South Carolina’s Legislature has one job it must complete every year: Pass the state budget. This year — or, since we’re past the July 1 start of the state’s new fiscal year, last year — lawmakers failed. Their failure continues.

We are nearly two weeks into the 2026-27 budget year, and there is still no 2026-27 budget. It remains in a conference committee, which has met a total of two times since House leaders presented the full House with their massive take-it-or-leave-it rewrite to the Senate budget on May 6.

Now, to be fair, lawmakers’ failure to do their one essential annual job is not even in the same league as Congress’ routine failure to do the same. Unlike the Congress, the Legislature passed what’s called a continuing resolution, which continues to fund state government at its 2025-26 level for the entire year, or until lawmakers pass a real 2026-27 budget.

But doing that absent extraordinary circumstances — like during the first year of COVID, when no one had any idea how long the tax collection freefall would continue — is a first step in the direction of D.C. dysfunction.

There are, as The Post and Courier’s Nick Reynolds reports, several important policy differences in the House and Senate versions of the budget, such as a save-the-bars provision that once again throws DUI victims under the bus, minor reforms for data centers and efforts to either demand a tiny bit of accountability from the Commerce Department for its overspending on the Scout Motors project or else sweep the whole mess under the rug.

But when our House and Senate negotiators held their second meeting on June 30, they said their main sticking points involved the Senate’s irresponsible idea of slashing property taxes for seniors and the House’s irresponsible idea of squandering money on unvetted give-always to nonprofits.

The hang-up, to be clear, isn’t that the House opposes irresponsible cuts that involve taxes the state doesn’t collect, and whose reduction likely will lead to more caps on how much local elected officials can raises taxes even when their constituents support them. Nor is it that senators oppose unvetted earmarks, although Senate Finance Chairman Harvey Peeler does and even his colleagues might oppose sending them to unvetted nonprofits — as opposed to simply unvetted local government programs.

The sticking point is that there’s not enough money to pay for both, and technical budgetary rules make it difficult to compromise. Not impossible, since lawmakers are in a special session called by the governor and so can work around those rules, but difficult.

Fortunately, there’s a really easy solution to this problem, and there’s no reason negotiators can’t adopt it when they meet Tuesday for what they hope will be their third and final session. It’s the solution Senate negotiators repeatedly used at the June 30 meeting to kill Senate provisions in the bill they didn’t actually like and House negotiators repeatedly used to kill House provisions they didn’t like: Strip them from the budget.

Kill the Senate’s $248 million plan to wipe out property taxes on the first $150,000 instead of just the first $50 000 of senior citizens’ residential property taxes; the homestead exemption cuts taxes for seniors of all incomes and wealth, including those who can easily pay them, while requiring struggling young homeowners to pay their full share, even if that forces them out of their homes.

And kill at the least the House earmarks that go to entities — sometimes quite questionable — that have managed to attain nonprofit certification. Better still, kill all $315 million in House earmarks, along with all $130 million in Senate earmarks. That way, we’ve got a budget agreement, and as a bonus we’ve gotten rid of two particularly irresponsible parts of it.

It’s astounding, in a state that won’t even allow tightly controlled medical marijuana use, that South Carolina has no restrictions on what is essentially recreational marijuana, in the form of highly intoxicating THC products that are sold at convenience stores to anyone who wants them.

It’s the result of hardline Republicans and Freedom Caucuseers on the right who insist on an outright ban even though there’s clearly not sufficient support for that and Democrats who — in a repeat of the alliances that allowed video gambling to thrive for years in our state — reject even the most modest of limits on convenience-store and other small-business sales of hemp-derived products.

This unholy coalition means that for another year — barring federal changes that might be coming — kids who can’t even legally purchase alcohol will be able to walk into convenience stores and purchase THC-infused gummies and seltzers, no questions asked.

What’s even more astounding — and outrageous — is that the stalemate over this matter has endangered a hard-fought effort to reduce South Carolina’s status as the most deadly state for DUI deaths per capita and per mile driven.

Our distinction comes largely as a result of a state law that practically begs drivers to refuse the breath test that is nearly essential for a conviction. A law that requires police to produce a practically perfect video of any tests they manage to administer. A law that forces judges to tell jurors it’s just fine for them to ignore that 0.15 percent blood-alcohol content if the driver just didn’t look all that drunk to them on the perfect video.

Sen. Tom Davis, the chief sponsor of S.52 (and coincidentally, the chief sponsor of bills to legalize medical marijuana), tells us a central effort behind his anti-driving-under-the-influence bill was to make it easier to do blood tests on intoxicated drivers, since breath tests detect only alcohol. We don’t know for sure how big a role legal and illegal cannabis plays in crashes and even deaths — some estimates go as high as 40 percent — but we are certain it’s not zero.

S.52 also would raise penalties for repeat drunken drivers and remove some of the provisions that make it easy for drunk drivers to get off on technicalities.

But the blood-test efforts — which were watered down but not eliminated in a House-Senate conference committee — weren’t the reason the Legislature failed to pass a DUI bill on June 25. The THC provisions in the DUI bill, after all, were not particularly tough. The DUI bill instead was held hostage when Senate Democrats refused to vote for bills that needed a two-thirds vote to pass because they included language that wasn’t in either the House or Senate version. S.52 was on that short list.

The weird good news is that the House voted to reject the THC bill, which Sen. Davis hopes will free up that bill’s supporters to vote for the DUI compromise. And that needs to happen when the Legislature returns to Columbia to pass a budget.

Of course even if budget negotiators do reach a deal on the budget and the Legislature returns to pass it and the DUI bill does become law, it won’t do as much to save lives as the Senate-passed version of the bill, because House leaders, many of whom make a living representing drunk drivers, oppose a DUI law that includes many of the provisions that are commonplace in nearly every other state.

As Mothers Against Drunk Drivers’ Steven Burritt tells us, while the compromise contains some significant improvements, it also creates new loopholes. “It’s frustrating,” he said, “that the original mission of only making the DUI law simpler, fairer and tougher was apparently too much to ask for some.”

But while we urge Senate negotiators to try once more to get some concessions from House negotiators, the fact is that even the inadequate current version will result in the conviction and punishment of a few more people who are driving while they’re drunk or under the influence of THC or cocaine or pain pills or another intoxicant. It will require a few more intoxicated drivers to use ride-share or ride with friends because they have an ignition-interlock system that prevents them from starting their vehicle while impaired. It might even cause a few more people to decide not to drive when they have absolutely no business driving.

And that in turn will prevent a few crashes that leave innocent victims with bills they shouldn’t have to pay and inconveniences they shouldn’t have to endure and injuries they shouldn’t have to suffer. It’ll save a few more lives — and save a few more of our neighbors and friends from the heartbreak of their loved ones’ deaths. And it will cost innocent members of our society absolutely nothing.

But only if the Legislature finally passes S.52. There is no acceptable excuse not to do so.

Click here for more opinion content from The Post and Courier.