The 2026 gubernatorial race is much more than a race between Republican Alan Wilson and Democrat Jermaine Johnson; it represents a fundamental difference of opinion over the role of government in our state and nation.
Wilson argues that government should focus on protecting families, enforcing the law, lowering taxes, defending individual liberties, empowering parents, and eliminating waste. Johnson proposes a much more active and progressive approach, where the government funds housing initiatives, influences wages and employment practices, expands healthcare programs, and regulates new sources of revenue such as marijuana. It is an age-old argument over the role of government in American society.
A Real Philosophical Choice
In November, South Carolinians will choose more than their next governor. They will decide how much power and money they want to place in the hands of state government. Much of the time, our elections are dominated by personalities, endorsements, and campaign tactics. Those will still play a central role, but policy and the role of government will take center stage.
Both candidates speak about affordability, public safety, education, infrastructure, and healthcare. The difference is in the ways they propose to address these issues. For example, Wilson focuses on the taxpayer, the family, local communities, and the private economy for solutions, while Johnson focuses on state programs, commissions, grants, mandates, and public investment.
The central question here is straightforward: Is government the problem or the solution? Do you want the government to control more aspects of your life or less? Is it my contention that the government should protect and fund essential services while leaving more authority and money with citizens? Yes, 100%.
Taxes and Affordability: Broad Relief or Targeted Relief?
Wilson has made the elimination of the state income tax a central theme of his campaign. This does not mean residents would stop paying federal taxes. Instead, South Carolina would stop taxing wages, self-employment income, taxable retirement income, income reported by many small business owners, and pass-through business income. As the plan phases in, South Carolina workers would see less state withholding from their paychecks and, eventually, no state income-tax withholding at all. Wilson has also campaigned on reducing or eliminating personal-property taxes on vehicles for seniors and veterans.
To eliminate waste and reduce spending, Wilson has proposed a Families First Audit Initiative, led by his lieutenant governor, Mike Reichenbach, to conduct independent performance audits of each state agency. The initiative is intended to examine state programs closely, determine whether they operate efficiently, identify duplications across agencies, and ensure they serve South Carolina residents as intended. Anyone who works in corporate America is familiar with this because corporations of all sizes have firms that come in to do audits periodically; this is no different.
The audit would cover several practical areas, including agency payrolls, vacant positions, administrative costs, duplicate programs, and unused property. For example, auditors could look for long-vacant jobs that remain funded, agencies paying for overlapping software systems, state-owned vehicles or buildings that are rarely used, or separate programs providing the same service to the same population. They would also review grants, economic-development incentives, and no-bid contracts to determine whether taxpayers are receiving measurable value. Using modern data tools, the audit could flag unusual payments, overbilling, duplicate invoices, or potential fraud. For too long, state programs have often been judged by how much money they spend rather than what they accomplish. The Families First Audit Initiative would change that by publishing findings, estimating potential savings, and outlining a corrective action plan.
Regulations are overbearing and an enormous burden on businesses in South Carolina. Wilson has campaigned on cutting red tape, which is in line with his broader priority of a limited and accountable government. South Carolina does not need government to choose winners and losers, direct wages, or put increasing paperwork on local employers; it needs government to simply get out of the way.
Johnson has also been vocal on the state income tax, but he is not proposing to eliminate it. Rather, he proposes increasing the percentage of those who do not pay a state income tax to 70%. What is not part of his plan is finding a way to replace that revenue or cut spending. It is more like a redistribution of wealth where our government picks winners and losers.
Does South Carolina want to manage the income tax more selectively, or begin the difficult work of eliminating it? The structure is already in place to reduce the tax burden on South Carolinians, but it will require outstanding leadership in the Governor’s Office, House, and Senate.
Ask yourself a simple question: Do you want a bigger government or a responsible and transparent state government? If it’s the latter, your candidate is Alan Wilson.
I plan to write a series of articles highlighting the difference between Wilson and Johnson. The difference is enormous, and Johnson’s policy initiatives will create economic instability and cost us jobs.
