Today’s debate is about whether adultery should be considered differently during a period of separation. Current law eliminates alimony if adultery occurs prior to the final divorce. A Democrat amendment allows for adultery after a year from the initial filing. The reason for this amendment is because of some situations wherein one spouse who might have been unfaithful for years and is facing a stiff alimony drags out the proceedings and perhaps even sets up his spouse to do something that gives the impression of a mistake and thereby that spouse loses their alimony.
I do not argue that these situations occur. I do argue, however, that the South Carolina General Assembly should not be in the business of saying adultery is permissible regardless of the circumstances. Currently, trial attorneys tell their clients to behave until the final divorce lest they lose their alimony. The changes today will in effect remove that admonition. Not only would this endorse adultery, it would greatly reduce the already slim chances of reconciliation. We fought this amendment, but unfortunately failed. The family court reform has lots of good items, but this portion is serious blow to the sanctity of marriage.

This bill restricts the sale of Heating & Air equipment only to those folks licensed to install. I proposed an amendment to exempt homeowners from this legislation in committee, yet failed. My only resolve is to formally object to this bill, thus holding it up indefinitely. Proponents of the bill might argue that it’s a consumer protection bill designed to promote safe and effective installation of equipment. That’s certainly understandable for those in the business working on other consumers’ homes, but we have no business telling a homeowner he can’t build his or her own house from the ground up. I believe that individuals can take care of themselves and if they need help, they’ll seek it out. I will not vote to protect the individual from himself for two reasons. First, that’s not the role of government. Second, grown adults don’t need me to protect them–they’re more than capable of doing that on their own.

What’s next for the safety squad? Will nanny government try to prevent home owners from buying duct tape to keep them from repairing their duct work? What about the other 999 uses for duct tape? I’d love to hear from you on this one.

www.scsenategop.com

Today we’re taking up S. 1084, also know as the Unborn Victims Act on Special Order. Special Order is necessary when a minority report is attached to a bill. There was a Democrat minority report attached. This bill is also commonly referred to as Laci’s Law in memory of the California woman, Laci Peterson, who was brutally murdered and whose unborn son, Connor, also died as a result.
The bill is pretty simple and straightforward. It mandates that anyone who commits an intentional act resulting in the death of a unborn child is, in fact, guilty of murder just as if they killed any other human being. That would be true even if the mother herself was not killed. Also, the potential punishments are the same. Abortions are exempt from this bill, yet this legislation will give the unborn child more recognition. In other words this is a small step in the direction of the sanctity of human life. I’d like to thank the other co-sponsors of this legislation, Senators McConnell, Ritchie, Campsen, Ford, Ryberg and Knotts for making this a priority. Let me know your thoughts as the debate proceeds. The legislation passed with a simple voice vote.

Today’s topic, set for special order, is S. 969. This is a mileage cap proposal. It basically does three things:
1>adds language to the constitution defining the reasons for a potential tax increase and requiring counties to enumerate them on the ballot. They include: a deficiency in the preceding year, any catastrophic event outside the control of the governing body, or compliance with a court order or decree.
2>limits the ability of school districts to increase mileage to the equivalent of the most recent three-year rolling average of personal income growth as determined by the US Department of Commerce.
3>limits all other jurisdiction to the above formula unless an ordinance passed by the governing body is approved by the voters at a general election.
Unfortunately, current and future bonded indebtedness, for all jurisdictions, is excluded from these caps. This raises two obvious questions. First, why would we limit mileage increases for operations but not buildings? Shouldn’t voters have the right to decide if their local government should build buildings? Second, if we leave capital bonds unregulated, does this perpetuate the possibility of every county in South Carolina auditing the Greenville Plan, whereby those taxpayers assumed over $1 billion in bonded debt without even as much as a chance to vote on it? There are amendments addressing these. Will they pass?
This is a debate for taxpayers to watch. Let me know what you think.