You know, setting the record straight on the bizarre things Mark Sanford says could be a full-time job. If only I could figure a way to get paid for it.
Basically, to continue to hold the positions the governor does, you have to cling to an alternative version of reality. Take some of the things he has said over the last day or so:
He told Sean Hannity that in joining these tax protests today, he is speaking for a “silent majority.” He should leave the Nixonian expressions alone. Does anyone on the planet Earth think that the anti-gummint types have been “silent” about their resentment toward paying their taxes? Ever? Certainly not in this state. They whine constantly, and the Legislature grovels at their feet and gives them whatever they whine loudest about at a given moment, which is a big reason why our tax structure is such an irrational, patchy mess. They are the reason why lawmakers hardly ever let a session go by without a major tax cut, but have only raised a general tax once since 1987 — and that was the sales tax increase that was passed to offset the virtual elimination of school taxes on owner-occupied homes (perhaps the whiniest of all tax whiner groups). Whether they are the majority remains to be seen. But they have never, ever been silent for even a moment. And they are always heard.
Then, he put out this statement:
“Today it’s worth noting the fact that we are at a truly frightening tipping point with regard to federal spending, and the consequences it will have for every current -and especially future – taxpayer here in South Carolina. This year, government spending will account for more than a quarter of the entire economy, a level not seen since our country was fighting for its survival against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Federal debt is nearly the size of our yearly economy, and is about four times the size of the economy when you add in other government promises like Social Security and Medicare.
“That’s why this stimulus debate we’re having in South Carolina is so important. Though today’s taxpayers are the ones who benefit from the so-called ‘stimulus,’ they’re not the ones paying for it – it will be their children, their grandchildren, and likely their great-grandchildren. We continue to believe that in the midst of this spending, it’s important to leave a dividend for those future taxpayers in the form of debt repayment.”
Ahem. We are not having a “debate” on the stimulus. The debate occurred in Washington. Sanford’s point of view lost the debate. South Carolinians WILL be paying for the stimulus, which WILL be paid out to the states. If South Carolina is insane enough (and we never do quite give up trying to prove wrong the axiom that we are too large to be an insane asylum) not to
take its share of the funds, that amount will be paid to other states and territories.
There’s no debate. There can’t be a debate, because the governor does not have a position that can be rationally argued — except, of course, by pretending that the facts are other than what they are. Which is what he continues to insist on doing.
Related Posts
There was no debate in Congress over the passage of the TARP bailout.
There was no debate, or open hearings, before the passage of the so-called “stimulus” spending of $787 billion, all of it borrowed.
There is a debate about this spending, and it is occurring in the street and on talk radio and business television.
Real journalism is dead in Big Media. They too much like being on the inside, hob-nobbing with politicians, creating winners out of empty suits like Obama, and assisting Big Government in the destruction of those who dare to ask for due process and by what authority.
Brad, you can debate Mark Sanford or any other critic of this wasteful spending any time you want to try.
The state, even without any of the stimulus pork, has more money to spend than ever in its history. So let’s see you make a case for spending borrowed money we don’t need, on projects the legislature had not even thought of 6 months ago.
Sanford feels, correctly, I think, that there is a debate about whether $700m. or some portion thereof will be used for debt reduction.
Is using the $700m. over the next two years for education and public safety important enough to you to risk a judicial decision which allows the legislature to dictate the actions of the executive, even where the executive appears to have discretion, in any matters involving money. Penny wise and pound foolish it seems to me.
Greg, the legislature is always going to use every situation to attempt to illegally expand their power, over the governor and the courts, and over the people.
To worry about provoking them to more criminal activity is like worrying about provoking a mugger by carrying too much cash, or provoking carjackers by driving a nice automobile. To hell with them.
I was really directing the question towards those who support the Sheheen bill, trying to get them to consider its consequences.
Brad:
Even a blind hog sometimes gets the acorns. I believe that the government is right about a couple of things — one — Federal Spending has far exceeded responsible proportions. Two — We are all likely to suffer (particularly our children and grandchildren) from this spending in the form of higher tax rates, reduced services, inflationary pressures on interest rates and real inflation. Government — like every household has to spend within its means.
Unfortunately, as Governor, Mark Sanford has failed to lead a legislature of his own party towards responsible spending. Where he had the opportunity he (in my opinion) squandered it on stunts and actions designed to enhance his political standing among core groups — not make good public policy. That, to put it bluntly, is what his position on the porkulus package amounts to. He is correctly responding to horrific public policy called the stimulus which is nothing much more than a payoff to Democrat constituent groups — but he’s not doing what’s best for South Carolina — all too often he is Philosophically rigid where he needs to govern with practicality.
Nonetheless, I don’t think that it’s fair to single him out without pointing to the other parties involved in the government process in SC. Your entry yesterday reflecting the efficiency of the Senate was timely.
Our government spends too much time doing little or nothing — too much effort on running for re-election and too little effort on working towards good public policy. Of course, perhaps the public is responsible too — because as I can personally attest — focusing on good policy may leave you on the sidelines.
Good luck in your new endeavors.
I wanted to correct a typo — in the first sentence — I believe that the Governor — not the government — which I don’t even think is right as often as that proverbial blind hog.
If govenor Sanford has his way, our descendants will be so dirt poor they won’t be able to pay back the money they will owe anyway. If we manage to keep jobs, educate our children and ourselves, and provide a healthy workforce, we just might see more large companies coming to the state. We might even see economic recovery. And just possibly our descendents will have the prosperity and economic control to accomplish paying debts. If we keep going the way we’ve been going–well, our workforce is so undereducated that it discourages companies from coming here. We will be treated as an economic wasteland, and a nearly illiterate banana republic.
There is more deliberation and intelligent conversation between the parties, whether we agree or not, on this blog than in the state legislature during any given session.
Mike is correct in the observation that too much time is spent running for re-election than looking after the pressing issues facing this state. Sanford is looking to a time after his term as governor. Leatherman is looking to reinforce and strengthen his senior position as a “lifetime” politico occupying a seat of prominence in SC politics. Leatherman is the ultimate political animal. He will do almost anything for a vote or publicity.
Karen, I don’t believe for one moment Sanford would purposefully place our descendants in a position to be dirt poor. While I may or may not agree with his position or position on many issues, I do believe in his heart of hearts he is convinced he is doing the right thing for the citizens of SC. Maybe his greatest attribute may be his greatest weakness, his adherence to strict principles he strongly believes in. This prevents him from accepting honest compromise on issues he holds in high value. His stringent attitude toward not compromising is hurting not only Sanford but he is refusing to acknowledge the simple fact that even if he refuses to accept the $700 million plus, SC residents will still be held responsible for repaying our part without realizing the limited benefits.
For the sake of all, hopefully this issue will be resolved and there won’t be a consitutional confrontation between the legislature and executive branch of our state government. We should hope for and encourage our representatives to look at the long view and take into consideration the ripple effect any hasty actions taken now will have for the future.
If we are going to mortgage our children’s and grandchildren’s future, then we should at least spend the money on upgrading our educational structure with it and closing down the “Corridor of Shame”. At least the money will be used as an investment that may, just may offer positive returns in the near future.
As a footnote, in the past, our undereducated populace and workforce was an incentive to attract industries desiring a cheap and stable labor pool. The textile and garment industry provided decent paying jobs for a segment of the population in certain areas of the state. Not much education was required to sew a garment together or to change bobbins on a thread machine or run greige goods through the dyeing process. Agricultural jobs were plentiful at one time and most of the areas where education was not considered as a premium still hold onto the same culture and mentality. Most of these industries have died out and communities are starting to accept the reality of the situation. Change will come but probably not as soon or as quickly as we would hope or expect. Although facing financial adversity, some communities refuse to accept change and still cling to the past because of a certain comfort level associated with its familiarity and history.
Unless communities accept the reality of change, they will cling to what was and still is comfortable. Even to the point of accepting a decaying economy, educational, and social environment.
Conservatives, libertarians, Ditto Heads, and the rest of the mob decry deficit spending and “mortgaging the futures of our children.” Their reasoning is mortgaging common sense.
This downward spiral started 8 years ago with MASSIVE tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 01 and 03. The national debt and annual deficit skyrocketed. Where was the tea bagging (not the urban slang but the Fox orchestrated vaudville act yesterday) in response to W’s financial mismanagement? Where was the republican leadership outrage and suggestions for alternative budgets with no numbers aside from those associated with the deficit?
If we make economic decisions based solely on the deficit, what happens to the crisis now? How does the cut in spending and tax breaks for those who have a job help the MILLIONS of unemployed? (Obama is in fact cutting taxes for the vast majority of Americans which makes the puppet show yesterday a complete farce.) I have yet to see Sanford, Limblaugh, Ditto Heads on this blog, and tea baggers offer even an iota of an explanation of how tax cuts and spending reduction will turn the economy around.
My bet is the next proponent of tax cuts solve everything who replies to my post will offer nothing but a recital of problems with deficit spending (which many conservative economists support). Put some cards on the table.
This downward spiral started 8 years ago with MASSIVE tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans in 01 and 03. The national debt and annual deficit skyrocketed. Where was the tea bagging (not the urban slang but the Fox orchestrated vaudville act yesterday) in response to W’s financial mismanagement? Where was the republican leadership outrage and suggestions for alternative budgets with no numbers aside from those associated with the deficit?
Randy makes an astute observation. Where was all the outrage and protesting Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility, deficit spending, and “mortgaging” of our children’s future? You did hear the Left decrying Bush’s irresponsibility, but considering his blatant disregard for the federal deficit, you heard almost nothing significant from the Right. And after eight years of the deficit being a big issue on the Left, it has apparently been resolved because I haven’t heard much out of them for a few months now.
Why is this? I think there are two things at play here. First, the Democrats and Republicans in office do not really care about the deficit. They only care about gaining and retaining elected office. So when they are out of power, the deficit becomes an effective tool to use against the party in power. But while in office, the correcting the deficit can’t do much for you in terms of reelection.
The second issue is the fact that so many people are ever so willing to carry the banner of either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party. They become the Party. They buy into everything that is passed down through the ranks. And as they do this, they become more and more willing to give up their values to defend and justify the actions of the party. Because winning elections and making one party look good and the other look bad has become more important even to the people — the voters — than the actual issues themselves.
Just see how the small-government Republican voters justified or ignored the growth of government spending while their party was in power from 2001-2006. Just look at how anti-war, anti-domestic spying Democratic voters are now silent on the issue with Obama in office. After eight years of hurling vitriolic accusations at Bush over the war, all the criticism of Obama they can seem to muster is “well, he’s disappointed me.” That’s what American party politics gives you. It is a cancer.
It still baffles me that people would freely identify themselves in public with the two most vile, greedy and disgusting organizations in American history. I’d just as soon be identified as a skinhead as a Democrat or Republican. Yet others willfully accept the label. I don’t get it.
There was lots of outrage over Bush’s spending on social programs.
Millions of people abandoned the GOP because of the liberalism of Bush, Lindsay Graham, McCain, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Spector. 4,500,000 registered Republicans refused to vote for McCain in 2008.
Democrats try to create the misconception that the deficits under Bush were due to his tax cuts and the war, which they overwhelmingly supported by votes in 1998 and 2002.
The fact is that the very small income tax cuts by Bush were for every tax bracket, not “the rich”.
The fact is that these tax cuts immediately ended the recession which began in the final year of Clinton.
The fact is that the economic recovery and prosperity created by these tax cuts surpassed all the 8 years under Clinton, and generated enough new revenue to pay for the War on Terrorism and to balance the budget.
Bush went along with Democrats on social welfare expansion and ran deficits to pay for it. The Democrats actually wanted to run deficits of $600 billion a year, but House GOP leaders blunted some of that. When Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress in 2006, the lid came off. The deficits in 2007, 2008, and so far in 2009 surpass all the 8 years under Bush, with projections of $10 trilllion in deficits as their plan.
Most elected Republicans had nothing to do with the protests yesterday, and would not be welcomed there. They have no authority to lead the people by merely being less socialistic than Democrats.
Everyone who dismisses these taxpayers does so because they dismiss the principles on which America was founded. They must be swept from office and replaced with fundamentalist Americans. Either the GOP has to be cleansed, or replaced with a new party.
SCNaive, median income for the middle class was stagnant under W (2000 – 2007) and the percent of people without health insurance and the unemployment rate increased. The economic growth W and his clan champion helped the wealthy. The tax cuts W engineered substantially aided the wealthy – 2% drop for those under $311k vs almost 4% drop in the rate for the wealthy in 2003 alone.
Please share an example of when people took to the street (after prompting by Fox News and Dick Armey) to protest W. When was he derided as a socialist for all that spending?
Deficits were not the result of war and tax cuts? I presume the chuckleheads who rolled out the GOP budget that had no numbers provided you this insight. If we jack up our spending because of two wars AND we cut revenue, how is our budget unaffected? The notion that the democrats rolled over W with their spending is laughable. They didn’t control congress the 6 years W was spending like a drunken sailor. Suggesting that the democrats are the cause of the deficit undermines any shred of credibility you may have.
This GOP/W recession started in the fall of 2007. Perhaps you believe the dems caused this mess in a mere 8 months in 2007. That would be quite a trick given the fiscal year for the Fed starts Oct 1 which means the democrats destroyed the financial system in less than a month.
Face it, so called conservatives were so happy to have the White House, you brushed aside the catastrophe known as President Bush.
The oil price hikes in 2007 caused this current economic downturn.
It turned into a financial crisis when the Democrat’s loan programs to unqualified minority borrowers collapsed on news that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had put out false reports concealing their losses. This precipitated a liquidation of securities, bringing down Lehman Brothers, which the government did nothing about.
The Democrats turned this Jimmy Carter program into a full-fledged fraud scheme in 1997, under Clinton.
Senator Schumer declared that several banks were insolvent, when they were not, but the runs on them by individual depositors brought them down.
The next domino was AIG, which had insured these loans, based on a lot of false information in the profiles.
On Sept 12, 2008, over $550 billion cash was withdrawn from money market funds in the first hours of the morning. By 10:45, the Fed and Treasury hand stopped all withdrawals
Democrats, many of them advisors to Obama, sat on the boards of FNMA, FMAC and these banks. They filed false quarterly reports, and collected over $400,000,000 in bonuses based on those reports.
Financial backers of Obama, like George Soros, short sold securities on these banks and on the dollar in very timely fashion, netting $1.3 billion in profits.
Bart, I apologize. I did not intend to imply that Gov. Sanford was intending to make the people of SC dirt poor, merely that if his plans are carried out it will result in that unhappy situation. While I’m don’t think that is his intention, I am not really sure that he cares about the average South Carolinian. I suspect that his primary concern is for his own pollitical career. Any other concerns don’t appear to go any further than his own friends and social strata.
SCNaive, W and the GOP COMPLETELY controlled the federal government for 4 of his 7 years leading up to this crisis. The democrats haven’t controlled the government like that since the early 90s. Given this, you suggest that the democrats pushed through their initiatives to cause the crisis. WOW, I had no idea they were that powerful – impressive.
Randy,
I seem to not be aware that the Republican base was outraged at the betrayal of Bush to run deficits of new social spending. 55% of all new spending was on welfare and liberal social programs.
They felt relieved from the Clinton threats to their basic civil rights. The GOP let the Not-Really-Assault-Weapons Ban expire, but lacked the guts to push for a rollback of the background checks, and Brady junk.
The internet, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Hannity, and all the conservative media heaped criticism on Bush, Graham, and others who kept selling out on spending and immigration.
Now Obama and the Democrats seek to destroy property, wealth and liberty for good this time. Most people did not pay attention to what a radical Obama was in his writings and speeches. The media put the lid on his promises of racial reparations, to “punish” wealth and achievement by confiscatory taxes and seizure of retirement accounts.
Their deficit spending from September to February surpasses all the waste under Bush in 8 years, and they brag that is just the beginning.
Well, he is doing it. He panders to our enemies, fails a foreign policy test every week, and is bankrupting the automobile industry.
People say, “If it is this bad after 70 days, how bad will it be in 4 years?”
They aren’t waiting around for the next election. They are going to find out who in the GOP is a real American and who needs replacing in 2010.
Birch,
You said, Just look at how anti-war, anti-domestic spying Democratic voters are now silent on the issue with Obama in office. After eight years of hurling vitriolic accusations at Bush over the war, all the criticism of Obama they can seem to muster is “well, he’s disappointed me.” I hear you.
I am a supporter of President Obama and most of what he is trying to do. I am more than disappointed in his stance on torture and domestic spying prosecutions. I am angry and disgusted about it, and more than a little confused. My fear is that choosing to “move forward instead of looking back” will only lay the groundwork for a future president to go a little further, and for another to go further still. If we compromise the human rights principles that we claim to hold so dear, then we emulate our enemies rather than lead all nations. He has taken this stance for political reasons–to placate the CIA, it appears. Which is another issue in itself–should an institution like the CIA wield such power over the president? Voters have the power to push back against abuses by Congress and the President, but we have no such power in dealing with the CIA.
SCNaive, the so called GOP leadership proposed a budget THIS YEAR (a week after the original budget that had no numbers) that proposed a 1.7 TRILLION dollar deficit.
CONSERVATIVE economist criticize the platitudes you offer about tax cuts leading us to recovery. MOST of them propose SPENDING which is stimulus. You boys tried your spending and taxes are always bad schtick in the early 30s (after a dozen years of deregulation that lead to The Depression) and the economy got worse. FDR saved us. GDP skyrocketed and unemployment dropped by 40% under him.
BTW, what exactly should be cut? I have yet to see you offer anything more than Limblaugh talking points.
Randy, you seem to mix up percentages and rates, so I don’t trust your claims of “2% drop for those under $311k vs almost 4% drop in the rate for the wealthy in 2003 alone.”
How about give us the raw numbers of what you think decreased from what to what and us discuss and figure from there.
I posted a starter list of waste to cut in Brad’s dismissal of the tax protesters.
Why don’t you and Brad state some principles of what you consider fair taxation, and what you consider to be oppressive?
The only principle I see is that you and Brad and Karen want to tax everyone else to pay your salaries, your medical care, and support you in a lifestyle you cannot earn for yourself.
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/752865.html
This should be interesting. Given the way this is framed I don’t see how the Supremes could find against the Gov (a finding for the Gov would not preclude a later suit by the GA) but predicting opinions of the Supremes in political issues such as this one has VERY little to do with precedent.
Great article. How moronic it was for Sanford to dismiss this as a political stunt. A high school senior vs the governor and he belittles her. The emperor has no clothes and only he is unaware of this.
I agree Greg, legally Sanford will win. Politically, he has hit rock bottom but is continuing to dig. In fact, the right wing clan of the GOP is driving the party off a cliff while moderates are forced into hiding. The economy will likely turn around by 2012 and the GOP will be pummeled once again as they continue to champion Limblaugh, Der Leader, policy. Obama will be around for quite some time.
How has this student been harmed by an education budget which is the largest in history, even without any “stimulus” money.
SCNaive, you want MORE numbers from me? I have seen squat from you in terms of justification for your position. Do you have anything? Any evidence at all? (Hint: Rush doesn’t justify his claims so you’ll have to look else where.)
I want you to pay for me? That makes no sense. I am working several jobs and pay my taxes proudly to support my community. MILLIONS of people are out of work and you propose we let them tough it out on their own? When you or one of your family members start accepting medicare, a program Reagan derided as socialisim (sounds like a familiar retort) because of a serious infliction you won’t be espousing your Limblaugh platitudes. He’s a multimillionare because of people like you so he won’t need it (even for Viagra pills – he’s stocking up I guess).
Fair taxation? Here’s another opportunity for you to justify your position. How is the current tax system and the level of taxes you pay unfair? Good lord man, you could at least have something to offer here beyond reading from a script.
affliction
If you are going to make a claim that, “Bush tax cuts were just for the rich”, back it up with numbers.
Otherwise, you are just repeating a DNC slogan, which was an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.
My definition of fair taxation includes:
* Same rates for everyone.
* Same exceptions apply to everyone.
* Rates low enough to not influence economic or social decisions.
* Taxes only used for the common good of everyone, as listed in the Constitution.
* No wealth transfers from one group to another.
Progressive tax rates on income was a basic plank of Karl Marx, as an interim means of destroying the middle class, and free market capitalism. It seems to work. Just look at the 19% unemployment in Spain, or 15% in France. Then there’s Venezuela and Cuba.
Same rates for everyone…those people living in tent cities should pay 35% or Bill Gates drops to 10%?
No wealth transfer? More tent cities.
No influence on economic decisions? Even more tent cities.
Great ideas! Is that grape or cherry Koolaid?
11.8% would be revenue neutral for normal government.
But the government is too large, and has been outgrowing the economy for too long, so I would taper it down 1% a year from 11%, while we phased out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and government pensions. Then we would only need 6% a year for the federal government.
States can run off a 5% sales tax, so they would also need to just abolish their income, property and estate taxes.
No federal estate taxes.
No capital gains taxes.
No corporate income taxes.
My proposals would create a boom in America.
It has been tried other places, and totally fixed dead economies, like Ireland.
Some people don’t want a boom. They don’t want to work.
Some in power don’t want people to work their way out of poverty. They want to dribble out enough to maintain millions in poverty and fear, and they want to bleed prosperity out of the productive working people on the other end.