After the pro-stimulus rally Wednesday, I walked up the State House steps (which was tiring; I really need to start working out again) to chat with Doug Jennings from Bennettsville. Doug and I go way back. His daddy was my doctor when I was a kid, the one year that I attended B’ville High School (yes, I was a Green Gremlin).
Anyway, a moment later these two teachers followed me up a moment later, and started expressing their indignation over the governor refusing to take the stimulus money to Doug. I pass it on for four reasons:
It expresses the frustration that many South Carolinians — not just schoolteachers — feel over the governor’s position.
It shows the powerlessness that lawmakers — not just Democrats like Doug — also feel over the issue. They’re watching something they just can’t quite believe, and can’t seem to do anything about it.
It shows something else as well. You’ll note that Doug says something along the lines of, you see what we’ve been dealing with all these years? The stubborn absurdity of the governor’s position is not really a new thing for folks at the State House. As bad as the situation is, at least lawmakers can take comfort from the fact that THIS time, regular voters out there finally see what the guy is like.
It actually turned out to be fairly decent video, even though it was shot on my phone. Yes, the medium IS the message.
Sorry I haven’t written a “column” for this week. You wouldn’t believe how busy unemployed people can be. I was going to write something about what a shame it is that some of the public expressions on this stimulus issue are so tainted with partisanship, which is unnecessary and harmful. Here we are with a situation in which most Republicans agree with Democrats on the essentials — that since the stimulus DID pass, and we’re going to have to pay for it, it’s total lunacy even to contemplate South Carolina not getting its badly needed share.
And yet we have this rally Wednesday at which nary a Republican was to be seen (Jake Knotts doesn’t count; he’s sort of a Huey Long Democrat lost in time), enabling critics to brush it off as a partisan affair. Then we have Jim Clyburn picking a fight with, of all people, Lindsey Graham, who wants us to get the money.
I’ve seldom seen a time in which Democrat and Republican leaders have more of a common purpose — with only a handful coalescing around the governor — and yet they can’t seem to get it together and present a united front on the issue. Which is very sad, given the stakes involved for our state.
That’s what I was going to write a column about. So let’s just say I did, OK?
Related Posts
Brad, partisanship manifests in a disagreement on ideas as well as in a Lord of the Flies mentality, the latter which you decry.
A major obstacle is the ideological, and simplistic in my opinion, mindset that tax cuts are alway good and government is always bad. By following this approach, solutions and bipartisanship are inherently undermined. Sanford is a prominent but not the only official jumping off this cliff.
Boehner and Cantor offered up vats of this koolaid in their april fools day budget in which tax and spending cuts are proposed as the panacea for the crisis facing the banks, auto industry, unemployed, those without health care, and local governments.
This every man for himself approach is a virus that spreads to others. See Doug’s posts in which he supports tax cuts and “rugged individualism” for the unemployed. The notion is these people without jobs simply aren’t looking hard enough for work and that cutting the $0 they will now pay in income taxes should spur the economy.
Yes, there is partisan bickering but there is also a class of fundamental ideas that was played out in the 30s. As it was then, we thankfully have a government that eschews egocentricism for pragmaticism.
also a CLASH of fundamental ideas
Randy,
The problems we see in the economy today are not a result of Libertarian philosophy. You seem to forget that none of the Libertarian policies are or ever have been in effect in our government. We don’t have smaller government. We don’t have personal responsibility. We don’t have a fair tax system.
You can demagogue about Sanford all you want but you can’t point to a single policy he has implemented according to his principles that has any causal effect on the state of South Carolina. He keeps saying “Let’s try it my way” and the legislature says “No”. The fact that he recommends a different approach doesn’t mean he’s responsible when people choose an opposite approach and it makes things worse. If I tell you not to drink and drive and then you go do it anyway and crash your car, how am I responsible? If Sanford says “Let’s consider vouchers as an alternative” and they aren’t implemented, how does that make him responsible for the state of education?
We’ve tried it your way and we’ve tried it the Reagan way. Neither one works.
Actually, I came to the realization yesterday that what Sanford should do now is have a John Galt/Atlas Shrugged moment. Take all the stimulus money. Say loudly that he disagrees 100% with doing it but will give in to the wishes of the Legislature. Announce that for the remainder of his term, he will sign every bill that comes from the Legislature without any compromise but noting when he disagrees. Offer no more suggestions, no more alternatives. If the legislature wants a figurehead, let it be. Every day, have a news conference where he says “This is the wrong way to do it but if it’s what you want, go ahead. I won’t stand in your way.” Then sit back and watch as the Legistlature cannibalizes itself to the point where they beg Sanford to save them.
Randy,
You are absolutely 100% correct that the mindset that tax cuts are always good is simplistic and a MAJOR obstacle to sound fiscally responsible government. This a huge reason why we in this country are not only driving towards the cliff, but putting the pedal to the floor.
George W. Bush is THE prime example of fiscal irresponsibility. Just ask the man he fired, former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill. Bush pushed tax cuts and ignored the consequences to the deficit. What other president in our history cut taxes in a time where we had the added burden of the costs of war? But that wasn’t his only crime when it comes to irresponsible behavior.
In a time when entitlement spending is spiraling out of control, especially when you consider the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers, Bush added Medicare Part D. Bush helped blow up the debt with his irresponsible spending. The size of our government under Bush grew tremendously when we could already not afford it.
Unfortunately, since we are in a recession, it’s hard to reign in the deficit right now. But, the moment we are out of this mess we need to raise taxes. We need to drastically cut spending and reform entitlements. We need the adults leading this country to act like adults and not children. We need responsibility and not the “give me what I want now” childish mentality that ignores its future consequences.
Tax cuts are definitely not always good. Government growth is not always good either. Unfortunately the public wants both of these and more specifically the Republican Party wants their tax cuts and the Democratic Party wants their growth and we push the pedal to the metal towards that cliff. There’s a real lack of leadership when it comes to addressing what should be the #1 issue in this country. It is this reason that both parties completely disgust me. And in my opinion, it’s getting to the point where the blatant lack of responsibility and common sense amongst our elected leaders is so obvious that we must blame their negligent supporters as well.
Obama needs to cut the deficit and reform entitlement spending once we are out of this recession. I’ve not yet seen much indication that he is going to make that a priority. But in his defense, the previously administration made his job a lot harder. Still, there is a lot he can do to put us on the right track. Will he? I hope so.
Thankyou, Birch. I fail to understand why people keep screaming for tax cuts, when we’re already in deficit spending. Government is per se bad?? Then why do we have one. Let each person contract to pave the road in front of his/her house if he or she wishes. That would make for wonderful roads. By all means, lets get rid of publlic schools. After all, undoubtedly the governor’s children are suffering because he chooses to pay their private school tuition. And of course those people who don’t make enough to wait for a tax rebate shouldn’t have children. Police? If everyone carried a loaded gun at all times, that should discourage discourage the criminals. After all, as we all know from countless westerns and cop shows, the good guys always win in the shootouts. I could go on, but I just might be sounding a bit cynical.
Karen,
All the items you mentioned are perfectly fine examples of what government should do. Unfortunately, our government continues to increase its scope and breadth. It’s not growing smaller. And nobody seems to be able to put 2+2 together that the problems with the economy are happening while government is growing. Why? Because government spending is inefficient. There is no incentive to save money. There is a high percentage of fraud (Obama’s new HHS Secretary recently estimated $70 billion in Medicare fraud).
It’s not just tax cuts that are required – it’s tax cuts combined with cutting government spending so that only necessary services are provided through an inefficient system.
Perfect example: United States Postal Service. A very necessary service but one that is so overridden with mismanagement, inefficiency, waste, and stifling union contracts that it is likely the USPS will have to cut service to five days a week shortly. A non-government entity would have been more capable of making the transition.
“Perfect example: United States Postal Service. A very necessary service but one that is so overridden with mismanagement, inefficiency, waste, and stifling union contracts that it is likely the USPS will have to cut service to five days a week shortly. A non-government entity would have been more capable of making the transition.”
I doubt it. Most of the freight companies have been reeling from the chaos of fuel prices for years; many of them have been forced to close down a bevy of terminals. Despite the constant caterwaul that a “privatized” first-class mail system could work, theres hardly any companies stepping up to take the work. Mostly because its a guaranteed money losing scenario to provide universal delivery for flat rates. One could argue that the Postal Rate Commission needs to move to a “zone” pricing system like UPS and Fed-Ex but thats another argument entirely. And the examples of tiny, geographically small European countries privatizing their mail systems doesn’t quite scale to a country that is as large as America.
As to Sanford’s governing style, there is no question that he’s consistently disagreed with the Legislature and thus, in effect, he’s consistently done nothing. Like his House career, it mostly consists of protest votes and “principled” stands against a variety of moving targets. And that makes for nice copy, and for a very distilled political philosophy. But it doesn’t DO anything.
This is not a problem exclusive to Sanford; theres a lot of politicians, on both sides of the aisle, in almost every legislative body across the country, that run similar Quixotic tenures. And they accomplish equally little by refusing to compromise. And thus instead of getting some sort of impact on major legislative issues and questions, they simply abstain.
Politics, especially politics involving a divided representative bodies, is the art of compromise. It doesn’t mean giving everything up, or negotiating with oneself when one is coming from a point of political strength. But it does mean having something more than a tin ear, as Sanford and others seem to have, to be able to move deftly and successfully in politics. I’m sure at the end of his 8 years, Sanford will look at his refusal to sell-out as his most valuable legacy. Everyone else will be looking at the nothing he left behind.
We tried privatizing prisons, and discovered that it was not a good deal. I had the opportunity to compare for profit intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded (in Washington, DC) with our not for profit ones. The for profit ones were so much worse. I can tell you for a fact that we have been cutting government spending in this state for the past several years, and the results are becoming disasterous to those least able to protect themselves (the roads aren’t looking any too great, either). For anyone out there who is interested in a constitutional amendment to replace our “minimally adequate” standard of education (established by the SC Supreme Court in 1999) with “high standard” of education may wish to consider the petition at http://www.goodbyeminimallyadequate.com.
It’s also important to point out that the fraud in Medicare/Medicaid involves private companies. This is an important point since the general caterwauling about it implies that its government functionaries stashing the money under their beds. The reality is that fraud, especially in healthcare, is something all insurers, including private HMO providers, have to constantly fight against. Medicare/Medicaid are the biggest target because they are the biggest single providers.
And its not merely fly by night operations; major health care companies often pad or otherwise fluff their numbers constantly. Enforcement on this kind of fudging is difficult because one would have to get into the nitty-gritty of re-imbursements It’s also important to point out what a sop the design of both Part C and Part D of Medicare are to private insurance companies. Especially Part C, the subsidized private Medicare Advantage plans which are actually LESS efficient than the traditional A & B plans.
I’m all for what Doug said in his first comment above, about how Sanford should just give in on everything going forward, and make his statement of protest. He could get what he wants — attention for striking a pose for his ideals — and yet would do no harm. Best for everybody. Far better than now, because now he is doing harm.
Normally, I wouldn’t go for something like that. I believe people should strive in good faith rather than making empty gestures. But Sanford’s gestures are so harmful to the public good that it would be better if they were empty. We could all promise to pay LOTS of attention to him, as long as he no longer interferes with the crucial operations of government.
Doug’s a smart guy and makes highly astute points about the problems in education. (From what I can tell he’s a good father as well and he’s part of The Nation.) I thought I should mention that as I continue to bash his libertarian views, which I’ll do now.
Doug, you have yet to explain how tax cuts for the millions of recently unemployed will solve anything. The people who will benefit are the ones who HAVE A JOB. I’ll get a tax cut and that money will NOT be spent – no stimulus. We did not spend the tax rebate last year either. The people now living in tent cities will pay only a portion of the $0 they will pay in income tax.
Not only are they unemployed and suffering, the governmental support system is being drained or there is an effort to do so. Sanford wants to refuse money for unemployment benefits in the worst economic crisis in 80 years. An unemployed SC citizen called called into CSPAN while Sanford was fielding questions. The governor basically said tough luck dude, I’ll say a prayer for you. That epitomizes how brutally out of touch his is with his constituents – he’s only getting 3 million for his house afterall.
The chuckleheads leading the GOP (those one level below Rush on the organizational hierarchy) offered an april fool’s budget of cutting spending (for those in need) and tax cuts for the wealthy (for those with greed). Their “Road to Recovery” is meant to recover the wealth of the top 1% who have as much wealth at the “bottom” 90%.
Tax cuts don’t cause deficits – spending does.
Even when we had over 70% income tax rates under Jimmy Carter, the Democrats ran deficits.
President Bush’s small income tax rate reductions for EVERYONE brought America out of the Clinton Recession of 2000 and generated enough new tax revenues to fight the War on Terror with a balanced budget.
The only reason Bush had deficits is because of increase social welfare spending. Without all the needless spending on education, Medicare, and other welfare, there would have been no deficits.
Now, the Democrats are spending more than twice as much as the total tax revenues. If they doubled taxes to cover this profligate spending, everyone knows what would happen – a depression.
“President Bush’s small income tax rate reductions for EVERYONE brought America out of the Clinton Recession of 2000 and generated enough new tax revenues to fight the War on Terror with a balanced budget.”
You just make shit up don’t you? Tax cuts always lead to a cut in revenues. There was no “balanced budget”, ever, during the Bush years. Certainly one can argue the need to spend money after Sept. 11th on military efforts, and thats a whole ‘nother discussion entirely, but no one can argue that there was just money laying around to do it AND cut taxes.
“The only reason Bush had deficits is because of increase social welfare spending. Without all the needless spending on education, Medicare, and other welfare, there would have been no deficits.”
All of which he promoted (after you just admitted he did have deficits!). No Child Left Behind was a signature issue of Bush’s first term, as was Medicare Part D. All of which were promoted at the same time he cut taxes, imperiling the very revenue he needed to pay for said programs. Atleast Ross is consistent; there should have been no such spending, and the taxes should have been cut. Even Democrats of the time were consistent; more spending and preserving taxes as they were.
The only one with the pie-in-the-sky scenario was Bush who magically imagined that one could increase both discretionary spending, and enact large entitlement programs, without fundamentally re-designing the tax code.
And actually, no, Democrats are not spending “twice as much” as tax revenues. In fact, they are spending about 1.5%, and thats only temporary, and presumes that the way the tax code will stay static. We already know this is not going to be the case; the upper 5% of Bush’ tax cuts will sunset, as well as the drop in the capital gains tax. We know that there are a number of targeted middle-class tax cuts, such as the expansion of the EITC, the Make Work Pay credit, as well as plans on the drawing board to remove the floor from the Child Tax Credit.
Overall, the majority of American tax-payers, and hence the majority of the voting population, will be significantly better off tax-wise under various Obama and Democratic tax plans. Despite the constant idiocy of raising marginal tax rates somehow meaning you are “impugning” success, no one outside of Samuel “Dead-beat Dad” Wurzelbacher seems to agree.
Bush cut taxes, increased spending, started two wars, significantly reduced our civil liberties, and encouraged an “ownership society” in which everyone would get a loan whether they could pay for it or not.
Now the Republicans want to cut spending and balance the budget, but not if it involves cutting the military or giving white good ole boy executives the boot.
I am sooo glad Obama is president. When he speaks I have the impression that he is genuinely concerned about whether or not I have food on the table, a job, and health care. He’s going to do more for America than just pray about it.
As I am sure you can gather from all of my posts, I have nothing but the deepest and most abiding contempt for all religion and I most emphatically do not believe in a divine sky daddy. But I do believe in the people using a representative democracy to achieve worthwhile social objectives.
Socialism!! Yeah. We might want to try some of that. It’s midway between communism and capitalism–neither of which seem to work!
It’s doubtful Republicans would cut spending, even of the many massive entitlement programs. It’s hard to imagine seniors, who vote with a regularity and numbers not found anywhere else, would be the kind of constituents that Republicans would want to tick off while they’re attempting to claw themselves back to the majority.
Medicare and Social Security, and to a lesser extent Medicaid, are sacrosanct social programs for a large portion of the American population. They are not only sacrosanct, but no one can credibly come up with a method in which they can eliminated and the social ills that would be unleashed could possibly be contained. Bush’s Part D program was flawed in its implementation, and it being unveiled alongside massive tax cuts, but it was pure political gold.
I think one thing you will see under Obama is a significant rewriting of the tax code to streamline much of the complexity of it, as well as chucking out the bazillion revenue robbing deductions and exemptions like the one’s that allow companies to write off sky-boxes and similar absurdities as “business expenses”. And before Lee jumps in here I should point out that the original 50% rule implemented on entertainment and travel expenses, as well as tying some aspects of travel deductions to federal per diem rates, were all approved by none other than Reagan.
I keep hearing that South Carolinians will have to pay this money back whether we benefit from it or not. If these monies are being borrowed by means of the issuance of securities this is true. But, as seems to be the case with so much of the “stimulus” package, the money is simply being printed, there will be no repayment as such though all will probably suffer due to a declining value of the dollar and inflation.
Socialism!! Yeah. We might want to try some of that. It’s midway between communism and capitalism–neither of which seem to work!
Since when did the people in this country become so anti-capitalist? I hate to say it, but it does often appear that Rich is on the side of popular opinon right now.
Sean, I am trying to educate you out of your propaganda fog.
I said the budget could have been balanced during 2001-2008 by the huge increase in revenues, which were more than enough to cover the war with Islamofascism.
If you remove the new social welfare spending from those 8 budgets, there would have been a surplus every year. The same is true for Clinton. Those are the facts, in black and white, over at the CBO and Treasury web sites. Maybe some of you are too young to have been paying any attention to that when it happened.
Just because the Democrats are printing worthless fiat money for TARP, the Stimulus Pork, the Omnibus Pork and now for most of the budget, it does not mean that, “we don’t have to pay it back.”
Devaluation of the currency is paid for in price adjustments to compensate, called, “price inflation”. Wages cannot rise as as fast as prices, so inflation becomes a sales tax, hitting lower-income wage earners and the elderly and infirm on fixed incomes the hardest.
It doesn’t matter how “sacrosanct” socialist welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare happen to be. The financial reality is that they are bankrupt. The surplus of Social Security taxes generated by the Reagan increases to save it from bankruptcy in 1981 have been looted by Congress to pay for vote-buying welfare programs.
Medicare costs are rising at several times the rate of economic growth, several times the growth of the tax base.
Democrats plan to wreck the automobile industry, destroy the UAW medical benefits, and use that to create socialized medicine. Once they have enough of a foothold so that most people cannot opt out, they will ration all care, especially Medicare and Medicaid. Tens of thousands of Americans will be denied care and forced to die prematurely.
“If you remove the new social welfare spending from those 8 budgets, there would have been a surplus every year. The same is true for Clinton. Those are the facts, in black and white, over at the CBO and Treasury web sites. Maybe some of you are too young to have been paying any attention to that when it happened.”
Well no shit, sherlock. And If I just plant a magic bean I’ll also be able to grow a fantastic beanstalk to a castle in the sky.The reality is that money WAS spent, it WAS in both Presidents budget plans, and Bush didn’t threaten to veto the budget, and Republicans didn’t use their majority to trim it down. Meaning all the talk of fanciful balanced budgets with is just that; nonsense. So theres one of two things here. Either Bush was a political coward, and couldn’t bring himself to do what was “right” or that he was, for all purposes, a political opportunist, like most, wanting to give tax cuts AND bigger spending.
“If these monies are being borrowed by means of the issuance of securities this is true. But, as seems to be the case with so much of the “stimulus” package, the money is simply being printed, there will be no repayment as such though all will probably suffer due to a declining value of the dollar and inflation.”
The money is not “simply being printed”; I assure you the crisis would be far more acute if that were the case. The Bureau of Public Debt is still issuing and still able to sell, American debt both domestically and abroad. It’s one of the things that I’m interested in knowing moreso than the raw size of it. How much of the debt is in 10 year, 20 year, and 30 year bonds? What are the interest rates?
Sean, not all of this money is being generated through the issuance of debt, Bernancke and others have acknowledged this. Issuance of this amount of debt during a world wild recession would drive interest rates through the roof if buyers could be found at all. Yes the Bureau of Public Debt is still issuing but only a relatively small portion of the huge amount of money being spent. Even China, the holder of vast amounts of American debt is having problems.
If we borrow the money from future generations in order to finance this deficit spending spree, we have to pay interest on it and we have to somehow come up with the money to PAY BACK the principal.
Some of this was just accomplished with 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.37%.
Last week’s auction of 5-year Treasury notes was a failure. Only half of them were sold.
Soo hte rest of the spending which cannot be borrowed can be created out of thin air by having the Federal Reserve issue credits on its books, and just print money.
The money supply has increased 20% in the last 2 months.
The Treasury Department has printed over $1 TRILLION of new cash since September.
Neither tax cuts or spending is the sole root of all evil.
Take “tax cuts are good” to its logical extreme: 0% taxes for everyone.
Now any government you have will be running a deficit: no tax revenue.
And you’ve ushered in Plutocracy or Warlord-ocracy.
Take “tax and spend” out to its logical extreme: a 100% tax rate. Now the government owns everything, so you’ve killed personal incentive to work.
And you’ve ushered in Communism or Totalitarianism.
Damn, that looked perfect in my on-screen window.
Is there a “print preview” option that can be turned on?
Obama has already killed the incentive to work with threats of tax increases.
Schumer and Frank threaten tax rates to upwards of 90% and even more than 100%, not just on a few bankers at AIG, but now on everyone earning more than $250,000.
Tax rates are at immoral levels.
Tax rates are at levels which are slowing the recovery.
Bush cut taxes, increased spending, started two wars, significantly reduced our civil liberties, and encouraged an “ownership society” in which everyone would get a loan whether they could pay for it or not.
Rich, how ironic that you are such a big fan of Obama despite citing the reasons above for your dislike of Bush.
Obama has planned tax cuts and increased spending (beyond the stimulus). He didn’t start any wars, but he’s doing a hell of the job expanding the one in Afghanistan. While he was in the Senate he supported nearly every damn one of Bush’s measures to take away civil liberties. He and his party definitely encouraged lending to those who could not afford it. And finally he’s a big believer in that “imaginary sky daddy” too.
If you like Obama and dislike Bush, that’s ok. But at least cite reasons where they differ not where they are the same.
Obama is planning to take away real civil liberties, not the imaginary threats dreamed up about Bush and Cheney, or the whining about the rights of a few terrorists in the brig.