Since 2005, the SC Club for Growth have been issuing a scorecard on the SC General Assembly. I have been honored to receive another 100 for the 2009-2010 legislative session and am proud to stand firm on my record of less government and more liberty for South Carolinians.
I’m also proud of the fact that I’ve received the highest score from the cfg every year (from both chambers).
SC Club for Growth Releases 2009-2010 Legislative Scorecards, names 23 “Taxpayer Heroes” and 102 “Taxpayer Nightmares”
Columbia, SC – SC Club for Growth today released its 2009-2010 Legislative Scorecards, awarding its “Taxpayer Hero” award to sixteen representatives and seven senators who earned top grades in their respective chambers. “Taxpayer Hero” awardees include now-Governor Nikki Haley and now-freshmen Congressmen Jeff Duncan, Mick Mulvaney, and Tim Scott.
Legislators’ ratings (view scorecards here) were based on critical economic and good government votes in the South Carolina House and Senate. The scorecards are publicized to the media, SC Club for Growth members, and South Carolina voters. Additionally, the scorecards serve as the basis for SC Club for Growth PAC endorsements. In the past two election cycles, SC Club for Growth PAC has a 75% win record and its members have contributed nearly $1 million to reform-minded candidates.
Club Chairman Bauer Vaughters commented, “SC Club for Growth’s scorecards are the true measure of where legislators stand on spending, good government, and reform. In the past it has been too easy for public officials to say one thing to people back home while voting differently in Columbia – which is why we track important votes and spread the word about legislators’ real records.
“Voters have made it clear that they want fiscally conservative reforms in state government. With every Representative and Senator back up for election in less than 18 months, we are hopeful that a new legislative session will bring more than just lip service to the reforms our state desperately needs.”
January 25, 2011 – U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) – DeMint Statement on President’s State of the Union Address
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) made the following statement in response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address:
“Tonight’s speech should have been called a State of the Stimulus, and the President should have admitted that it failed,” said Senator DeMint. “Two years after the President’s nearly trillion dollar government stimulus, unemployment has increased and remains high, families and businesses are still struggling, and our national debt continues to skyrocket.”
“When the President says ‘investment’ he means bigger federal government and higher taxes. Americans sent a clear message in the 2010 elections. They no longer wish to ‘invest’ in President Obama’s big-spending plans.”
“Instead of growing the federal government, Washington should reduce its control and devolve education and transportation programs to the states that are better handled at the local level.”
“The President spoke of a spending freeze, but we need spending cuts. Not a freeze at record high spending levels. When you’re in a car recklessly speeding toward a cliff, you don’t hit cruise control. You slam on the brakes and reverse course.”
“If President Obama is serious about fixing our nation’s fiscal problems and his call for bipartisanship, he should start by joining Republicans in repealing the partisan ObamaCare law. This government takeover of health care is a threat to our economy and to our nation’s health.”
“The President should also endorse a commonsense Balanced Budget Amendment to require Congress to stop the runaway spending. Congress will never get its fiscal house in order until we are forced to by law.”
“Our nation is still the best and most exceptional on Earth. But America’s greatness is in our freedom and empowerment of the individual, not in the size of government bureaucracies. I hope the President and all Washington politicians heed the call of the November elections that our government must do less, not more.”
I’ve received many questions about a remark Gov. Haley made in her state-of-the-state address last week. Here’s what she said:
The majority of prescription drugs issued by Medicaid are generic, with three large exceptions: AIDS, cancer, and mental health. We propose, following the lead of Senator Kevin Bryant, a pharmacist himself, that we remove the proviso prohibiting the use of generic medications to treat those three afflictions.
I realize that this may sting pharmaceutical companies, and some lobbyists, but it is an option that will allow us to realize real savings without compromising the quality of care for our patients.
I met with Gov. Haley recently, and stressed the potential savings if we make this change. As a pharmacist, I witness wasted taxpayer money on prescription drugs on a daily basis.Currently, Medicaid has a process called prior authorization or PA. This process is applied to some medications. In these situations, generic alternatives must be used first, and in the instance that the generic drug does not work; the more expensive medication may be dispensed. In no way is quality of care in jeopardy. If a consumer is paying cash for a product, naturally, they will try the least expensive option first. When the taxpayer is required to pay for medications covered by Medicaid, I believe we should take the same approach.
Prior Authorization is applied to many life threatening therapeutic classes with little or no problems, yet with exponential savings of the taxpayers’ money. We apply the PA’s to medications treating diabetes, blood pressure, esophageal reflux, and many, many more.
I am confident that there is much room for savings in the mental health, aids, and chemotherapy areas. Currently, the legislature has banned the Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee from even considering utilizing the PA in these three categories.
For example, in 2010 Medicaid spent $23.7 million on 3 drugs (Zyprexa, Seroquel, & Abilify). Applying a prior authorization mechanism on these drugs would only mean that less expensive alternatives be tried first. Even though many patients may still qualify for these meds, the PA possibility will still save money as drug manufacturers are more cooperative with negotiations on rebates when the prior authorization is a possibility.
Adding prior authorizations to Aids and Chemotherapy drugs may not save much, but there is still merit in expanding the PA to these categories. As you know, the hiv virus in a constantly changing organism and cancerous conditions are ever-changing, so therapies are constantly changing. But remember, the PA possibility does increase the rebate negotiating factor.
