At the Verizon Wireless career fair. (credit: [email protected])
Just wondering. It’s not that I’m advocating it or anything. Yet.
It just occurs to me to ask whether, once lawmakers have asked him to reconsider and he’s brushed that off (as you know he will), they have a backup plan for making sure South Carolina gets the stimulus that we’re going to be paying for anyway.
The stakes are huge, and they’re way more important than Sanford or whether he continues to hold office. For years, we’ve held our breath at the notion of Andre Bauer becoming governor, but at least he would accept the funding that is essential to continuing such critical services as, say, keeping prisoners locked up or teachers in the classroom.
Did you see the piece in today’s paper about our 11 percent unemployment rate in February, and the projection that it’s going to be a long time before things get better? (By the way, I borrowed the above image from thestate.com. If that’s not OK, somebody tell me.) An excerpt:
More than 900 people showed up this week at a Verizon Wireless career fair in Forest Acres for 120 call-center jobs with $27,000-a-year starting salaries and full benefits.
Though not required, many applicants had college degrees —desperate for work in a state with an unemployment rate that rose to 11 percent in February.
South Carolina continues to have the nation’s second-highest jobless rate, as 241,000 people last month hunted for work, the S.C. Employment Security Commission reported Friday.
Yep, we have the second-highest unemployment rate, and a couldn’t-give-less-of-a-damn governor.
The problem with the Clyburn bypass on stimulus funds is that it might involve a 10th amendment violation, what with the federal government telling a state what it has to do. But the bizarre situation we find ourselves in is that we have a governor who couldn’t care less about our actual state or its needs, but whose every decision is guided by his own desire to strut upon the national stage.
So, this raises the question: Is anyone at the State House looking into what it would take for South Carolinians to seize control of their own fate, which could involve taking control back from this ideological dilettante?
I have no idea what the legal possibilities are. But surely someone does. And surely someone is considering this contingency.
Related Posts
Your obsession with blaming Sanford for the problems created by the state legislature has become pretty sad.
Sanford didn’t cause the economic conditions in the state. You can’t point to a single bit of evidence that he is responsible other than your long time desire that he compromise his principles to “work with” career politicians.
To ask about impeaching a governor who advocates fiscal responsibility over mortgaging our future is pretty sad. Start with Harrell, Leatherman, Cooper, et al first.
How much of the 11% unemployment rate do you believe is a result of the specific policies of Mark Sanford?
As the duly elected Governor of the state, what would be the criteria you would use to justify his impeachment — aside from the fact that you don’t agree with his belief that stimulus money should be used to pay off debt? Do you believe he has done anything unethical?
I am not at all certain that what amounts to policy differences constitutes “serious crimes or serious misconduct in office” as required by Article XV of the Constitution.
Umm, Doug… I’m not the guy injecting Mr. Sanford into this. I’m not the guy jumping up and down before the national media saying, LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I’M GOING TO STAND SINGLEHANDEDLY IN THE WAY OF MY STATE GETTING THE STIMULUS!
Who is drawing that attention to Gov. Sanford? He is, and he’s going to quite a bit of trouble to do so. The least we could do is pay him some of the attention he so craves. Don’t you think? Or are you saying we shouldn’t humor him? Unfortunately, we don’t have much choice, since the effect of his whims upon this state, in the opinion of GOP leaders who actually give a damn about South Carolina, would be devastating.
The only person with a sad obsession with our governor is the governor himself. To him, it’s all about Mark Sanford, as always. It’s certainly not about the rest of us.
So ignore him and let him do the job he was elected to do. Let him govern exactly as he said he would when he ran for the job.
Or should we call Tommy Moore and see if he’s available to rescue the state?
Clyburn is supporting HR-40, to tax whites and give more reparations to those with some African blood in their veins.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.40.IH:
What worries me in this situation is the leverage Sanford might wield in any agreement to bring the money in for the uses for which it was appropriated. He has an agenda that the legislature (led by Republicans) has largely rejected. I can certainly envision his seeking agreements aimed at lowered top tax rates, education vouchers/credits, restricted medicaid (CHIPS) expansion, or other measures as bargining chips. He certainly has his supporters in this state, but the ability to get broad support for most anything he proposes is low and waning. Playing hardball with an eye to national politics seems to be his game now. The money he is contesting actually has fewer “strings” attached than much of the money that will come in outside his grasp. His posture that South Carolina is borrowing the money and that it somehow increases our indebtedness as a political entity is just off-base. The claim that it ties our hands and obligates the state to greater spending beyond the two-year stimulus period is simply a ploy. I hope the legislature stands up to him and lets the courts decide what the law requires. His job is to administer competently, not to set policy or law. It reminds me of some of George W Bush’s “signing statements” – “I’ll only carry out the parts or the law I agree with.”
Governot Mark Sanford has six hundred, fifty-four days left in office.
We’re #2! Keep it up Mark and we’ll beat Michigan!
Keep blaming Sanford… the foxes in the chicken coop are having a field day while you’re doing that.
Whom would you blame, Doug? The Legislature would use the money to fill in some of the deep cuts in essential state services. The governor, acting entirely on his own and without accomplices (which is great for him since he wants all the “credit” to himself), has indicated his willingness to block that.
So whom would you blame. Name somebody, and we’ll see if we agree.
Lord knows I blame lawmakers when it’s their fault, as so many things are.
But sometimes, it comes down to one man. For years, we blamed lawmakers for failing to raise our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax. Finally, they did it, and guess what happened? One man stopped it. Guess who that one man was?
At least in that case, you can blame the Legislature collectively for failing to override him, but that is a fuzzy sort of accountability. In this case, there is no one else to blame.
By the way, Greg is right about Article XV, which allows for “impeachment in cases of serious crimes or serious misconduct in office by officials elected on a statewide basis.”
We tend to focus on crimes when we talk about removing someone from office. But how many crimes have the devastating effect that refusing to accept stimulus funds would have, with thousands of convicts released from prison and thousands of teachers laid off? So the question becomes whether an official, in order to further his own personal ambitions, commits acts amounting to “serious misconduct in office” by thus laying waste the state budget?
It raises the question of whether a governor is to be held accountable for his stewardship of the state and its assets. The debate would occur in that area where law and policy intersect. I’d be interested to hear some constitutional scholars weigh in on this.
I am no constitutional scholar but I am an attorney. It is interesting that the federal standard is “high crimes or misdemeanors” as opposed to ours of “serious crimes or serious misconduct.” We appear to be the only state which uses “serious misconduct” and I have not yet been able to find anything construing it. I feel certain however that it was not intended to cover policy differences between two branches of government particularly when one (the executive) is exercising powers which it legally holds. As firmly as some may believe that Sanford is acting out of selfishness I am certain that he feels he is acting on principle and this is not, in my opinion, an impeachable offense.
It appears that this would start us down the very slippery slope of starting impeachment proceedings whenever the General Assembly disagreed with the way the Governor performed executive functions (I have this image of torch bearing lederhosen clad peasants storming the castle). This idea, to me, flies in the face of separation of powers. I think that Leatherman’s actions are as far as the General Assembly can go in this matter. Using impeachment under these circumstances would have the appearance of a coup.
Unemployment rates have steadily risen with Governot Sanford at the helm. Check the Bureau of Labor Statistics yourself (http://www.bls.gov/). The fox is in the Governot’s house!
The debate would occur in that area where law and policy intersect.
The more I think about this statement the more it disturbs me. Impeachment is an extreme legal remedy never intended to redress policy differences. Allowing its use to circumvent separation of powers changes the entire balance of power and put the legislature in even more absolute terms than the 1895 Constitution ever did.
Disagree with the Governor, plead with him, but please do not set a very dangerous precedent which, when released, may be impossible to put back in the box.
should read “puts the legislature in control”
I have been wishing for Sanford’s impeachment since he started with the whole turning away federal money shtick, but I have to agree with Greg, there just aren’t grounds.
Just b/c he’s been as pig-headed as he promised he’d be when y’all elected him –I voted differently, and wished I’d had better choices, doesn’t mean he’s got carte blanche under these dire times to drive the state into a ditch (block that metaphor!) 11% unemployment! The governor can influence job creation for better or worse and this one believes in worse whenever government is involved. Just b/c some of us were outvoted, doesn’t make it right to torpedo the state every chance he gets. As Warren Bolton so gratifyingly put it, why does he hate SC?
Impeachment doesn’t seem possible in this case. I wonder if would be possible to have him simply declared incompetent by reason of mental defect. Probably not, but he’s certainly acting as if that were the case.
When his refusal of aid results in educators, troopers and prison guards losing their jobs, higher education tuition hikes, etc. then I think that is “serious misconduct of office.” Even if an impeachment bill doesn’t pass, it may devastate him politically… it would also force some votes in the General Assembly that Democrats could target.
Or we could always try a vote of confidence and/or censure.
Sanford extolled his Reaganesque platitude that government is bad for years before his second term. SC voted back into office any way. Dr. Phil would ask a wife mad at her husband for something he keeps doing, “was he like that before you married him?” When she would acknowledge that yes he was like that before, Dr. Phil would follow with “what did you expect, that he’d change?!”
Movement conservatism is a failed approach both in principle (Reagan decried that 1 in 6 adults worked for the government, many who were in the military for which he boosted funding drastically) and in the Nixon-Cheney approach of ends justifying the means (Nixon wasn’t a conservative but they loved his approach). Hoover and the GOP proved this in the early 30s. They were in power for years before the The Crash, and they ushered in the Great Depression with these tried and untrue tax cut/spending freeze approaches. Gramm ushers in a return to Big Bank by repealing Glass-Steagall.
I’ll mention it again, poor Sanford is suffering with his state. He’s only getting $3M for his house. Clearly he understands the effects of this financial crisis.
How is it Governor Sanford’s fault that illiterate, low-skilled workers in South Carolina were laid of at the first signs of this recession?
The public schools are there. No one forced people to cut class, not study, drop out, get pregnant, abuse drugs and not show up for work.
Doug,
As someone who has never supported Mark Sanford and even went so far as to vote for Tommy Moore so as to see Sanford out of the office of Governor, let me say to you that not all of us who are against Mark Sanford are incapable of reason.
Even if it is only me, not all of us are satisfied to throw the terms “idealogue” or “greed” out there and let that be our case against him.
The issue here is obviously not would $700 million in funds do our state good — a resounding yes– but instead what would be the consequences of accepting the funds.
Obviously there has to be a cost to the expansion of programs that will be required by accepting the $700 million. Does the added cost exceed the $700 million of funds and if so, is the cost so much as to be unacceptable to the taxpayers of this state? That is really the only question here. And it is this that is Sanford’s argument for rejecting the $700 million. In his own words:
“We simply cannot afford to base 10 percent of our state budget on money that will disappear in two years’ time”
and
“Once that money runs out South Carolina will be in a deeper hole than if it chose to deal with budget deficits now.”
and
Spending that which is contemplated in the stimulus bill moves our state to a dangerous tipping point with regard to annualizations in our state budget. Annualizations mean using one-time money to pay for ongoing needs — in essence borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. In this case, we’re leaving Peter with a substantial bill, as the proposed stimulus dollars would annualize more than $1.2 billion in the next two years — approximately 10 percent of our state’s budget. This level of new annualized spending dwarfs last year’s annualizations by nearly three times.
So do the costs of accepting the stimulus outweigh its benefits? Sanford thinks they do. But I have not seen him provide enough numbers to convince me that we’d be worse off than we would be rejecting the funds. On the other hand, his opponents and the Sanford-haters completely ignore the fact that there could possibly be a downside to accepting the funds.
This disappoints me. I will have to remain agnostic as to what we should do. Perhaps in the future we can publicly have a debate where the issues raised by each side will be fully addressed by the other side and we can come to a rational conclusion that has honestly considered those arguments put forth by all sides.
Mr. Bojamgle’s,
Under what legal provisions would a vote of confidence or a cesure be undertaken?
Brad,
The time for your postings e.g. March 29, 2009 at 5:58 pm is off by one hour.
Does anyone have a cite to the legislation authorizing the $700m. for SC?
As far as the money being required to keep prisoners locked up, maybe this will force the G.A. to acknowledge that only a small portion of the people currently in jail actually need to be there and will make appropriate adjustments to the law. Violent criminals and repeat offenders should generally be incarcerated. Most others should be punished or (in the case of drug users) treated in other ways.
Handout supporters,
How do you plan to repay this money when the loan comes due?
This is not a gift from Uncle Sam. It is a future tax on you and your children, if you pay taxes. $8 billion is more than twice as much as the state tax revenues for one year. Do you plan to double state taxes?
That’s the problem – most Obama supporters don’t pay much or any taxes.
They see his wasteful spending as reparations from “rich whites and Jews”, to use Obama’s terms.
That Brad can suggest that Sanford’s desire to pay off debt with the $700 is any way close to misconduct is laughable.
Someone asked me who I hold responsible. I’ve said it before – start with Harrell, Leatherman, Cooper, etc. The guys who actually set the budgets. The guys who play the naive people like Brad into thinking that a budget cut means less spending. A budget cut just means you can’t spend as much as you want to spend. These same jokers convince the rubes out there that they will cut teachers, close prisons, etc. rather than cut their own personal pet projects… and you suckers fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
How about the $40 million dollar slush fund used for special projects like Okra Strut funding, baseball fields, etc.? Why aren’t those dollars cut first? How about the Hundley? Is there any reason a single dime of taxpayer money should go for that hunk of debris? How about arts funding? Why isn’t that cut before teachers? How about PASS testing — the latest phony “accountability” scam? What if we delay that and keep teachers instead? Hmmm… which is going to be better for students? A teacher or a test? And then we wouldn’t need all the high paid cronies staffing the Dept. of Ed. looking through reams of data to try and find one nugget that they can use to champion Jim Rex’s run for governor while ignoring the 30-40% of students who are illiterate.
I’ll say what I’ve said consistently for years — all the money required to provide essential services is available right now in the South Carolina coffers. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of self-serving corrupt politicians who put the money into whatever area they feel helps them most – either financially or politically.
The only thing we seem to have a surplus of in this state is ignorant sheep who will believe anything the snake oil salesmen will tell them.
These bailouts are illegal.
The first one gave a blank check to the Executive branch to spend over $1 trillion dollars, and to make up laws. Congress cannot do that.
The second bailout did not follow the appropriations process – no committees, no hearings, no debate, and attempts to bypass the state legislatures and governors.
Lawsuits are being filed.
There is a good chance the courts will stop all this illegal spending.
Then what will the states do?
And let’s try and keep some of the facts in this case out there ahead of all the hand wringing:
– Brad’s buddy Lindsey Graham commissioned an independent analysis of Jim “Let’s Build Another Bridge To Nowhere” Clyburn’s attempt to end-run the Constitution by adding an amendment to the stimulus bill to allow legislatures to sidestep Sanford. The prevailing wisdom appears to side with Sanford. Was that misconduct, Brad, for Graham to do that?
– Other governor’s besides Sanford (Perry from Texas, Palin from Alaska, Jindal from Louisiana, Barbour from Mississippu) have also suggested they might not accept all the money. Are they all guilty of impeachable offenses as well?
– In a typical example of talking out of both sides of his mouth,
“Senate leader Glenn McConnell, a Charleston Republican, said it is his basic understanding of the stimulus package that Congress put restrictions on almost all the money. McConnell said he favors Sanford’s plan to use $700 million to pay down debt, but he does not believe the Obama administration will permit that, and rather than rejecting that money at that point the state should look at alternatives. ”
So basically, McConnell thinks Sanford’s idea is sound but would rather spend the money. Doesn’t sound like Sanford is doing anything close to misconduct, does it?
And here’s my last “things that make you go hmmmm” question for the night…
Of the 11% unemployed in South Carolina, how many do you think would identify themselves as fiscal conservatives? how many would consider themselves Libertarians? My guess is that unemployment rate for those who focus on personal responsibility and financial prudence would be somewhere around 1-2%.
My guess is that unemployment rate for those who focus on personal responsibility and financial prudence would be somewhere around 1-2%. – Doug
And let’s guess the rate of those relying on medicade and medicare with fiscal means to pay premiums for the insurance they need – a very low percent as well. DUH. A reliance on government spending is inherently related to individual economic status. The insinuation that a lack of responsibility causes unemployment is completely without merit.
Doug, there are many people who were in good standing financially but suddenly lost their jobs or were overwhelmed by suddent and profound health care costs and are now unemployed and out of money. You think the people moving into tent cities are a bunch of imprudent or irresponsible bums?
This ivory tower, tax cut and spending freeze mentatility combined with “rugged individualism” played out in the early 30s to catastrophic results. Hoover is synonymous with failure because of this.
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are not insurance programs. They are welfare programs. The Supreme Court has ruled that and that no one is entitled to receive any benefits.
These welfare programs are financed by taxes on wages and salaries, and taxes are not “insurance premiums”.
Randy,
Sure people some people who are in good standing financially lose their jobs. They will also more than likely be the first ones to be rehired or to use their initiative to explore more opportunities than the “woe is me, when’s the government going to save me?” type.
There are 1200+ jobs listed on The State web page. There are illegal immigrants who are working today in South Carolina. There are choices people make every day that determine whether they will succeed or not. Some of those people choose to wait for the government to solve their problems.
Rather than make dire scare-tactic proclamations about cutting teachers and closing prisons, why don’t our legislators start by cutting their own salaries, per diems, mileage reimbursements, etc.?
How come those items don’t seem to fall under the areas to cut?
You Sanford haters are being duped. The legislators want you to focus on Sanford while they continue to waste money. And you fall for it every time. P.T. Barnum must have spent a lot of time in the state…
Here’s a link to a specific instance of a new bill introduced last week that creates more slush fund opportunities in this supposedly dire economic climate.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/3777.htm
Credit to Will Folks for actually being someone who keeps an eye on the shenanigans instead of falling instead of swallowing the daily dose of propaganda that comes out of the State House.
http://www.fitsnews.com/2009/03/30/competitive-grants-are-back/
There are choices people make every day that determine whether they will succeed or not. Some of those people choose to wait for the government to solve their problems.
-Doug
True. But there are even more choices made by others that affect how successful one is. Suppose you are hit by a car driven by a drunk driver and lose your job as a result. Another person’s choice, not yours, affected your success. Luck plays an undeniable fact in the success or failure of people. To suggest otherwise is a pollyannaish fools game.
Sanford’s refusal to take the money is wrong. But to suggest he doesn’t care about the people is taking criticism too far. I just think he’s just stupid, not evil.
This is stolen money – stolen from our children by Democrats, to keep buying votes from their non-working supporters.
The TARP and bailout legislation is unConstitutional.
Obama is like a drunk driver, running our economy in the ditch by destroying the dollar and investor confidence.
Since when is indifference considered evil? Perhaps it should be, but if so: we’re all guilty of that particular sin. That having been said –
I think Impeachment (or Recall) should be allowable for purely political reasons. It should’t be necessary for a leader be convicted as “evil” or a Bernie Madoff-scale crook before they can be removed for incompetence.
What good did it do the country to have the George W. Bush administration malingering for a final 2 excruciating years after his party was slaughtered in the 2006 elections?
Constitutions weren’t carved out of stone for a stone age society: they’re living documents, drafted on paper – amendable for a changing society.
And ours changes a lot faster than it used to.
Our Constitution is amendable, and I would like to see recall of elected officials by recall, like California did to purge itself of the last Democrat governor.
I would also like to see voters to be able to overturn any and every law passed by the legislature, with a 10 year wait before the crooks in office could pass a similar law.
Term limits also would help. But Brad is afraid we might lose all the experience and brain power that created the current situation.
When Mark Sanford took office in 2003, South Carolina’s unemployment rate was 6.4%. As recently as June 2008, it was at 6.5%. Now, students, please tell us what actions Mark Sanford took between June 2008 and today that caused the unemployment rate to almost double. What specific policies did he champion that can be tied to the unemployment rate?
The only thing I can think of is Sanford failed to keep Obama from being elected and screwing things up.
The state economy is tied closely to the national economy and hence Sanford cannot be held accountable for the onset of the recession and hence the high unemployment numbers. But he can be held accountable for how the situation is managed. So far he has failed to do much to help the state deal with the situation. His refusal to accept money is bizarre to say the least. Other shortcomings in the ultra conservative way of doing things also contribute to our number 2 unemployment rate. Take for example the very low cigarette tax that could have served to raise revenue in years gone by. That money could be helpful now to cushion the blow and perhaps save a few state employee jobs. The misguided efforts at cutting state spending in such areas as corrections has also exacerbated the situation. So what we have here is a national economic collapse brought about by the failures of conservative economic policies that are made worse by the Hoover-esk thinking of our Governor.
Why is it the Democrats think a government program is the solution to every one of their problems?
Because they are statists!. They believe in government.
They have no comprehension of how all those other people who depend on their own efforts are so much more successful and happier than they are.
Most of those clamoring for the bailout money are planning on someone else’s taxes having to pay for it. Most of these people are on the bottom of the social order, and don’t pay much taxes. Many of them are racists, seeing this as a redistribution of white wealth to themselves.