Which Agency Next?
An interactive index for choosing the series' next single-agency study. Set how much each factor matters — budget size, executive discretion, simplicity, prior reviews, ten-year growth, and two judgment ratings you can change yourself — and South Carolina's state agencies reorder to match. Built from the FY 2026-27 and FY 2016-17 appropriations acts and published audit and oversight reports.
Agriculture
The first single-agency study in the series. Every expenditure transaction the Department of Agriculture recorded in FY2025, organized by what the money bought, who received it, and which fund it drew from — then set beside the program areas the Appropriations Act actually names. An informal working analysis, with the classification rules stated on the page.
Spending, Organized by Function
Every expenditure the state recorded in FY2025 — 1.7 million transactions — reorganized to answer what the budget itself cannot: not which agency spent the money, but what the money was spent on. All 960 object codes classified by written, auditable rules. An informal working analysis, with the rules and the underlying data published alongside it.
The Incremental State
One year, two budgets, and not a single agency cut. We matched the FY2024-25 and FY2025-26 appropriations acts line item by line item to measure how much of a "zero-based" budget is ever actually re-decided — and how much simply rides in from the year before.
The Federal Floor
Two out of every three dollars in South Carolina's $39.2 billion budget comes from somewhere other than state taxes. A map of the budget's architecture: federal matching funds, university revenues, dedicated streams, and the state-funded core where budget decisions bite directly.
The Match Trap
Where cutting one state dollar forfeits several federal ones: a line-item map of South Carolina's federal matching exposure, built from the 2,000+ appropriations lines that carry match requirements.