Roasted: Coffee with Sean Bennett

Sean Bennett, running for S.C. Senate District 38, sat down with Patch and concerned voters 4:30 p.m. Thursday at . The district includes a portion of Berkeley County.

Coffee with the Candidates is 4:30 p.m. Thursdays. However, the next Coffee with the Candidates will be , leading up to .

Here is a recap of Thursday's conversation with Bennett:

Q: Are you a tea party candidate?

I consider myself a Republican candidate. While I do espouse to most of those beliefs, I'm not a tea party board member or organizer, so I don't want to steal their label without them granting it.

Q: What are your thoughts on school funding in the state, and recent legislation proposed that gives tax cuts to those enrolled in private or homeschool? 

I have one child in public school and one child in private school. Education reform has to be set up where it doesn't hurt the public schools. And you can't do education reform piecemeal. If we can do comprehensive tax reform, that will go a long way toward fixing education. Once we fix the funding formula and get the funding to flow, we can evaluate how it's spent. While I believe tax deductions for homeschooled children should be looked at, I don't believe in retirees or others not paying for school because they don't have children in the system. Just because you don't have a car, doesn't mean you shouldn't have to help pay for our roads. Nobody wants to pay taxes but everyone knows we have to.

Q: What are your thoughts on a statewide one-cent sales tax or ?

The answer to everything cannot be let's add another tax. If the public wants it, then OK. But what we need to do is comprehensive tax reform.

Q: What are your thoughts on Act 388, that shifted education funding to businesses?

That was a disaster that a lot of people in the community knew was a disaster. 

Q: What are your thoughts on ?

I'm in favor of privatizing anything that the private sector can do better than the government. But any time you privatize you do risk unionization, which I'm against for the public and private sector. Unions have had their role in the past, but not now. But if employees decide they want to unionize, I will leave it up to them. However, I will do everything I can to make the environment in South Carolina so that unions don't grow. 

Q: What are your thoughts on impact fees?

I'm not a fan of impact fees. I'm not opposed to it, but it seems like we're looking for multiple problems to be solved by the one silver bullet. What plagues our area took years and decades to create. Now, trying to impose impact fees, we've created a tax structure that's unpredictable. That's the 800-pound gorilla that we have to get our arms around: tax reform. 

Q: What are your thoughts on Fair Tax?

I like the fair tax. I like it nationally more so then I like it at the state level. I'm less convinces of it working at the state level, but everything needs to be on the table for comprehensive tax reform. I'm willing to consider it. 

Q: How are you going to get things done in Columbia?

No doubt about it, there can be a brick wall. It's not going to be by Jan. 15 we'll have it all worked out — clearly that's not going to happen. It's about not taking the bull-in-the-china-shop attitude. You don't have to give up your principles to compromise but you have to be willing to compromise. I don't think they've given up in Columbia on tax reform, but I don't believe our elected officials are committed to overhauling taxes like I am. I know they know, and they know it's broken, but I'm committed. Right now, tax reform is attempted through piecemeal legislation, which makes it more unpredictable and more unwieldy. They all want to fix one piece, but that's not how it's done. I'm not naive; I know what I'm talking about is eating an elephant one bite at a time. 

Q: Why can you get this done and the incumbent can't?

I'll try to do this as respectfully as I can. Sen. Mike Rose just does not work well with others. He can't seem to build consensus unless it is with a non-controversial issue. In my opinion, if there is any difficulty in support for an issue, it just doesn't happen. My experience in business has been consensus building. I have worked with legislative delegations, the chamber, CRDA and more. We deal with those elected officials every day — local, state and occasionally at the federal level. 

Q: You chaired the Charleston Regional Development Alliance, were you in favor of , which was created by the state instead of the local communities?

From an economic development standpoint, that made sense. From a government standpoint, it made no sense. It added another layer of government that wasn't necessary. It is hard enough to get three entities, like the tri-county region, to play in the sandbox, much less however many counties in the I-95 corridor with vastly different problems. It sounded good but it wasn't a good idea. Let the communities get together. It's not the state's job to do that. 

Q: What are the three items you want to attack once you're in office?

Jobs — we need to build a strong business environment. Then education funding and infrastructure. But all three things are ultimately tied together and can't happen without comprehensive tax reform.

Q: How will you affect change from Columbia for economic development here?

Let's be clear about economic development: it takes a full team. The economic development team is the salesman, but he's got to have something to sell. The county is the steward of those goods, but the county has got to have the money and proper environment in which to cultivate. You create the environment at the state and then hand the ball off to the county. 

Q: How would you support entrepreneurship? 

You have to limit regulation wherever possible. That doesn't mean Wild, Wild West, but you have to remove it where possible. The state must create a system where municipalities and counties get the most local dollars back, and help allow the strengthening of angel investors. Let them evaluate whether or not a business is a good investment for them. 

Q: Are you in favor of term limits?

I can see both sides of the issue. We have term limits in place right now; they're called elections. Smarter guys than I created the system. But the other side of me sees the "stuff" and that it makes sense to have term limits. It's not something on my platform, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider it if it came to the floor.