Eight days ago, I went backstage at the Koger Center to thank producer Todd Witter for asking me to be on “Whad’Ya Know?” Then I went out on the stage itself, where Michael Feldman was perched on the apron (or whatever you call the very edge), shaking hands, signing autographs and posing for pictures with fans.
While I waited for a break in which to thank him too, some of the fans broke off and spoke to me, congratulating me on my performance, such as it was. People are really polite that way, you know. Anyway, one of them was Elizabeth Rose Ryberg, who happens to be married to Sen. Greg. She was quite gracious as always, and complimentary, but at one point she remonstrated with me in the kindest way, suggesting I shouldn’t be so rough on “Mark” — the governor, that is.
Not that she thought the governor was completely right in his refusal to request our state’s share of stimulus funds. In fact, she noted that her husband and Tom Davis had been working hard to bring about a compromise between the governor and legislative leadership on the issue. This surprised me slightly at the time, since I had thought of Sens. Ryberg and Davis as being two people in the governor’s corner if no one else was. After all, they had recently stood up with him at a press conference to support his position (although I had noticed that they had not stood very close to him in the photo I saw — and take a look at that expression on Ryberg’s face — that’s him at the far right).
But it makes perfect sense that even people who share the governor’s political philosophy would want to pull him in a direction away from the position he’s taken — especially if they are his friends.
A few days later, Sen. Davis and Ryberg went public with their “alternative budget” in an op-ed piece in The State. They say all this confrontation is unnecessary, that they can balance the budget and avoid teacher layoffs and prison closings without a dime of the disputed stimulus money.
You know what? I have not idea to what extent their numbers add up, because frankly I find budget numbers to be a form of math far more slippery than Douglas Adams’ satirical “Bistromath.” I’e seen lawmakers resolve budet crises on the last day of the legislative session, with a puff of smoke and a “presto — we found more money!” — too many times. But I know that Tom Davis and Greg Ryberg are perfectly sincere. I trust their intentions; I know they believe what they’re saying. They’re good guys — I refer you to what I’ve said about Tom and about Greg in the past.
But to the extent that they are trying to find a way to compromise with the governor, I say thanks but no thanks. Aside from their efforts, I’ve heard others speak of compromising with the governor on the stimulus — say, let’s just spent this much, and then use this much to “pay down debt.”
But there are two really big reasons not to go along with that, reasons not to compromise with the governor’s position in any way: First, whether you think the stimulus bill passed by the Congress was a good idea or not (or well-executed or not), South Carolinians are going to be paying for it, and need to get maximum benefit out of it. And as Cindi Scoppe pointed out in her column Sunday, no sane person would pass up the chance to keep a few more of our public servants working and paying their bills for a couple of years, rather than on unemployment, to help us get through this rough patch.
The second reason is this: The governor is WRONG. He is philosophically wrong, and he uses bogus numbers (I refer you again to Cindi’s column) to support his rather sad arguments. This man does not believe in the fundamental functions of state government. He is openly allied with people whose goal is reduce government to a size at which it can be drowned in a bathtub. He sees the size of government ratcheting downward (even though he claims, absurdly, the opposite), and his number-one priority is to make sure the ratchet sticks, that the cuts to essential functions in government are not restored. His insistence on using money that is needed now on something, ANYTHING other than immediate needs — even to pay debts that NO ONE expects the state to pay at this time — is essential to the permanent reductions he seeks. The last thing he ever wants is for the state to be rescued by any sort of windfall.
And that point of view needs to be rejected, flatly and clearly. No compromise with a position so wrong should even be contemplated.
Related Posts
Two realistic options: work a compromise with the Governor (finding a meeting place in the middle for parties who often find the other is dead wrong but who has something they want or need) or depend on the Supreme Court to enact VERY bad law which will further diminish the power of the executive. Please do not let policy disagreements with the lame duck Governor go to the extent of more egregiously tipping the scales of power. Sanford will be gone in less than two years, undoing a sift in the balance of power: well… 114 years and we’re still working on it.
Cindi Scoppe admits that Governor Sanford is right with his numbers.
She does not dispute any of them. She just disputes some irrelevant dates or other trivia.
The fact is that the state has plenty of money, about the same as last year.
No one starved last year. The schools had plenty of money. No police or fire fighters were laid off. All those scare tactics this year are just manipulation of the money from schools and law enforcement to other projects.
Let’s take the federal money and use it to pay off all the debt.
Let’s cut back the spending to the levels before the 40% increase in 4 boom years where the legislature squandered the revenue surpluses.
A sane person would not assume the government should be immune from the effects of the economy.
The Warthen/Scoppe manifesto:
“When the economy is bad, increase government spending. When the economy is good, increase government spending.”
We’re where we are because that mentality is pervasive in our government.
Luckily, it can’t go on indefinitely. Someday, those of you on the public payroll who depend on those of us in the private sector for your paychecks will wonder where all the money went.
I agree with Brad and Cindi– shoot me later, please! (If necessary–and we hope that by spending the money, said shooting will not be necessary!) Exactly how does Cindi agree with the Governor’s numbers, or perhaps better put–agree with the interpretation he puts on their importance? Over the next five years, I will owe perhaps $100K on my mortgage. Is it true, therefore, that I should stop buying groceries right now until I have set aside enough money to retire the debt?
Actually, I don’t have a philosophy with regard to government spending. I don’t have a belief system based on whether government is “large” or “small.” This can pose a communications barrier to people who DO have such a belief system.
Doug, it’s a fallacy to assume that because I don’t agree with YOU, I must have a philosophy that is 180 degrees opposite of yours. You should consider the possibility that you and I are simply not even on the same spectrum.
I do know that the governor’s analogies about what sensible folks would do with a windfall are seriously flawed. He ASSUMES that everyone has their basic needs taken care of, because his have always been taken care of. So of COURSE it you have a windfall, it makes sense to use it to pay down your mortgage or something. Trouble is, if you don’t have enough for groceries, that’s just plain crazy.
Mark Sanford finds it impossible to believe that state government might have more immediate priorities to spend a windfall on, because he doesn’t believe that ANYTHING government does is important or essential.
Now watch, Doug will respond by saying, “Brad believes that EVERYTHING government does is important,” when nothing I have ever said or written would support such an assumption. The fact is that a person who sees nothing that government does as essential and a person who thinks everything government does is essential are equally nuts.
Here’s the reason why Doug forms such fallacious impressions: There are things that government should do, and things it should not do. The problem in South Carolina is that government has never quite gotten to the point that it does — and does well and efficiently — all the things that government SHOULD do. This isn’t Washington, folks — or Massachusetts, or anyplace where a reasonable person might conclude that government is doing TOO MUCH. (It does things it shouldn’t do — such as lock up too many people who should undergo alternative sentencing — but its main problem is NOT that it does “too much” in the aggregate.) And yet we have people like Mark Sanford who believe that government in South Carolina long ago started doing too much, and that no matter how much it’s been cut, it should be cut some more.
So we are bound to disagree.
I am a bit confused here (not an unusual situation I confess). You don’t want “large” government, only one that does what government “should do.” Now couldn’t many many rational people consider those things that government should do as being things that government either should not do or should do in a more limited fashion, and to those people your vision is one supportive of “large government.” I don’t think that large and small in this context are absolutes and I certainly do not think there is a “reasonable man” standard for what government should do. Sane rational people have wildly divergent views on this. the important thing is to treat those views with respect even if you do not agree with them and cannot understand how one in command of his faculties could come to those conclusions.
Now watch, Doug will respond by saying, “Brad believes that EVERYTHING government does is important,” when nothing I have ever said or written would support such an assumption.
Step 1. Write a post criticizing Doug’s fallacious statements.
Step 2. In said post, create a statement out of thin air and attribute it to Doug.
Step 3. Point out that Doug is now putting words in your mouth.
Step 4. Get defensive about the whole situation.
Classic.
Thanks, Birch.
If one kid goes hungry in this state but our government finds money to throw at the Hundley or the Okra Strut, the government is too large. The priorities of politicians don’t sync up with the needs of the people.
Brad accepts a much higher percentage of wasted spending than I care to. He likes to play semantic games. He can’t come out and say that he wants bigger government. He’ll just tell you all the additional things government should do and the couple things that it shouldn’t and not get bogged down in the details of the cost or how those additional items can be paid for.
Brad – should the government grow and shrink as the general economy does or should it be immune? It’s a fundamental question. If 25% of the private sector workers left the state tomorrow, should the government shrink accordingly or should the remaining 75% have their taxes increased to maintain the government as it is?
The authors of the US Constitution knew there would be a lot of people like Brad, who claim to not have any philosophical or moral core. They would just want material wealth to be provided to them from others, through “the government”. So the Founders put strict limits on the authority to tax and spend, most of which is ignored today.
Likewise, our state constitution forbids the state running deficits. The politicians ignore that, too. They have borrowed billions of dollars to buy things and pay interest, rather than pay cash as they go.
The analogy for Mrs. Fenner would be to not go into such debt that you have to forgo eating.
I like Doug’s idea of taxpayers leaving the state. The punitive taxes have run off over 100,000 engineers and construction professionals. to take Doug’s challenge further, how long do you statists think the government and economy would last if all the private sector workers and businesses left the state to just government employees, politicians and the welfare eaters? I give it one week.
In other words, I’m not allowed to explain what I really believe, and answer other people’s attempts to define my beliefs falsely — which Lee, right on cue, just did. (“They would just want material wealth to be provided to them from others…”)
So what, pray tell is the point of blogging, if it’s not to explain what I actually DO believe, as opposed to what others claim I believe? Seriously.
Perhaps I should go to plan B, and simply delete all deliberate mischaracterizations. I see them as one of the most contemptible forms of argument, and have stated a number of times that I won’t allow it. But one does hate to delete people’s comments, so I usually try in good faith to set them straight — for which I get grief from Birch. Sheesh.
Oh come on, you came up with something that Doug hadn’t said (yet, at least), where he said something you hadn’t said. You don’t find that at least a little bit humorous?
Perhaps it was a bit harsh considering you are often taking fire from all sides on this blog.
But yes, of course you should explain your beliefs. You MUST defend your position from mischaracterization. If you let that kind of ignorance take over, then there will be no civilized discussion.
And what a sad day that would be. This blog would start reading like one of those televised presidential debates.
I haven’t put any words in your mouth, Brad.
YOU said you didn’t have, or operate on any philosophy. You like to consider yourself a pragmatist. In the political world, that means a selfish, amoral operator.
YOU cry incessantly for us taxpayers to provide you with lavish medical insurance.
YOU want us to fund the money-losing bus system that no one rides.
YOU want us to fund, without question, college costs that increase at several times the rate of family incomes, and all other costs that colleges have.
Brad,
I can tell people I’m not bald but that doesn’t put hair on my head.
You can tell people you aren’t for bigger government and then we can all go back and read several years worth of history that says different.
SCNative/Lee nails it. Your call for national healthcare alone would increase the size of government drastically. Your call for an increase in the gas tax would do the same. Any other government “restructuring” you propose would be a molehill compared to those two Matterhorns.
Don’t get so offended when you have to defend your own words. When you say the government should do A, B, C but should not do X,Y,Z then it is pretty logical to add up the cost of doing A,B,C minus the savings from X,Y,Z to come up with a very clear indicator of where you stand on the size and role of government.
he uses bogus numbers (I refer you again to Cindi’s column) to support his rather sad arguments.
This statement does nothing to help your argument. In Cindi’s column, she also pointed out bogus numbers used by the other side. If bogus numbers are a reason for the legislature not to compromise with Sanford, then bogus numbers are a reason for Sanford not to compromise with the legislature.
This man does not believe in the fundamental functions of state government.
For such a bold and generalized statement which appears to be false offhand (at least, I am unaware of any Sanford claim that we should do away with public roads, the courts, law enforcement, DHEC, etc.), you really should have some kind of support — that is, unless you are just using hyperbole. Why did you feel the need to write like this? Did you feel like being Lee for a day?
It would do Brad good to be like me for a day.
He would have to do some research, and post facts, not just his ad hominem attacks.
If make a sweeping statement about a politician, I back it up with documentation of their sweeping generalizations or their sweeping actions.
The fact is that the state has plenty of money without the so-called stimulus money. They have as much as last year, 40% more than 5 years ago. No one was starving then. No schools were closed, and roads were being built and repaired. And lots of new social welfare programs were added and old ones expanded. Roll some of that lard back.