Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> AND WELCOME BACK TO THIS WEEK IN THE STATEHOUSE AS THE
GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONTINUES ON THIS SESSION OF LEGISLATION AS
TO WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO GO AND WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO.
THE SENATE COMPLETED THE ETHICS ACT.
IT'S GONE BACK NOW TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
ANOTHER ISSUE HAS POPPED UP AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT
UP TODAY AND I SUSPECT OUR FRIENDS IN 518 OF THE BLATT
BUILDING ARE REALLY GOING TO FIND THIS EXCITING BECAUSE
WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT A HOUSE BILL.
WAS IT ARTFULLY DRAWN OR WASN'T IT, ARE THERE PROBLEMS
WITH IT, AND I KNOW REPRESENTATIVE MERRILL AND
OTHERS REALLY FIND THIS SHOW EXCITING BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM
THE FACTS. BEFORE WE DO, I WANT TO THANK
OUR SPONSORS, TIME WARNER CABLE AND, OF COURSE, THE
SOUTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU FOR MAKING THIS BROADCAST
POSSIBLE, AND THE SOUTH CAROLINA EDUCATIONAL
TELEVISION NETWORK FOR THEIR PRODUCTION OF THIS AND THE
SOUTH CAROLINA PRESS ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR
ASSISTANCE IN PUTTING THIS PROGRAM TOGETHER.
WITH THAT, LET ME INTRODUCE OUR TWO GUESTS AND THEN WE'LL
INTRODUCE OUR SUBJECT TO 518 OF THE BLATT BUILDING AND
PEOPLE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ON WHAT THIS SHOW IS ABOUT.
FIRST, DEMOCRAT RICHLAND COUNTY, SENATOR JOHN SCOTT.
SENATOR, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE SENATE?
>> SIX YEARS. >> SIX YEARS.
RIGHT NEXT TO HIM, SENATOR TOM DAVIS COMES TO US, HE'S A
REPUBLICAN. HE'S FROM BEAUFORT COUNTY AND
I THINK YOU -- ARE YOU JUST TOTALLY IN BEAUFORT NOW?
>> BEAUFORT COUNTY AND A LITTLE JASPER COUNTY AND I
CAME IN THE SAME TIME SENATOR SCOTT.
SAME CLASS. >> YOU ALL ARE ON EQUAL
FOOTING ON THAT. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY
IS A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT CAME ACROSS FROM THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES TO THE SENATE. IT'S THE NEXT BILL UP.
IT'S CALLED IS THERE SUCH A THING AS NULLIFICATION.
IS THE BILL A NULLIFICATION BILL.
CAN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA NULLIFY THE
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT OR CAN IT? THAT'S THE ISSUE TODAY AND I'M
GOING TO START OUT WITH BOTH OF YOU AND GIVE YOU A CHANCE.
IS THE HOUSE BILL, FIRST, BEFORE WE GO TO WHATEVER WE'RE
DOING IN THE SENATE, IS THE HOUSE BILL A NULLIFICATION
BILL AND IF IT'S AN ATTEMPT AT NULLIFICATION, WHAT IS IT
ATTEMPTING TO DO SO OUR VIEWERS FIRST UNDERSTAND WHAT
WE'RE GETTING READY TO LOOK AT AND SHOULD IT BE CHANGED.
>> AS YOU ARE AWARE, THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, TAKEN ON
A SECOND NAME OF OBAMACARE, HAS BEEN CONGRESS, ESPECIALLY
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
REPUBLICANS ACROSS THIS COUNTRY HAVE BEEN TOTALLY
AGAINST OBAMACARE OR AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION HAS GONE BEFORE THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT. THEY DEEMED IT AS BEING
CONSTITUTIONAL. THAT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTABLE
TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY ESPECIALLY IN CONGRESS.
IT HAS THEN SPILLED OVER TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ALSO TO
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO
NULLIFICATION WHAT THE CONGRESS AND THE SUPREME COURT
HAS SAID IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.
I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT WE WILL DO IN THIS BILL WILL, IN
FACT, CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
HAS SAID. WHEN YOU TAKE THE PRESIDENT
AND HIS ADMINISTRATION TO COURT, YOU LOSE, ACCEPT IT AND
GO ON. >> ARE YOU TELLING ME THEN
YOUR READING OF THE HOUSE BILL IT'S ATTEMPT AT NULLIFICATION
OF A FEDERAL LAW? >> A FEDERAL LAW.
>> AND A FEDERAL LAW THAT'S BEEN TO THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT. >> RIGHT.
>> THAT'S HOW YOU SEE THE BILL BEFORE WE TAKE UP ON
AMENDMENT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SENATOR DAVIS, YOU'VE SEEN THE HOUSE BILL, YOU'VE BEEN
ACTIVE WITH AN AMENDMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT.
WHAT'S YOUR TAKE ON THE HOUSE BILL, WHAT IS IT ATTEMPTING TO
DO? >> THERE'S A LITTLE SLIGHT OF
HAND INVOLVED WITH THE HOUSE BILL IN THAT IN THE PREAMBLE,
WHICH IS LENGTHY, IT TALKS ABOUT THE RIGHT TO NULLIFY ON
FEDERAL LAW THE STATE BELIEVES IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IT TALKS
ABOUT THE 10th AMENDMENT AND RIGHTS RESERVED UNDER THE
STATES AND THE PEOPLE RESPECTIVELY, BUT IT'S A LOT
OF SOUND AND FURY BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET INTO THE BILL IT
DOESN'T TALK ABOUT NULLIFYING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
BY NULLIFICATION WHAT WE MEAN IS DESPITE THE FACT THAT
CONGRESS HAS PASSED THIS LAW AND DESPITE THE FACT THE
PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED IT INTO LAW AND THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT HAS DECLARED IT TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
DESPITE THAT FACT THE NULLIFICATION THEORY GOES
WE'RE GOING TO DECLARE IT ILLEGAL IN SOUTH CAROLINA AND
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PUT STATE TROOPERS AT THE
STATE LINES AND ANYBODY THAT COMES INTO SOUTH CAROLINA
ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS GOING
TO BE ARRESTED AND THROWN INTO JAIL.
WE CAN'T DO THAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING.
NULLIFICATION IS SOMETHING THAT JOHN C. CALHOUN ADVANCED
IN 1831 IN REGARD TO THE PARA FACT.
FOR BETTER OR WORSE, SOME MIGHT SAY FOR BETTER, SOME
MIGHT SAY FOR BETTER, THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE IS SETTLED.
WHAT'S BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IN THE SENATE, AND QUITE FRANKLY
IT WASN'T IN THE HOUSE IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN
NULLIFICATION. >> WE'RE GOING TO COME TO
THAT. BEFORE I LEAVE THE HOUSE BILL,
LET ME GO TO -- AND IF I SAY THE WRONG CASE, PLEASE CORRECT
ME. BUT PEOPLE CALL IT THE PRINCE
CASE AND IT'S KIND OF THE LANDMARK CASE, SO TO SPEAK, IN
THOSE WHO DEBATE WHAT IS THE POWER OF THE STATE IN REGARD
TO A FEDERAL ACT OR WHAT'S NOT.
WOULD EITHER OR BOTH OF YOU LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS THE BITE
IN THE PRINCE CASE BECAUSE I THINK THAT SETS THE FOUNDATION
FOR US GOING FORWARD WITH THE DEBATE IN THE SENATE.
>> IT DOES, AND I THINK IT SETS A LEGITIMATE FOUNDATION
AND FRAMES THE DEBATE IN THE PROPER TERMS.
WHAT THE PRINCE CASE, WHICH WAS DECIDED BY THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT IN 1999, SAYS DESPITE A LAW HAS BEEN
PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT AND DECLARED
CONSTITUTIONAL, IS THE STATE OBLIGATED TO SPEND ITS MONEY,
TO DIRECT ITS OFFICERS AND AGENCIES TO HELP IMPLEMENT
THAT LAW. WHAT THE UNITED STATES SUPREME
COURT SAID NO AND THE STATES ARE NOT MERELY POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT EXISTS FOR THE
CONVENIENT OF IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL LAW.
I MEAN THEY ARE SOVEREIGN ENTITIES.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THEY
CAN SET UP A FEDERAL HEALTH CARE EXCHANGE WHICH THEY HAVE.
THEY CAN HAVE NAVIGATORS TRY TO ENROLL PEOPLE IN THE
FEDERAL EXCHANGE, WHICH THEY HAVE.
BUT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT COMPEL THE
STATE TO DO AND WHAT THE DEBATE IS ABOUT IN THE SENATE,
THE STATE CANNOT BE OBLIGATED TO SPEND ITS MONEY, OUR TAX
DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING I THINK IS A BAD LAW.
THE QUESTION BOILS DOWN TO THIS.
IF YOU THINK THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY
AS I DO AND IF THE STATE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SPEND MONEY
TO IMPLEMENT THAT LAW WHY WOULD WE DO IT.
>> THE CHALLENGE TO ALL OF WHAT MY GOOD FRIEND SENATOR
DAVIS HAS SAID IS THAT IN A STATE THAT RECEIVES -- SPENDS
ABOUT $6.2 BILLION LAST YEAR AND $22 BILLION TOTAL, MOST OF
WHAT WE SPEND IS FEDERAL MONEY IN THIS STATE.
AND SO WHEN WE BEGAN TO DEBATE ISSUES WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE
GOING TO ACCEPT FEDERAL PRISONERS INTO OUR PRISON
SYSTEM IN WHICH THEY PAY FOR, WE'RE GOING TO DO OTHER THINGS
AS RELATES TO PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES THAT WHICH IS FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR AS WE DEAL WITH MOST OF THE MENTAL ILL
PATIENTS IN THE STATE AND WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PAYS FOR AS WE LOOK AT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
PROGRAM IN WHICH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BASICALLY OPERATES MOST OF THE FUNDING
WE ACTUALLY HAVE IN THE STATE. AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY
DIFFICULT TO SEPARATE THOSE PROGRAMS THAT BELONG AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR FROM WHAT WE DO.
I REALLY THINK THE DEBATE WE'RE HAVING ON THIS
PARTICULAR BILL IS REALLY A WASTE OF TIME.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH
IN THE STATE AND TO GO BACK AND DEAL WITH NULLIFICATION, I
THINK THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE DESERVE A LOT MORE.
I THINK REALLY WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT GOING THROUGH ALL OF
WHAT'S ON THE CALENDAR, THEY WOKE UP WHEN THIS BILL WAS UP
FOR DEBATE. ON YESTERDAY I'M ONLY WATCHING
A COUPLE PEOPLE COMING ACROSS GIVING SOME INFORMATION ABOUT
NULLIFICATION. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO NULLIFY?
ARE WE GOING TO NOW SAY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WE ARE
STRONG ENOUGH IN THE STATE TO OPERATE OFF $6.2 BILLION
BUDGET? THAT'S LUDICROUS.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. >> WELL, BUT TO BOTH OF YOU,
THE PRINCE CASE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I HAVE A
SIMILAR UNDERSTANDING CONSTITUTIONALLY OF WHAT YOU
INDICATED, SENATOR, THE COURT SEEMS TO SAY THE STATE CAN'T
BE FORCED TO SPEND MONEY TO CARRY OUT A FEDERAL LAW.
SO ISN'T THE DEBATE, FIRST OF ALL, IN THE SENATE, MOVING
AWAY FROM THE HOUSE BILL, THE HOUSE BILL IS THE HOUSE BILL
WHERE THE PRINCE CASE IS OR IS IT AT SOMETHING DIFFERENT SO
OUR VIEWERS KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING READY TO DEBATE IN THE
SENATE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE TWO OF YOU ALL ARE ON
OPPOSITE SIDES OF THAT BILL, SO THE VIEWER UNDERSTANDS.
IS THE AMENDMENT YOU ALL ARE GETTING READY TO PUT UP, ARE
THEY MORE IN LINE WITH THE PRINCE CASE THAN WITH THE OLD
CALHOUN DOCTRINE OF NULLIFICATION, SO TO SPEAK?
>> MY IMPRESSION IS THEY ARE IN REGARD TO THE PRINCE CASE
IN THAT THE AMENDMENT ON THE DESK AND WE'RE DEBATE IS A
STRIKE AND INSERT. TO GO AHEAD AND REPLACE THE
HOUSE BILL TO DISCUSS HOW TO IMPLEMENT THE PRINCIPLES OF
THE PRINCE CASE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
AGAIN, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN DO CERTAIN THINGS AND CERTAIN
THINGS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES ARE GOOD.
AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MY FRIEND SENATOR SCOTT HAS SAID
ARE SOME GOOD THINGS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES.
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WHEN THE STATE THINKS THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT'S BAD PUBLIC
POLICY, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATE HAS TO SPEND ITS
RESOURCES TO HELP IMPLEMENT THAT PARTICULAR THING.
IT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING. SIMPLY BECAUSE WE EXERCISE OUR
RIGHTS AS A SOVEREIGN STATE, NOT TO AID AND ABET IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A BAD LAW DOESN'T MEAN WE DON'T
RECOGNIZE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A RIGHT TO
PROPERLY ACT IN OTHER AREAS. WHAT WE'RE DEBATING ARE
PERFECTING AMENDMENTS TO MY AMENDMENT WHICH CHARACTERIZES
THIS BILL AS MORE OF AN ANTI-COMMANDEERING BILL.
THAT'S WHERE THE LEXICON IS USED WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE
PRINCE CASE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CAN THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EXPECT OR INSIST THE STATES USE THEIR
RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT A FEDERAL LAW.
IT'S NOT ABOUT NULLIFICATION. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS A
LAW THAT'S BEEN DECLARED CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT. I THINK IT WOULD BE FOOL US
FOR US TO SAY, SORRY, DESPITE THAT FACT WE'RE GOING TO
ARREST ANYBODY THAT TRIES TO IMPLEMENT THIS LAW.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING. BY THE SAME TOKEN, WE DON'T
HAVE TO USE STATE RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING BAD
POLICY. >> BUT I THINK YOUR QUESTION
DOES THE HOUSE BILL HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PRINCE
CASE, THE ANSWER IS NO. THE HOUSE BILL IS DEALING WITH
NULLIFYING WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS PUT IN PLACE
AND WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS IS THE LAW OF THE
LAND. NOW, WHAT SENATOR DAVIS HAS
DEALS WITH THE PRINCE CASE. THAT AMENDMENT HAS NOT YET
PASSED, IT'S STILL UP FOR DISCUSSION, DEBATE.
WE'LL HAVE TO SEE WHAT THE END RESULT OF THE SENATE REPORTING
OUT ON NULLIFICATION. TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.
>> LET ME SAY THIS BECAUSE I FEEL MYSELF BEING SET UP FOR A
GERMANENESS ARGUMENT AND IN CASE IT HASN'T OCCURRED, BUT
WHAT H.3101. >> YOU THINK IT SHOULD PUSH
BACK. >> YES.
>> WE'VE NOW CLEARLY IDENTIFIED BOTH OF YOU FOR THE
DEBATE. LET'S GO TO YOUR AMENDMENT.
WHAT DOES YOUR AMENDMENT DO? >> MY AMENDMENT TAKES WHAT THE
HOUSE PASSED AND PERFECTS IT. MY AMENDMENT GOES AHEAD AND
TAKES WHAT THE HOUSE INARTFULLY SAID AND MAKES IT
VERY SPECIFIC AND VERY CLEAR AS TO WHAT WE INTENDED TO.
THE HOUSE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE OR SIX THINGS THAT THEY
ATTEMPTED TO DO IN THEIR BILL, THEY DO TALK ABOUT NOT HAVING
STATE RESOURCES BEING UTILIZED TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE FORM CARE ACT, ABOUT NOT EXERCISING THE RIGHT TO
EXPAND THE MEDICAID OPERATION, THEY DO TALK ABOUT NOT SETTING
UP A STATE RUN EXCHANGE IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
SO YOU KNOW, WHAT MY AMENDMENT DOES IS IT TAKES THE HOUSE
AMENDMENT, STAYS ON THAT SUBJECT MATTER, BUT STATES IT
IN A WAY THAT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY CORRECT AND
CLEAR AND REMOVES ANY AMBIGUITY TO THE COMMUNITY AS
TO WHAT WE'RE DOING. >> ARE YOU PERSUADED BY THAT?
I HOPE ZACHARY AND ASSOCIATES TOOK DOWN NOTES.
>> NOT NECESSARILY. WE'VE GOT A LONG WAY TO GO
BEFORE WE CAN COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO AGREEING ON ANY OR
ALL OF WHAT YOUR AMENDMENT DOES.
I THINK ONE THING OUT OF ALL OF THAT SINCE THE
NULLIFICATION -- >> DO YOU LIKE THAT AMENDMENT?
>> NOT AT ALL. NOT AT ALL.
WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE A LONG DISCUSSION ON THIS -- ON
THIS AMENDMENT. WE'RE STILL NOT OUT OF THE
WATER FIRST ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS STATE WILL EVEN ACCEPT
MEDICATION EXPANSION FUNDS. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.
THE OTHER PART IS WHETHER WE ACCEPT THE FUNDS, OTHER STATES
ARE GOING TO TAKE THE MONEY IN.
THE REAL REALITY IS BECAUSE WE DID NOT ACCEPT THE MONEY,
THERE ARE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE NOW WHO HAVE BEEN ADDED AS
ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUALS ON THE MEDICAID ROLL.
NOW BEGINNING TO QUESTION WHAT THE 325,000 PEOPLE OUT THERE
FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WERE MOST OF THESE PEOPLE ALREADY
ELIGIBLE AT THE TIME WE LOOKED AT STATISTICS.
SO EITHER WAY, WE'RE GOING TO EXPAND MEDICAID.
OUR CHALLENGE DOWN THE ROAD IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT.
THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN AFTER THE FEDERAL MONEY IS LONG
GONE, THE STATE IN FACT IS GOING TO HAVE TO COUGH UP
MONEY IT DOESN'T HAVE. LET ME SAY THIS TO YOU.
WE'RE NOW DEBATE 200 MILLION EXTRA DOLLARS WHAT PEOPLE CALL
SURPLUS MONEY THAT'S NOT SURPLUS MONEY AND WHAT WE'VE
DONE IS ROLL BACK A LOT MORE OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO
PAY FOR IN MEDICAID SUCH AS ADULT DENTAL.
MOST OF US KNOW IN ROLLING BACK THOSE KIND OF CARES, WE
CREATE OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS FOR ADULTS.
SO IN THIS STATE IF WE SO DESIRE TO REALLY TAKE CARE OF
THE POOR IN THIS STATE AND THOSE WHO NEED THOSE SERVICES,
WE CAN DO THAT. WE JUST, BECAUSE OF THE WAVE
IN WASHINGTON AND BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL DISLIKE FOR
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION, THIS IS WHY
WE'RE AT THIS POINT, TALKING ABOUT MEDICAID EXPANSION.
I'VE NOT SEEN ANYTHING YET THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS DONE
THAT ANY OF THE REPUBLICANS LIKE.
EVERYTHING IS BAD, NOTHING IS GOOD, BUT AT THE SAME TOKEN IN
THIS STATE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE GROWING POOR POPULATION,
GROWING OF INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED BETTER EDUCATION IN THE
STATE, GROWING WHERE HEALTH CARE HAS BECOME A MAJOR ISSUE
IN THE STATE AND WE'RE SPENDING OUR TIME TRYING TO
FIGURE OUT HOW NOT TO TAKE IN MONEY TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE
PEOPLE. >> DO YOU THINK THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WILL LIVE UP TO ITS PROMISES?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE
17 TRILLION-DOLLAR DEBT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AND THE
WAY THEY PAY FOR IT IS BY SELLING TREASURY SECURITIES
EACH WEEK BOUGHT BY PRIMARY DEALERS AND THE FEDERAL
RESERVE THAT PRINTS MORE MONEY TO BUY THEM IT'S A HOUSE OF
CARDS AND IT'S GOING TO TUMBLE.
THE QUESTION BECOMES DO WE GO AHEAD ON OBLIGATIONS WE KNOW
DOWN THE ROAD WE CAN'T SUSTAIN?
I THINK TONY KECK HAS THE RIGHT APPROACH.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE SOUTH CAROLINIANS GET CARE BEFORE WE
INCREASE IT. YOU TAKE CARE OF THOSE
NEEDIEST. THAT'S WHAT TONY IS DOING, THE
GOVERNOR HAS TALKED ABOUT DOING AND I THINK THAT'S THE
APPROPRIATE THING TO DO. TO GO AHEAD AND EXPAND OUR
MEDICAID POPULATION FROM 1.1 MILLION TO 1.7 MILLION ON
THE PREMISE IS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO KEEP
ITSELF FINANCIALLY SOLVENT OVER THE NEXT DECADES IS FULL
OF -- >> BECAUSE OF A CLOSER LOOK AT
THE POPULATION, IT'S ALREADY EXPANDING BUT IT DIDN'T EXPAND
TO THE QUALIFICATION OF THOSE WHO NEED THE EXPANSION.
IT IS EXPANDED BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ALREADY WERE MEDICAID
ELIGIBLE. SO WE STILL HAVE SOME OF THE
SAME PROBLEMS THAT WE ANTICIPATE THAT WE WERE GOING
TO HAVE BUT THIS TIME WITHOUT THE MONEY.
I WANT TO SPEAK ALSO TO WHAT CONGRESS HAS DONE AS RELATES
TO WHERE THE DEBT IS. AND THE GOOD THING THE
PRESIDENT HAS DONE, HE'S BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME.
YOU CANNOT BE IN THREE WARS AND NOT EXPECT TO HAVE A LOT
OF DEBT. AS WE CONTINUE TO PAY OFF THE
DEBT OF THE WARS, WE'RE GOING TO SEE REVENUE IN THE COUNTRY
COME BACK, WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE COUNTRY CONTINUE TO GROW,
WE'RE GOING TO SEE MONEY BE INVESTED BACK INTO LOCAL
GOVERNMENT AND STATES SO THEY CAN EXPAND PROGRAMS AND WE CAN
PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK. >> A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT
I HAVE WITH SENATOR SCOTT. I HAVE A LESS OPTIMISTIC VIEW
OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IN
THE YEARS TO COME. I SEE NO RESOLUTION BY
REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS TO CURB ENTITLEMENTS.
I SEE NO WILL TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT 17 TRILLION-DOLLAR
DEBT. IT CONTINUES TO INCREASE.
WE CONTINUE ON TO EXPAND THE MONETARY BASE.
YOU KNOW, I FERVENTLY WISH MY STRENGTH SENATOR SCOTT IS
RIGHT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPRUDENT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE
STATE COMMITMENTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO GET ITS ACT TOGETHER.
>> WHEN WE'RE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM, GIVING TAX CREDITS TO COMPANIES COMING
IN, WE CLOSE OUR TREASURY BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING
INVESTMENTS FOR THE FUTURE AND HOPING THAT WE'RE GOING TO
GROW OUR ECONOMY AND THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK.
AGAIN, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS NOT RUN BY
DEMOCRATS, IT'S RUN BY REPUBLICANS.
IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PUT IN PLACE PROVISIONS AND
PLANS HOW WE GROW THIS ECONOMY BACK.
>> AGAIN, AS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, BUT WHEN WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT GROWING OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND GROWING
OUR ECONOMY, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT IT'S NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN IN THE CHAMBERS UPSTAIRS, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
OUT IN SOUTH CAROLINA WITH PEOPLE WORKING HARD.
THAT'S THE MISTAKE WE MAKE IN POLITICS, WE THINK WE'RE THE
ONES WHO CREATE THE JOBS, THAT CREATE ECONOMIC ACTIVITY.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS GET OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THE PRIVATE
SECTOR WORK, INVEST, SAVE AND CREATE WEALTH.
>> BUT WE DO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THOSE PEOPLE
TO MAKE SURE THAT FIRST THEY ARE HEALTHY, THEY ARE
EDUCATED, TRAINED SO YOU BRING THESE COMPANIES IN THAT WE'VE
GIVEN AWAY SOUTH CAROLINA TAX CREDITS TO THESE PEOPLE ARE
ABLE TO GO TO WORK. >> THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT
HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE PEOPLE ARE HEALTHY AND WORK
HARD. THEY HAVE THE OBLIGATION
THEMSELVES TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE THINGS TO BETTER THEIR
LIVES. >> WE DIDN'T SAY WORK HARD, WE
SAID EDUCATE, TRAIN, MAKE SURE THEY ARE HEALTHY AND CAN GO TO
WORK. WE SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS,
MOST OF THE MONEY WE SPEND IN THIS STATE IS EDUCATION.
>> HOW IS GOVERNMENT GOING TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE HEALTHY?
>> I DIDN'T SAY GOVERNMENT. I SAY WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY
IN THIS STATE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
>> WHO? >> THE STATE.
IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THE GOVERNMENT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING THE STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT MAKE
PEOPLE HEALTHY. >> WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY
TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENS OF THIS STATE ARE EDUCATED,
ARE HEALTHY AND TRAINED AND CAN GO TO WORK.
YOU CANNOT SPEND GOVERNMENT MONEY, THE PEOPLE'S MONEY AND
DON'T MAKE SURE THOSE THINGS ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE.
>> IT'S JUST A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHAT I THINK THE
PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IS. THERE ARE CERTAINLY THINGS IT
HAS TO DO TO ORDER A SOCIETY TO MAKE SURE THE FREE MARKET
CAN FLOURISH. LAW ENFORCEMENT, CERTAIN
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IT'S THE
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE EDUCATED,
THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE
PEOPLE ARE HEALTHY, TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A GOOD JOB, WE
HAVE A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT OPINION OF WHAT GOVERNMENT IS
SUPPOSED TO DO. >> WE NEED TO NULLIFY THE
EDUCATION ALIMONY WE SEND TO HIGHER EDUCATION, PUBLIC
SCHOOLS, KINDERGARTEN AND SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE CARE
OF THAT. >> PUT MORE MONEY IN PEOPLE'S
POCKETS AND LET PEOPLE TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES.
>> THAT'S NOT GOING TO PUT MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS.
YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE IF YOU CUT OFF THE -- HOW THE SYSTEM
IS BUILT, IN TERMS OF HOW THE ECONOMY ROLL, JUST SHORTLY
THERE WILL BE NO MONEY. >> ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK
AT NORTH KOREA AND SOUTH KOREA AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER A
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS TO DO THINGS FOR ITS PEOPLE
AND A GOVERNMENT THAT WANTS A FREE MARKET, YOU FELONY THE
COUNTRY THAT'S MORE PROSPEROUS.
>> I LIVE IN SOUTH CAROLINA, I LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN
THIS COUNTRY WE SPEND THE BULK OF OUR MONEY EDUCATING OUR
PEOPLE AND TRYING TO KEEP THEM HEALTHY.
THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM EXISTS WHEN THESE PEOPLE GO
BACK TO WORK AND SPEND MONEY BACK INTO THOSE ECONOMIES AND
COMPANIES AND THAT'S HOW YOU GROW THOSE COMPANIES, PEOPLE
THEN LEAD PRODUCTIVE LIVES. >> WE HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION
ON WHAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO. >> LET ME ASK THE TWO OF YOU,
THROW ANOTHER HOT ISSUE OUT THERE IN THE LITTLE BIT OF
TIME WE HAVE LEFT. MEDICAID EXPANSION.
WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES LEFT ON THIS BIG ISSUE.
MEDICAID EXPANSION. IS IT NOT OR IS IT GOING TO
HAPPEN IN THIS SESSION? IS IT GOING TO GET DEBATED?
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO GET DEBATED.
EACH TIME THE SENATE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS PUT UP
ANYTHING FOR DEBATE ONE OF TWO THINGS HAPPEN.
EITHER AN OBJECTION GO ON THE BILL, CARRY THE BILL OVER.
MAYBE DURING THE BUDGET CYCLE WE'LL GET A CHANCE TO TALK
ABOUT IT UNINTERRUPTED BY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE.
I LOOK FORWARD TO TALKING ABOUT IT.
I LOOK FORWARD TO LOOKING IF NOT MEDICAID EXPANSION WHAT WE
DO TO MAKE SURE SOUTH CAROLINA IS HEALTHY.
>> I WOULD DISAGREE WITH MY FRIEND SENATOR SCOTT IN THAT
WE'RE DEBATING IT RIGHT NOW. IT'S PART OF THE AMENDMENT I
HAVE ON THE DESK AND ONE OF THE COMPONENTS SAYS WE'RE NOT
GOING TO EXPAND THE MEDICAID. I WANT TO HEAR WHAT SENATOR
SCOTT AND OTHERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE VIRTUES OF TAKING UP
THAT EXPANSION OF MEDICAID. HE'S GOING TO HAVE THAT
CHANCE, NOT ONLY ARE WE GOING TO DEBATE IT WE'RE DEBATING IT
NOW. >> I WAS GETTING READY TO TELL
BOTH OF YOU YOU CAN'T SAY YOU DON'T GET A CHANCE TO DEBATE
ON THIS SHOW BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN SPIRITED AND GOOD.
SO ON THE MEDICAID, YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE A PITCH TO THE
SENATE AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD I GUESS DEFEAT HIS AMENDMENT?
>> I PROBABLY WILL. I'M GOING TO LET HIM TALK A
PRETTY WHILE. HE'S DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB
OF HIM TALKING. >> I WANT TO LISTEN AND TAKE
NOTES. >> THEN WE'LL GET DOWN TO THE
REAL FACTS AND NORMALLY I CLOSE WITH THE REAL FACTS ON
HOW THINGS NEED TO WORK IN THIS STATE IN TRYING TO MOVE
THINGS FORWARD. I APPRECIATE THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE HAVING A CONSERVATIVE VIEW IN TERMS OF
HOW THEY THINK THINGS ARE GOING TO WORK BUT HISTORY IN
THIS STATE THAT'S MADE THIS STATE STRONG.
>> THE THING ABOUT THE SENATE WE'RE GOING TO GET TO HEAR
THOSE ARGUMENTS AND BE RESPECTFUL AS WE ALWAYS ARE,
VOTE IT UP OR DOWN AND GO ON TO THE NEXT ISSUE.
>> I THINK WE'RE GOING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION BUT WE'LL
HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. >> WE ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES
LEFT. SUPPOSING THE SENATE DOES TAKE
A POSITION, HOW DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO RESONATE ACROSS
THE HALL IN THE HOUSE IS THIS. >> BASED ON LAST YEAR, I THINK
THEY WENT AHEAD AND DECLINED TO EXPAND THE MEDICAID
POPULATION AS AUTHORIZED BY THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.
THE GOVERNOR HAS INDICATED THAT IF IT COMES DOWN TO HER
DESK THAT WE EXPAND MEDICAID SHE WILL VETO IT.
SO UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE HOUSE
OR TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE, I MEAN THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A
PROSPECT OF THAT HAPPENING HERE.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ALL -- >> THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY
THING WE'LL AGREE ON TODAY. >> Y'ALL ARE EASY TO INTERVIEW
BECAUSE YOU ALL JUST TAKE IT AND GO FORWARD WITH IT.
IN THE LITTLE BIT OF TIME WE HAVE LEFT, ONE OF THE THINGS I
FOUND DISAPPOINTING IN THE MEDICAID DEBATE HAS BEEN THE
FAILURE TO QUANTIFY WHAT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO BE THE
UNINSURED POPULATION IN SOUTH CAROLINA.
REGARDLESS. WHETHER YOU DO OR YOU DON'T,
TWO WAYS YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE THAT BECAUSE
ULTIMATELY THEY ARE GOING TO SHOW UP IN EMERGENCY ROOMS,
SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR THEM. DO YOU SHARE THAT FRUSTRATION?
NOBODY BROUGHT A STUDY OR ANYTHING OUT THAT QUANTIFIED
IT AND GAVE YOU SOME FACTS AND FIGURES TO LOOK AT.
>> EARLY ON THERE WAS SOME EARLY ON STATISTICS THAT WERE
OUT THERE. THE NUMBERS WERE LIKE 325,000.
AND AFTER THE CONVERSATION REALLY BEGAN AND SOME FOLK
OFFERED SOME OTHER KINDS OF PRODUCTS THAT PEOPLE COULD IN
FACT SIGN ON TO, WE DISCOVERED WE HAD MORE PEOPLE THAT WERE
ELIGIBLE FOR MEDICAID THAT REALLY DID NOT EVEN NEED
MEDICAID EXPANSION. BUT THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE
THINGS WE NEED TO DO IS ASK STAFF TO TRY TO GET US SOME
REAL TRUE NUMBERS AND I'LL TAKE IT UPON MYSELF.
>> YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT. AND THE CONSERVATIVE RESPONSE
WOULD BE YES, WE NEED TO IMPROVE HEALTH CARE ACCESS,
YES, WE NEED TO GIVE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET PEOPLE
DECENT MEDICAL CARE. I DON'T THINK TURNING THAT
OVER TO THE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN GOOD.
I THINK HISTORY HAS SHOWN IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS WHEN THEY
TRY TO TAKE OVER ONE SIXTH OF THE NATION'S ECONOMY THEY'VE
MADE A MESS OF IT. I DON'T WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE.
I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS WE CAN EXPAND HEALTH CARE
ACCESS FOR OUR CITIZENS. >> BUT THE REAL QUESTION DOES
IT REALLY MATTER. AS THE GOOD SENATOR HAS
ALREADY SAID, SENATOR DAVIS ALREADY SAID EITHER WAY IT
GOES, EVEN IF WE FIND THE NUMBERS ARE VERY SMALL AND THE
POSITION THAT BOTH THE REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE AND
REPUBLICANS IN THE SENATE AND THE GOVERNOR HAS TAKEN, THEY
JUST DON'T WANT IT. SO DOES IT REALLY MATTER IF
THE NUMBERS HAVE SHIFTED TO ACTUALLY BEING MEDICATED
INDIVIDUALS. THE QUESTION HOW NOW WE ARE
GOING TO PAY FOR THOSE PERSONS MEDICAID ELIGIBLE.
>> WITH THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WRAP IT UP BECAUSE ONE
OF THE THINGS WE'RE SHORT ON IS TIME.
I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF YOU FOR BEING ON THE SHOW,
SPIRITED AND RESPECTFUL AND OUR FOLKS HAD A CHANCE TO
LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT THE ISSUE.
WE'LL BE BACK NEXT WEEK WITH MORE ISSUES HERE IN THIS WEEK
IN THE STATEHOUSE.