On Thursday (05.22.08) the Senate voted again to put H. 4400 on special order and interrupted debate for immediate consideration on Tuesday (05.27.08)
                       
We worked on several bills this week, may good worthy projects, but the 1,000 pound orangutan in the middle of the chamber is immigration.
                              
Are there any “poison pills” or loopholes? So far, I haven’t been able to find anything worthy of voting against it. I’ve always voted against weak bills on immigration. We can’t take this issue incrementally, this is the last chomp at the apple. There is a very tender agreement with Senate & House Leadership with this amendment. Governor Sanford hasn’t weighed in publicly, but my sources say the office is cautiously optimistic.
                                     
I’ve been scrutinizing over the proposed amendment this weekend and am confident this is the best proposal we’ve seen to date. This bill mandates the strengths of the Arizona legislation. Why not pass the exact AZ law? The Arizona law’s main bludgeon is the revocation of the Arizona’s state license. SC does not have a state business license, so we created an “implied” license to hire. This virtual license is nothing any business needs to apply for or pay for, but this “license to hire” will be stripped if the employer fails to comply with the required verifications. AZ has no fines, yet the effects of the AZ legislation has caused voluntary deportation by illegals.
                      
Here’s some highlights. Here is a link to the complete summary compiled by Senate Staff. Since the actual amendment hasn’t been read across the desk, I’m going to refrain from publishing it as some “tweaking” may occur over the weekend, but stay tuned. When the final draft is introduced, I’ll let ya’ll know.
                   
-The proposed bill:
-creates a 24-hour website and hotline to receive and record information pertaining to violations of any laws or regulations by any non-US citizen.
-creates implementation phases depending on number of employees and whether or not the employer has government contracts. Verification will be required of all employers by July 1, 2010.
-creates a welfare verification process. E-verify cannot be used for any other purpose except for employment verification, so we have to use a different verification for benefits.
-creates a felony for harboring or transporting illegal aliens
-creates a need for registration of immigration assistance services. Don’t understand why businesses assisting employers need to register with LLR, but maybe helps enforcement.
-Makes it a felony to knowingly and willfully make, aid and abet in making, or solicit to make a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in any document in an immigration related matter while providing immigration assistance services.  A person convicted of a violation could receive a sentence of confinement of up to five years and a fine. 
-Expands jurisdiction of State Grand Jury to include immigration fraud
-Prohibits illegals from buying, selling, possessing, or transporting firearms. Sorry, but the Constitutional right to bear arms doesn’t apply to foreigners.
-Prohibits sanctuary and state preemption (sanctuary cities) 
                     
Penalties:
1st offense – suspend all business licenses INCLUDING the employer’s SC employment license, prohibiting it from doing business or hiring new employees for 10-30 days, terminate all illegal alien employees, and pay reinstatement fee up to $1000 (to cover costs of investigation and enforcement); 
2nd offense – suspend all business licenses INCLUDING the employer’s SC employment license, prohibiting him from doing business or hiring new employees for 30-60 days, terminate all illegal alien employees, and pay reinstatement fee up to $1000 (to cover costs of investigation and enforcement); 
3rd and subsequent offenses – revocation of business and employment license (5 year minimum), can only be reinstated after 5 years if employer terminates all illegal alien employees, goes on probation for 3 years and submits compliance reports, and pays reinstatement fee of up to $1000 (to cover costs of investigation and enforcement);

In the Senate Agriculture Committee Wednesday morning (05.21.08) we amended H. 4337 to call for exemptions of stormwater, sediment, or erosion control program for agricultural lands, forest lands, undeveloped lands, and any place, structure, or building or worship.

A few months back, I paid the water bill for our church. The new storm water run-off fee of $65.33 is more than 1/2 the total water bill.

You  may be unaware, but I’m the treasurer for Concord Community Church, a non-denonminational Bible Fellowshop.  I know what you’re thinking, what kind of Church allows a politician to steward over the checkbook, but I’m the guy for now.

 Spending may be capped in the spending caps constitutional amendment. I offered two amendments to the spending caps bill today.

1-This amendment was a simple automatic tax refund to the overcharged taxpayer if the following criteria are met: “When the balance in the Budget Stabilization Fund is greater than 15% of the prior year’s actual general fund revenue collection and when the big spenders have grown government to match the 10 year projections (roughly 4.5%), then the taxpayer will get an automatic refund. I’m sure you guessed it, my amendment was tabled.

2- When the balance in the Budget Stabilization Fund is greater than 15% of the prior year’s actual general fund revenue collection and when the big spenders have grown government to match the 10 year projections (roughly 4.5%), then the overage may be used in the following ways: 1-rax refund (don’t hold your breath 2-debt retirement (blue face yet?) or 3-capital improvements or a combination of 2 or 3 of these options. Unless the SC Legislature has a Goldwater moment, you and I know the money will be spent in a slush orgy with the capital projects. But, we’ll have one more item to hold up as a justification for tax cuts. This amendment passed, and the bill got 2^nd reading, but fell short of the necessary 2/3 vote to amendment the constitution.

The Budget Stabilization Fund may be OK. It keeps us from the current roller coaster ride of up and down years. One piece of the puzzle does give me pause. The big revenue years are the only time we can ever get any form of tax relief passed. If we get into this steady growth, we may have an even harder time to persuade the Legislature to cut taxes. Of course ya’ll know, selling tax cuts in Columbia is like selling Antabuse on skid row. No one’s interested.

Keep in mind that the cap is a ceiling, not a floor. Even with this amendment the Legislature could have a Goldwater moment and cut taxes and cut government down to essential constitutional functions.

Interestingly, this week the Senate has made efforts to pass meaningful immigration reform for the 4^th time and what-do-you-know, we have foreign workers on the back steps of the Statehouse. Unable to speak English, we don’t know if these workers are legal. If they are, I’m all for their privilege to live here, work here, and participate in our wonderful quality of life. But at this time, we don’t know. Palmetto Scoop and Fits News have posed this  question so I’ve asked the Clerk’s office to research this matter. This contract is the obligation of the Budget & Control Board (you know the one we’re trying to abolish). The contractor has confirmed that all of his employees confirm to the law. I’d like to know what documents are being used to verify the legality. Are these workers United States Citizens, verified with e-verify, or verified with  an i9. Ya’ll remember an i9 is a worthless document full of loopholes.
                  
I don’t know if we can force the contractor to tell us, but we’ll continue to pursue and get you some answers. I’ve put in a request to find out the documentation of these workers. I’ll let ya’ll know our findings.

The California Supreme Court ruled to recognize gay marriage. Unfortunately, the California Court acted to preempt the wishes of the citizens of California. California will have a similar decision to amend their constitution in the future.
                 
This will not occur in South Carolina because in 2006 SC voted to add an amendment to our constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman. Many argued that this amendment was not important, yet had we not amended our constitution, any liberal activist court could have done the same in our state.
                     
A flaming liberal will whine, why can’t we allow those that love each other to be married? One man & one woman, man & man, woman & woman, 2 men & 4 women, a house cat & a woman & her sister, 3 men and a cow…I don’t have the room on this site to give all of their perverted examples.
                    
Out of respect for the Creator’s most sacred institution, the Palmetto State’s Constitution strengthens marriage, society’s foundational establishment. God even uses marriage to define the relationship with Jesus Christ and His church. Government must honor marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
                  
‘EQUAL’ | Ruling could be reversed by amendment
May 16, 2008 BY ASSOCIATED PRESS
                  
SAN FRANCISCO—- Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation’s most populous state.
               
A conservative group said it would ask California’s Supreme Court to postpone putting its decision legalizing gay marriage into effect until after the fall election. That’s when voters will likely have a chance to weigh in on a proposed amendment to California’s constitution that would bar same-sex couples from getting married.
                    
If the court does not grant the request, gay marriages could begin in California in as little as 30 days, the time it typically takes for the justices’ opinions to become final.
                  
”We’re obviously very disappointed in the decision,” said Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is pushing for the stay. ”The remedy is a constitutional amendment.”
                       
With a stroke of a pen Thursday, the Republican-dominated court swept away decades of tradition and said there was no legally justifiable reason why the state should withhold the institution of marriage because of a couple’s sexual orientation.