Henry McMaster’s Final State of the State Echoed Democratic Priorities—But Skipped South Carolina’s Affordability Crisis
- CUBNSC
- 24 minutes ago
- 5 min read
By Javar Juarez | State of the State Report
Columbia, S.C.- Governor Henry McMaster’s ninth and final State of the State address was polished, forward-looking, and—perhaps most striking—unexpectedly familiar.
Familiar not because it broke new ground, but because much of what the Governor touted has long been central to the Democratic platform in South Carolina: investments in roads and infrastructure, expanded early childhood education, teacher pay increases, and workforce readiness. For some Democratic lawmakers in the chamber, the tone of the address carried an emotional weight that was hard to ignore. For others, it underscored a deeper contradiction between rhetoric and reality.
That tension defined the Democratic response to McMaster’s farewell address.
Henry McMaster: Democrats Acknowledge Empathy, Point to Policy Gaps
Senator Tameika Devine and Representative Annie E. McDaniel both described feeling a genuine emotional connection to the Governor’s remarks, noting that his focus on children, education, and long-term planning resonated on a human level.
“You can lean into the Republican talking points and that divide us, or you can lean into understanding… you got to recognize everybody.” -Tameika Devine
There was acknowledgment that the Governor’s language reflected empathy—something not always associated with South Carolina’s Republican leadership. Yet both lawmakers were clear that empathy alone is not policy, and that significant opportunities were missed.
Chief among them: affordability.
“What stood out tonight was that the governor, he really do have a heart. You know, he got a little sentimental, a little mushy… But… I wish he had spent more time talking about things that improve people’s quality of life.” - Annie E. McDaniel
At a moment when South Carolinians are grappling with rising housing costs, higher utility bills, escalating insurance premiums, and grocery prices that outpace wage growth, lawmakers noted that the Governor devoted little attention to the cost-of-living pressures dominating kitchen-table conversations across the state. That omission loomed large, particularly given the broader instability tied to the Trump administration’s economic agenda and its downstream effects on working families.
Borrowed Priorities, Unanswered Questions
McMaster highlighted proposals to raise the minimum starting teacher salary to $50,500, expand access to full-day 4K, and continue investments in infrastructure. These initiatives, while broadly popular, have been pillars of Democratic advocacy for years.
The Governor also leaned heavily on growth metrics—touting billions in capital investment and thousands of new jobs—framing South Carolina as a national economic success story. But several Democratic lawmakers cautioned that growth without affordability can deepen inequality rather than alleviate it.
Representative Robert Reese was among the most direct in his assessment. Visibly unimpressed, Reese pointed to the Governor’s emphasis on population growth, tax cuts, and nuclear energy expansion as emblematic of a troubling pattern.
“I just have concern that energy needs that we have—how are those needs determined? Are they determined by residential needs, or… industrial needs? I don’t want that production to be on the backs of residents… like the elderly people that are in my community who can least afford to… pay for energy.” - Robert T. Reese
Reese argued that while energy demand will undoubtedly increase alongside industrial growth, working families should not be expected to subsidize that expansion. His concern was not with development itself, but with who ultimately bears the cost. In his view, industry should pay for its own energy needs, rather than shifting long-term financial burdens onto ratepayers already struggling to keep up.
Energy, Taxes, and the Cost Shift
That critique cut to the heart of the Democratic response. McMaster’s call to continue cutting income taxes while expanding large-scale energy infrastructure raised questions about fiscal trade-offs that were left unaddressed in the speech.
Absent from the address was a clear explanation of how tax reductions would coexist with the massive investments required for energy production, grid reliability, and population-driven infrastructure needs—without increasing costs for consumers.
For lawmakers focused on affordability, that silence was telling.
The Stakes Ahead
Representatives Jermaine Johnson and Hamilton Grant framed the moment as more than a closing chapter for a long-serving governor. Johnson, now a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, signaled that the address illustrated the defining challenge facing South Carolina politics: bipartisan agreement on priorities without consensus on accountability, funding, or equity.
“It’s funny that when they are facing an election year, all of a sudden they want to start addressing the needs of the people. It’s time for new leadership here. We’re going to build this new South Carolina.” — Jermaine Johnson
While McMaster’s speech may have struck a conciliatory tone, Johnson and Grant emphasized that tone does not replace outcomes. Roads, schools, and early childhood education matter—but so does whether families can afford to live in the communities those investments are meant to strengthen.
“Well, you're robbing Peter to pay Paul. So one tax being cut is going to be another tax being increased. Income taxes are one thing. Property taxes are where you get the job done.” - Hamilton Grant
A Quiet Power Shift: The Judiciary Question
One of the most consequential moments in Governor McMaster’s final State of the State address came not with applause lines about growth or education, but in his remarks on judicial reform.
Framing the issue as one of public trust, McMaster argued that South Carolinians must have greater confidence in how judges are selected. He called for a fundamental restructuring of the system, urging that all judges be appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the State Senate. In his telling, such a shift would bring transparency, accountability, and consistency across the state’s courts.
But for Representative Jerry Govan, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, the Governor’s proposal raised red flags that extend well beyond process.
Govan acknowledged that South Carolina’s judicial system is not without flaws and agreed that reform merits discussion. However, he drew a firm line at concentrating appointment power in the executive branch. While McMaster presented gubernatorial appointments as a trust-building measure, Govan cautioned that ceding that level of authority to a single office risks upsetting the balance of power fundamental to democratic governance.
“We may need judicial reform, but putting all of that power in the hands of the governor is something I would approach with caution. You have three rails of government, and they must remain balanced.”- Jerry Govan
Pointing to national examples where expanded executive authority has produced unintended consequences, Govan warned that South Carolina must proceed carefully. In his view, the solution lies in refining and improving the current system—not dismantling it in favor of an executive-controlled model. Judicial independence, he emphasized, depends on maintaining equilibrium among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
The contrast was striking. Where the Governor saw efficiency and confidence, Govan saw the potential erosion of safeguards designed to prevent overreach. In a speech that often borrowed the language of bipartisan priorities, the judiciary debate revealed a deeper philosophical divide—one not about policy outcomes, but about where power should reside.
A Legacy Speech With an Open Question
Governor McMaster’s final State of the State may ultimately be remembered less for what it promised than for what it revealed: a Republican governor publicly embracing priorities long championed by Democrats, while stopping short of confronting the affordability crisis reshaping life in South Carolina.
For some lawmakers, the speech opened space for common ground. For others, it confirmed a longstanding frustration—that acknowledgment without action, and growth without affordability, leaves too many South Carolinians behind.
As the state looks toward a new political chapter, that unresolved tension may be the most enduring takeaway of all.