As Greg Ryberg stood alone to defend the governor’s veto of the entire state budget (not an easy thing to defend, by the way), some senators shook their heads in disgust. Others stood to argue vehemently with him.
But Sen. Bill Mescher did not let it interfere with his activities, as he stayed glued to his Freecell game. Or maybe it was Spider Solitaire. I admit I was paying more attention to Sen. Ryberg.
Related Posts
What’s so hard to defend about the governor’s eminently sensible veto? I think it’s much harder to defend the ridiculous assertion that a budget increase of population growth plus inflation still isn’t enough.
If oil had been struck on the Statehouse grounds, and adding $5 BILLION in new revenue, instead of the $1 BILLION extra taxes that we have now, the legislators would have spent every cent, and whined about “unmet needs” and something not being “fully funded”.
We need to literally clean House and clean Senate.
Hasn’t Sanford trademarked pointless grandstanding? I think that he’s just more comfortable in the Don Quixote role of an uncompromising ideologue among the “unprincipled” politicians.
It’s so much more comforting to explain his almost total failure as a chief executive when he can pose as a martyr to ideological purity.
Brad’s logic behind endorsing Sanford again is still a mystery. I’m left to conclude that it’s some sort of lame attempt at reverse psychology. Perhaps the troglodytes of the SC GOP would defect from the titular head of the state party if only the despised “foreign-owned” newspaper endorsed him.
Otherwise, nominating a totally ineffective governor based on the fact that he had one good idea (which he couldn’t implement, anyway) seems pretty self-evidently stupid.
What would an “effective governor” do with a legislature that has no budget, spends every cent it can get, and borrows more money?
Lee, it’s hard to say what an effective governor would do, since our experience with that kind of political animal is so rare. But our last Republican governor probably offers as much of an example as any.
David Beasley took principled stands, too, but he also worked with – not against – the legislature. I know you Sanfordites hate public schools, but it was Beasley who put the Education Accountability Act in place, a law that, by any objective measurement, is improving our schools (it’s by no means an unqualified success put compare our progress since then with that of Florida, which instituted vouchers at about the same time).
How did Beasley get it passed? Largely by staying out of the way. He knew enough about the process to know that if he made accountability his personal crusade, it would fail: Democrats would make it partisan, or Republicans would make it personal, whatever. Beasley set the agenda and let legislative leaders like Bobby Harrell – who Sanfordites now despise – get it through the process.
Sanford, in my opinion, is more interested in personal glory than anything else. He’s by God smarter than the rest of us, we have to do it his way or no way, and if anyone disagrees with him, well, that’s just because they’re too damn stupid to see what a genius he is.
Wow Tim, that last paragraph sounds familiar. Did you confuse Sanford with Lee?
Why even have an executive if his role is to “get out of the way” of the legislators who don’t even operate off a budget, much less prioritization of spending?
Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment limiting governnment size to no more than 10% the economy would fence them in, but still allow them to decide how to spend the money.
I’m not convinced yet that Lee isn’t in fact Sanford in drag.
Lee, “getting out of the way” means making the issue bigger than your own personal aggrandizement, but I’m not surprised that’s beyond your grasp.
Most people see Sanford as an unassuming person, who stays out of the spotlight. Instead of thinking in terms of you theories of personality, try to look at the money and the lack of budget controls.
Regardless of personality or ego, it is just irresponsible to spend as much money as the legislature wants to spend, and without any budget process. The big egos in the legislature tend to cast everything as ego and power. They don’t operate on principles, so they have trouble dealing with people who do.
What do you mean, no budget process? What do you think they spent six months crafting and debating, Lee?
The veto of the entire budget is Sanford in a nutshell.
Why use the dreary, pedestrian line-item veto to shape the budget to Sanford’s liking? Why cut deals with legislators to get at least “half of a loaf?”
Nope.
It’s “my way or highway” for the preening, self-important Sanford. And, why not try to alienate every single legislator by making a grand, public spectacle demonstrating your disdain for them?
Of course, what’s so ultimately self-defeating (if governing is your goal) is that Sanford knew all along that the legislature wouldn’t even break a sweat overriding his veto. Thus, proving just how impotent Sanford really is: He can’t even begin to accomplish his goals with his own party in control.
Can’t you just envision the note coming home from little Mark Sanford’s kindergarten teacher: “Doesn’t play well with others.”
Come to think of it, Sanford and Bush have a lot in common. They’d rather be dictators than have to deal with an independent legislature.
Sanford just wasn’t “lucky” enough to “hit a trifecta” like Rove & Co.
The legislature didn’t really have a budget, because they kept negotiating up the pork spending as new tax money poured in.
A real budget would have a set cap on spending, at the lowest estimate of necessary spending, no more than the increase in population and price inflation.
Then, actual spending items are prioritized, added to a zero base, and resorted.
When all the really necessary and legal items are in, you don’t spend any more, even if you are under the original cap.
If you hit the cap, that is the end – you add no more lower priority items.
You do it all in public, and explain every item.
Brad’s logic behind endorsing Sanford again is still a mystery.
If Sanford’s opponent in the general election was Jesus Christ, and Jesus was running on a platform of saving and improving our public schools, and Sanford was running on a platform of government “reform” and gutting public education, Mr. W. would endorse Sanford. And explain it by saying Jesus is a decent fella but He doesn’t really have any leadership experience but Sanford does, and government restructuring is important and maybe Sanford will ultimately come around on that whole education thing . . .
Brad has been pretty solid on his explanation for endorsing Sanford. Sanford has been the only one to effort to change the government structure.
He has also been consistent in his strong disapproval of Sanford’s stance on education. Brad used this opposition to explain why he endorsed Staton over Floyd. Sanford and Floyd advocate private school choice, which Brad strongly opposes.
Having said that, I disagree, strongly, with Brad about making the choice debate the priority in education issues. There are bigger issues facing our public schools than a small percent of students using vouchers. It hasn’t undermined the Milwaukee school system nor has it revolutionized it. So why all the hubbub?
Journalism and crusades are a lot easier when you’re just beating one small issue to death.
Brown Eyes, you should know oh master of the stereotype.
C’mon, Randy. Sanford doesn’t have the smarts to conceive of a restructuring plan nor the capacity to even begin to get such a plan passed.
Brad knows this, yet, decides to endorse him, anyway.
It’s like wishing for bad luck and knocking on wood.
kc’s post above hits the nail on the head.
Read Brad’s commentary on Stanford. He gives him little credit for reform, but he atleast makes an effort. The others offered no plan. It’s the lesser of the evils is what I inferred.
Tim’s history of the Education Accountability Act is close, but not quite accurate.
Gov. Beasley appointed the PASS Commission (another acronymn that wasn’t needed but i digress) with the express design of tit developing a set of specific learning standards modeled after Virginia’s. The commission’s report became the basis for the Education Accountability Act.
He did work with the Legislature, that’s true, and the stnadards movement was certainly a prominent part of a State of the State address as I recall. So it wasn’t like he was persona non grata on the issue. But it’s true he did not try to make it some test of conservative ideology or GOP orthodoxy.
Beasley gets little credit for this work, which has meant a lot more to South Carolina than the “education” lottery.
Gary, good post (not being sarcastic). Thanks.
I was no fan of Beasley, but he did some necessary things and was (I think) trying to improve public education. I agree that the lottery was a bad idea, but I’ve seen it happen in other states, when people don’t want to pay taxes, a lottery seems like a quick-and-easy of raising money.
The education accountability act, as well as the No Chld Left Behind act, will be the downfall of the education system. The EAA addresses school and teacher accountability, but doesn’t touch on students or parents. Y’all ever try to drive a car with two flat tires?
A lot of taxpayer complaint is that the EAA does more rewarding of teachers than improving or removing underperformers.
NCLB pours resources into a few basic skills at the expense of other subjects.
The reality is that a lot of children need to be left behind, because no amount of money is going to improve them beyond a rather low point on the scale. Socialist schools in Europe have to do it. Socialist schools here do, too, but they like to pretend otherwise.
When Tommy Moore is the opposition candidate for Governor, Sanford is the only real choice left to make.
Doesn’t appear to me the editorial board had a choice.
Really, David?
Care to support your opinion?
Remember, since you’re not published anywhere else except Brad’s Blog, your opinion doesn’t mean squat.
Hey! No dissing the blog! Or those who sail in her.
I thought VIDEO POKER had been outlawed.