violations.

S. 333 sez as a condition of probation upon a 2^nd or subsequent conviction of DUI, a court may require that an offender wear a continuous remote alcohol monitoring device, to provide that a finding by the court that the offender’s blood alcohol concentration meets or exceeds .08 %. As in most legislation, funding sources are in question. What if the offender can’t afford the expense of the device? the bill was carried over to gather more information.
  
There is some interesting technology available these days. check this out

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”
complete article

You might be a redneck if you and your rabid dog can watch a cockfight while reaching for another cold Pabst Blue Ribbon without leaving your front porch.
    
You may have heard of the cockfighting bust in Anderson this week, but an interesting factoid caught my attention at the end of The Anderson Independent’s Article
    
.…While officers were on the scene, Mr. _____ was also issued three clean-up orders for the junk cars on his land, a rabies citation and a ticket for having a refrigerator on his front porch, said Chip Sturgis, a spokesperson for Anderson County Emergency Services and Public Safety
    
I understand the illegality of the cockfighting and the rabies citation, but have this question.  Why is he being ordered to haul off his junk cars and take the frige off the front porch? This is South Carolina for crying out loud.
    
Interestingly, today the Senate Judiciary Committee is debating a bill to make cockfighting a felony.  Currently, the practice is a misdemeanor with minor fines assumed to be a “cost of doing business”.
    
full article
    
I’m being honest, if you visit the news article you’ll see similar comments and a link to this picture. I noticed this after writing my post. I guess we think alike in the electric city.

I am pleased to get the support of the SC Club for Growth. Founding members of the Williams Wallace Caucus are included (Verdin, Grooms, Campsen, Bryant). Here is there press release:
SC Club for Growth State Action PAC Endorses Seventeen Legislators for June Primaries

Posted in Press Release, SC House, SC Senate by schotline on February 21st, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Matt Moore
803-454-1134
matt@SCClubForGrowth.comSC Club for Growth State Action PAC Endorses Seventeen Legislators for June PrimariesColumbia, SC – Today, the South Carolina Club for Growth State Action PAC endorsed seventeen current South Carolina legislators that are seeking election in the upcoming June 10th primary.Each of these legislators has shown a continued commitment to limited government and responsible spending, while leading efforts to change South Carolina’s antiquated system of government.  All earned a combined grade of “B” or better in the Club’s legislative scorecards and cumulatively represent approximately the top 10% of grades for the entire General Assembly.South Carolina Club for Growth Executive Director Matt Moore released the following statement on the endorsements:“On behalf of our membership across the state, I’m proud to announce these endorsements.  We believe leadership matters.  South Carolina’s future generations will benefit from these legislators leading the charge to reform our state government.

Through the support of hundreds of members around the state, we are hopeful that many more change-oriented legislators will join these reformers at the Statehouse next January.  We will be carefully monitoring their re-election efforts.  Should credible challengers run against any of them, we will urge our members to contribute generously to these endorsed incumbents.”

SC State Senate:

Legislator – District #, Area, Party
Kevin Bryant – 3rd District, Anderson, Republican
Danny Verdin – 9th District, Laurens, Republican
Mick Mulvaney – 16th District, Lancaster, Republican
Greg Ryberg – 24th District, Aiken, Republican
Larry Grooms – 37th District, Berkeley, Republican
Chip Campsen – 43rd District, Charleston, Republican

SC State House of Representatives:

Legislator – District #, Area, Party
Don Bowen – 8th District, Anderson, Republican
Michael Thompson – 9th District, Anderson, Republican
Jeff Duncan – 15th District, Laurens , Republican
Dwight Loftis – 19th District, Greenville, Republican
Eric Bedingfield – 28th District, Greenville, Republican
Herb Kirsh – 47th District, York, Democrat
Thad Viers – 68th District, Horry, Republican
Nathan Ballentine –  71st District, Lexington, Republican
Nikki Haley – 87th District, Lexington, Republican
Jim Merrill – 99th District, Berkeley, Republican
Chip Limehouse – 110th District, Charleston, Republican

#####

Allie Walker 

A SENATOR’S SHADOW

When I arrived in Columbia, I went to Sen. Kevin Bryant’s office. After we met, he took me to a Finance meeting. At this meeting we heard from a Highway Patrol Chief. He was telling the Sub-committee what the money they gave the HP last year did to further their program. They were able to add more patrol men and cars, but they still need more. We then heard from the SLED directors. They did not ask for much more funds (unlike the HP). The meeting was fun; I thought the meeting was going to be a little more serious than it was. It was serious, but it showed that our Senators also have a sense of humor! After the meeting, we went back to his office to get ready for a luncheon sponsored by the SCDA (South Carolina Dentist Assoc.). I met several more Senators at this luncheon as well as our LT. Gov. Andre Bauer. A few dentists spoke and then Lt. Gov Bauer, and after that we ate a wonderful lunch. We finished lunch and got ready for the Senators’  Floor meeting. This meeting was held to discuss new DUI laws. (I’m not sure what the new laws are, or what they were actually). A Senator’s assistant was retiring after 30 years of service so they had a “ceremony” for her before the discussion of laws took place. I thoroughly enjoyed my time in Columbia with Sen. Bryant, though I am still undecided on my desire to be in politics. THANK YOU SEN. BRYANT FOR LETTING ME SHADOW YOU! 

Sen. Glenn McConnell’s good friend, John Monk with the State Newspaper:

Bill aimed at out-of-state contributor
Multimillionaire generous to S.C. candidates

A state representative says he’ll introduce a bill to limit the influence of a New York multimillionaire and his nationwide network of deep-pocket political allies who have contributed thousands of dollars to S.C. candidates.

Rep. Herb Kirsh, a 30-year House veteran with a watchdog reputation, says his bill is aimed at Howard Rich, a New York millionaire linked to tens of thousands of dollars in 2006 campaign contributions to various candidates for the S.C. General Assembly and statewide office.

“I’m concerned one guy can put all that money in a race and get away with it,” said Kirsh, D-York.

Kirsh wants to limit the number of contributions a person can make through corporations.

Individuals can give $3,500 each election cycle to candidates for statewide offices, such as governor. The limit is $1,000 per election cycle for General Assembly races.

However, under a loophole in the state’s campaign finance law, a person with 10 corporations can give 10 times what an average person can. Full article

COLUMBIA, S.C. — State Sen. Kevin Bryant, R-Anderson, said he hopes that a bill he’s supporting will give investors one more reason to put their money behind South Carolina start-ups.

Senate bill 287, the South Carolina Entrepreneurial Success Fund Act, would provide tax breaks to those who invest in funds that offer seed money to start-up businesses. The bill received a favorable report last week in the subcommittee of which Sen. Bryant is chairman and is gaining support among business leaders.

To be eligible, investors would need to create a seed fund of $10 million. The fund must be managed by a South Carolina taxpayer, and 70 percent would need to be invested in local companies that are three years old or younger.

The legislation would give those investors income tax credits worth 30 percent of the amount they contribute, with the total amount of credits not exceeding $5 million in a year.

Sen. Bryant said the bill complements the state’s endowed chairs fund, which encourages research at colleges and universities, and the South Carolina Venture Capital Program, which supports companies that want to expand in the state.

“I think it’s the jump-start our economy needs,” Sen. Bryant said.

to see full article

FYI, the feds have lifted the ban on cell phone numbers from being used by telebarkers. To avoid these calls, I’d suggest you either call 888-382-1222 or visit www.donotcall.govTo use this automated feature, you must calling from the phone that you want block.This boy’s got a cool mullet doesn’t he?

Wednesday 02.20.08 was dominated by H.3496, a bill to tighten up our DUI laws. Statistics show SC may be as high as 3rd in the nation for alcohol related deaths on our highways. All agree something’s got to be done to make our roads safer, yet there’s 46 opinions in the Senate as to the best way to make sure drunks are discouraged from getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Some will argue that treatment is the answer while others will argue that stiff penalties are the answer. Is our conviction rate acceptable? Is funding of our highway patrol the key? Do we need to lower the permissible .08% blood alcohol level? Do we need to take impairment into consideration? Many will argue that repeat offenders are the problem. Should we smack the first time offenders and bury the repeat offenders under the jail?
 
This bill creates a “tiered” system of penalties. In other words, penalties will be proportional to blood alcohol levels. This legislation strengthens penalties at all levels especially for repeat offenders.  This bill requires two readings of the Mirada rights.  This is a change to the current requirement. Currently a law enforcement officer must “mirandize” the accused offender three times. This triplicate reading of rights has been found burdensome to law enforcement officials.
 
 
Interestingly, the SC House GOP Caucus blasted the Senate version. They claim:  “Now that the House version is back home, we can put teeth back in our DUI laws and debate this in a conference committee.” I’ve only been here 4 years, but I can’t imagine how they can claim to have a bill in their hands before it gets 3rd reading in the Senate. Evidently, this release was written before the Senate finished its work on the bill. I think someone is getting trigger-happy with the Outlook “send” button.They accuse the Senate for weakening the bill, yet the claims point to House language that the Senate agreed to. click here to view the press release.
 
 
Simply put, the House can neither “concur” or “non-concur” on a bill until they get it. If H. 3496 gets a “non-concur” from the House, a conference committee will settle the differences. H. 3496 received 3rd reading to day (Thurs 02.21.08), but they won’t have the opportunity to take this vote until next Tuesday, since they went home early.

Thursday morning (02.21.08) at 11:00 am we’ll have a press conference to unveil the bill calling for all government expenditures to be posted on the internet. Through blog posts and e-mails, I’ve got some suggestions on what to name the soon-to-be-filed bill.

Sunshine Legislation I posted last week:
“Stop Letting Government Define Freedom Act”
“Freedom of Information Reform Act”
“let’s make information free act”
“FOI system is broke let’s fix it act”

“Further Erase Home Rule Act”
“Reveal Economic Development Act”
“Give the Legislature More Reasons to Control Act”
“Give Bryant Another Bill That Will Never Pass Act”

others:
“right for the taxpayer to know how his/her hard earned money is being spent act”
“reign in the leash on bureaucrats act”
“we’ve had more home rule that we can afford act”
“let’s hope Cindy Wilson has broadband act”

Thanks for all of the suggestions. The primary sponsor of the bill Sen. Larry Grooms (R-Berkeley) has chosen to name the bill “The Truth in Spending Act”. 

If you’d like to see an example of government gone wild click here

Thursday morning on The week in the Senate the topic was spending caps and transparency.

Today S. 398 received 2^nd reading tightening up regulations on the pay day lending industry. S. 398 has some good, yet there’s one prickly point that I regret not making an attempt to amend on 2^nd reading (we can’t amend on 3^rd). This bill creates a central database with the government. That’s right, to keep you from going to more than one lender, big bro will have a database of your loan(s).

The proponents of this legislation have good intentions; they want to help prevent our citizens from getting into a cycle of debt, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. I’ve heard Clifford Bryant say a million times “I don’t like to put the key in the door of the drugstore and tell myself this day is for the banker”. Believe me, if Daddy taught me anything, it is to be careful of debt.

Ya’ll also know I’m uncomfortable supporting any kind of new regulation on most things. If Johnny wants to loan Jimmy some money and Jimmy and Johnny agree to the terms, why should the government get involved in the stipulations, interest rates, etc? Why do they need to ask government permission and then why should government offer the specifics. Can’t the market decide these things?

So you say we outlaw crack cocaine so government needs to intervene sometimes and protect our citizens. That’s a good argument. We all agree that crack cocaine should be outlawed yet no one would agree on outlawing cheese fries. Both are bad for you but these are two extremes. There is a line to be drawn somewhere. When in doubt, side with liberty has become my philosophy.
 
I cannot support S. 398 bill for one reason. I can live with the new regulations, but the database gives me grief. Last year, I voted against the narcotic central database, but didn’t raise any sand about it. Now we’re creating another big brother database and I can’t imagine when this slippery slope will end. It’s too late to amend this bill on 3^rd reading Wednesday, so I’ll need to sit this one out. Yet the next central database that comes up for any reason, let’s put on the brakes! Do I sound like an extremist? Consider what Barry Goldwater proclaimed at the RNC in 1964.

On Thursday (02.21.08) morning at 9:30 am I will be a guest on the ETV show “This week in the Senate” (click here to watch) with President Pro Tempore Sen. Glenn McConnell. The topic will be on proposed spending caps legislation and the discussion will also include sunshine on government expenditures. Below are highlights of the spending caps legislation. The cap would be a constitutional requirement capping spending on all government bodies in the state. Below are some reasons for a need for this cap:

STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING COSTING TAXPAYERS TOO MUCH: SC NEEDS SPENDING CAPS

Government Grew Three Times Faster Than Families’ Income
Since 2004, state spending has grown nine percent each year, but SC families’ income has only grown three percent

State Spending Is Skyrocketing
In 2007, SC state spending grew by eighteen percent - that is twice the regional and national average rate

Local Spending Is Out of Control
For the past ten years, local government spending has grown almost eight percent every year
In 2006, school districts, cities and counties collected more than $13 billion - almost twice the state budget
Local government raised more than $4 billion in local (government) fees, most of which cost SC businesses
Fees and other charges are increasing at a rate of 14 percent each year
Average millage shot up from 277 in 1997 to 357 in 2005

Existing “Limitations” Won’t Slow Spending
The SC Constitution (Article V, Section 7) has a loose limit on spending that can be overridden and is so high that state government will never come close to reaching it

SC Tax Burden is Growing Faster than Other States
South Carolina’s total per capita tax burden is one of the highest in the Southeast, and second highest in the nation among states with similar personal incomes

Government Spending Must Be Slowed
Without spending caps, economists predict that by 2010:
Property tax relief will be cut by 45 percent
SC will lose 6,557 jobs
SC will lose $852 million in investment
SC personal income will fall by $321 million

Limitations Must Be Comprehensive
Lawmakers must ensure that government does not cost more than everything else in the economy - state and local government limits should be tied to a multi-year averaged index of consumer purchasing power or the cost of consumer goods and services

Spending Caps Must Be Constitutional, Not Political
State government alone cannot be trusted to limit itself - the people must force them to do it and ensure that limits are not later overturned by lawmakers
Exceptions for extreme states of emergency - as declared by the governor - would allow for additional expenditures

Local Spending Must Be Capped
State spending caps alone will not save taxpayers from a higher tax burden — local government spending costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year. County, city and district spending must also be capped

Unless state and local spending is capped, the taxpayer burden will continue to rise and businesses will be forced to cut jobs and investments. Spending caps are the only way to ensure that taxpayers and businesses are protected from out-of-control government growth

Nothing in the foregoing should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder passage of any legislation. Copyright 2008. South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation, 1323 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. Visit the Policy Council online

Because of Washington’s failure to secure our national borders, the S.C. Senate has been working on this matter for more than a year. Last week, we amended our immigration bill and returned it to the House of Representatives. The House will now either concur in the Senate amendment, or the bill will be the subject of a conference committee where the differences between the two versions will be worked out.

What the Senate passed is much better than the status quo, and is much stronger than earlier versions passed by either the House or Senate. However, it is not as good a bill as it could have been.

Among other things, the bill requires employers to verify the legal status of their employees. We considered a provision allowing federal I-9 forms to be sufficient verification as an weakness, since the I-9 is the basis of the failed federal verification system we are trying to correct. Fake Social Security cards and fake out-of-state driver’s licenses are all that is needed for the I-9, and federal law prohibits scrutiny of these underlying documents. We, therefore, offered amendments to assure a meaningful employee verification system similar to a plan enacted in Arizona, which has been effective and upheld in the federal courts.

The first amendment removed the faulty I-9 as a verification option. Having lost that amendment, we offered another that created a South Carolina form similar to the I-9. But unlike the federal form, it could be scrutinized by state officials for its validity. Neither of these plans placed an undue burden on South Carolina businesses, but each was defeated by a business lobby spearheaded by the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce.

The people of our area need to know that we offered and fought for an amendment that would have required employers to take reasonable steps to ensure that the people they hire are legally in this country. They could have done this either by reviewing the applicants’ South Carolina driver’s licenses, participating in the federal government’s E-Verify system, or filling out S.C. I-9 forms.

None of these steps would have placed an undue burden on businesses and would not have subjected them to fines if they mistakenly hired an illegal worker who had false documents. In fact, we sought to accommodate any concern that senators had about our amendments being too burdensome on our small-business owners. However, no matter how hard we tried to make this work, it seems that the major problem our opponents had with our amendments is that they would be effective in stemming illegal immigration. That seems to have been the problem.

The state Chamber of Commerce and its lobbyists worked against our amendments and their pressure worked. Their allies defeated any attempt to have meaningful enforcement.

We believe that the future well-being of our state and its citizens requires us to be vigilant in our efforts to do everything we can to stem the influx of illegal immigrants into our state. That is why the Senate passed a call for a constitutional convention that would allow the states to protect themselves if Congress continues to fail to act. That is why the Senate passed a bill that would require all state-government business to be conducted in English only.

But we also need to ensure that our businesses compete on an even footing and that the businesses that hire legal workers are not put at competitive disadvantage by those that intentionally do not.

We report to you on our unsuccessful efforts to strengthen reform and, sadly, on the success the Chamber’s lobby had in blocking more meaningful reform. With federal pre-emption in so many areas, what we asked for in reform was not overreaching or unreasonable. In fact, we consider the intensity of the lobbying effort against our reforms by those with vested interests in keeping the flow of illegal workers open to be a testimony to the effectiveness of our proposals.

Sen. Glenn McConnell, R-Dist. 41, represents Charleston County and is President Pro Tempore of the S.C. Senate. Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Dist. 43, represents Berkeley and Charleston counties.

Thursday 02.14.08 was dominated with a committee report from S. 398 bill that deals with pay day lenders. We’ve agreed to work all day Tuesday 02.19.08 (happy b-day to me) instead of having Judiciary & Finance Committee meetings. Here’s some highlights of the committee amendment on the bill:
-one loan per customer at a time (industry-wide)
-one-day cooling off period
-monitored by a real-time statewide database
-establishes an extended payment plan option
        -no additional cost to the customer
        -equal installments up to 60 days (4 pay periods)
        -prohibits additional loans while in the plan
-requires a state board annual report to the General Assembly
-sets the loan amount to 25% of the customer’s income during the term of the loan or $500 whichever is less

extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice…moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. Barry Goldwater 1964

Governor Sanford ordered last summer that all agencies under his cabinet to post each and every financial expenditure on the internet. I agree with Gov. Sanford that South Carolinians are entitled to full and complete information regarding how their hard-earned tax dollars are spent by government. Shining the light on state government spending will lead to more accountability to the taxpayers of South Carolina.

To my disappointment, we have a Freedom of Information (FOI) system that is not free, but is in bondage.  If you want information, you must submit written requests and in most cases spend more of your money to obtain records you paid for in the first place. The FOI system is backwards, and I intend to reverse the process.I will file legislation to require that all other state agencies, commissions, school boards and municipalities put their spending records online. Checking account registers, petty cash expenditures and credit card transactions will be posted on the internet for anyone to review. Please join me in demanding that government actually report to those it serves and who actually pay for it—the taxpayer.

Simply put, it’s your money and it’s your information. While you work hard to earn it, you should not be required to work hard to see how it’s spent.There is an interesting debate on this concept on the Anderson Independent’s Cocklebur blog

Although not as stringent as I would have liked, the Senate did pass an immigration reform bill with merit. Here is a press release from the SC Senate Republican Caucus: Senate Restores Strength to Illegal Immigration Reform Act Urges House to Concur with Stronger BillColumbia, SC - Senator Jim Ritchie, (R-13) Majority Whip, took the Senate floor today reassuring the people of South Carolina that strength and effectiveness are at the heart of the Senate’s Illegal Immigration Reform Act.“This breakthrough legislation requires public and private employers to verify new workers to address this growing crisis,” says Ritchie.

The Senate “rejects the House’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy, restored stronger penalties, and will require that all businesses verify the legal immigration status of new hires,” says Senator Ritchie. “We have been working on true illegal immigration reform for over a year and today’s action builds effective, comprehensive reforms with real strength.”

The Senate bill requires public and private employee verification, prevents illegal aliens from receiving public benefits, expands penalties for identity theft and fraud, and allows state law enforcementto enact a memorandum of understanding with the federal officials which provides them the authority to enforce federal immigration and customs laws. The Senate also maintained provisions allowing civil lawsuits tobe filed against employers who fire South Carolinians for the purpose of hiring illegal aliens.

“Illegal immigration is one of the top concerns across the state and the Senate Republican Caucus has produced a solid bill that answers the call from the people of South Carolina that something be done,” says Senate Majority Leader Harvey Peeler (R-Cherokee). “What the Senate has done today creates a much stronger bill than we have seen to this point,” says Senate President Pro Tempore, Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston). “The Senate has taken the lead on this issuefor over a year and we continued to strengthen the bill with the actions taken today.”

“Our citizens have rightly demanded legislation that will effectively deter illegal aliens from coming to South Carolina,” says SenatorRitchie. “The Senate has answered the call of the people with this landmark reform.”
The Illegal Immigration Reform Act now returns to the House where they must “concur” or “nonconcur” with the amendments. Should the House “concur,” the bill will be ratified and sent to the Governor. Should the House “nonconcur,” the bill will go to conference committee where three Senators and three House members will work toward a final resolution.