Has anyone besides me noticed that, the more Mark Sanford isolates himself with his stance on the stimulus, the more he uses the collective term “we” to refer to himself?
For instance, take this passage from John O’Connor’s interview story over the weekend:
Q: Are you saying that at no point your understanding of how the … law works changed?
A: No, that only we could apply. I think we’ve been totally clear on that. … Let’s be clear. We are in a negotiation. I’m not going to lay all my cards on the table because we’re trying to get, Sen. (Hugh) Leatherman in particular, to take some movement … and at this point he isn’t blinking. And it is indeed up to those budget writers as to what they want to and don’t want to do. … There were a group of lawmakers here that are committed to trying to work with us and finding some alternatives to what Sen. Leatherman suggested.
When he says, “only we could apply,” I’m pretty sure that he means “only I could apply.” Anyone more conversant in Sanfordspeak should correct me, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he means.
Somebody should give this guy a copy of “Anthem,” which, if you go by his statements and behavior, you would think he would have memorized.
Does he mean to suggest the royal “we?” Certainly he doesn’t mean the editorial “we,” which you will notice that I don’t use any more, now that I’m not entitled.
Politicians do this a lot — trying to suggest they are speaking for a group when they’re referring to themselves — and I’ve always thought it odd. But it’s especially so coming from a guy who’s all about his own radical individualism.
Related Posts
Since Brad doesn’t have to pretend to be objective any more, here’s the email Sanford sent out today explaining his position.
Let’s see people discuss the facts of the issue instead of the scare-tactic hype.
For those too busy to read the whole thing, here’s the one paragraph which destroys all the “sky-is-falling” propaganda that big government spenders use to dupe the ignorant citizens.
“A few facts first: Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion — an 11 percent increase without the stimulus money we have debated over the last few weeks. Even education spending will go from $3.3 to $3.5 billion, a 4 percent increase — and do any of these numbers strike you as the sort of numbers that fit with chaos?”
From http://www.governorsanford.com/:
Though we are constitutionally guaranteed free speech, it is illegal to walk into a crowded movie theater and yell the word “fire” if there is not one. Unfortunately much has been suggested over the last few weeks — as the Democratic National Committee ran ads and Sen. Hugh Leatherman crafted a so-called Senate Finance “chaos” budget — meant to scare people into believing if my administration didn’t walk lockstep with the Obama administration in spending all the stimulus money as Washington thinks best, I would indeed be courting disaster for South Carolinians.
I believe this is the wrong way to push for the spending they want and I understand many people are concerned — and so I wanted to write to set a few things straight.
Although there is a great temptation to expand my rationale to include what I believe to be the disastrous long-term consequences that come to our nation in spending money we don’t have — and in issuing yet more debt to solve a problem that was created by too much debt — I will stick with why I believe the Obama administration’s package doesn’t work for South Carolina as configured, and why I think it is so important to custom-fit stimulus efforts to the state in question.
A few facts first: Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion — an 11 percent increase without the stimulus money we have debated over the last few weeks. Even education spending will go from $3.3 to $3.5 billion, a 4 percent increase — and do any of these numbers strike you as the sort of numbers that fit with chaos?
Common sense dictates that when you’re in a hole it’s vital you stop digging. Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that South Carolina will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries — or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?
Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years — again, with money we don’t have? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in South Carolina state financial history.
Our grandparents’ notion of moderation in all things is especially important when one considers the financing of a state. More than $8 billion of total stimulus effort is projected to come to South Carolina. We proposed taking about 10 percent of this and applying it to paying down state debt. I don’t understand how that could be considered unreasonable or the kind of effort that would create disaster. This stimulus is more than our state budget spends in an entire year. If a family won a lottery that sent them a windfall larger than their paycheck for the year, the family that actually set something aside to pay down the mortgage or the credit cards would be viewed as prudent.
Why should it be any different for a state, particularly if, as in South Carolina’s case, we are fourth in the entire nation in the percentage of our budget that goes not to teachers or health care — but debt repayment? Eleven percent of every dollar in yearly revenue goes to paying down debt, and we have $20 billion on top of that in unfunded long-term political commitments. Paying these moneys down would give us greater financial latitude in 24 months when the federal gravy train ends to indeed offer more in the way of governmental services. In our case it would pay dividends in the first 24 months alone of $162 million that would be saved in debt service that could go to government service.
Finally, spending all this money relieves the political pressure to make reforms essential to South Carolina being more competitive in the global economy — and in turn offering more employment and “stimulus” to the national economy. Political forces rarely embrace hard changes, and they never embrace change when new money allows for the possibility of bypassing them.
The easiest of all things would be to take and simply spend all of Washington’s well-intended stimulus efforts — but in our case it would guarantee opportunities lost that I don’t think our state can afford.
+++
Hope spring is treating you well, and again, if you agree that we can’t just spend our way out of our current economic situation then I’d ask that you forward this to a friend or relative, or pick up the phone and ask them to join us. Also, call or email your South Carolina legislators and ask them to meet us in the middle and find a way to pay down state debt.
These are momentous times, and if enough of us make our voices heard on this front, I believe we can make a difference in shoring up our state’s finances so we are better prepared for this economic storm.
He’s been using that royal we for years. It’s one of the most annoying things about him.
BTW, the most disgusting part of that interview was when Marshall talked about the terror of living with a father who didn’t tell him he was rich.
I didn’t know I had to be objective, or pretend to be objective, before. I thought I was writing and editing opinion…
We, the vast majority of voters, elected Governor Sanford twice.
We, the majority oppose all the bailout and stimulus spending.
We, the majority, according to polls, do not believe the pork spending will help economic recovery.
No one expects any editor to be objective, but we do expect them to be informed, and to honestly face the facts.
The fact is, that the state does not need any of this federal money, because state revenues will exceed those of 2008.
Well, at least in the past you went through the motions of bringing people in to hear their side of an issue before writing what you had already decided.
Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus moneys guarantees that South Carolina will dig itself a $740 million financial hole. Who helps us then? Do we raise taxes, and thereby weaken our competitiveness relative to other states and countries — or do we just summarily end programs for some of the neediest of our state?
Or are we to plan on yet another round of stimulus windfall from Washington in two years — again, with money we don’t have? I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I do know the $740 million budget hole created would be the largest such hole in South Carolina state financial history.
This is the only issue. As someone who is undecided on what we should do with the stimulus money, I can’t tell you how much it pisses me off that the “accept-the-funds” side completely ignores this argument put forth by Sanford. He does have a valid point that there will be a hole in the budget when the stimulus runs out in two years. Of course I think, it’s likely that that will be a smaller problem than the one we face if we don’t accept the money.
Sanford very well may be a libertarian-idealogue, partisan, selfish, rich, “we”-saying, education-hating, out-of-touch asshole, but we need to move the argument away from Sanford and his idealogy and move it to one addressing the reality we face today vs. the one we will face two years from now when we can no longer rely on stimulus money.
Make the case against Sanford’s argument and I’ll grab my pitchfork and march on the Statehouse with you. Until then, I cannot take either side seriously.
It’s important to point out that the first wave of cuts had to do with the disastrous property tax/ sales tax swap that was approved in the Legislature, which, as consumption turned down, created a corresponding downturn in government revenues. There are also problems with a tax code where someone making 20K is in the same tax bracket as Sanford.
The reality is that the SC tax code is a swiss cheese of exemptions, deductions, and give-aways, many of which serve no useful stimulative purpose than to let certain powerful industries or lobbies get away scot-free. Reversing the sales tax/ property tax swap would be the first good step in the right direction of fiscal sanity, as well as throwing out the 44% capital gains exemption, as well as reformulating the tax brackets so that people in middle-class incomes pay lower, while dingbats like Sanford pay higher.
“We, the vast majority of voters, elected Governor Sanford twice.”
And evidently voted the legislature back in every two years. So SOMEONE is to blame here.
Of course the amount of spending in the state has gone up. WE’RE IN A SEVERE RECESSION. Geez, this is not that difficult folks. Government must spend more during hard time because people need help more. That’s what government does. As for education spending, that is the consequence of an increased number of students because parents can no longer afford to send their kids to private schools. School buses need upgrading. Facilities need improvements. Teachers and law enforcement personnel WILL lose their jobs if Sanford prevails in this fight. Repeat, teachers and law enforcement officers WILL be laid off. That’s not screaming fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire. That’s simply pointing out that the theater is on fire and buring out of control fast.
It’s no coincidence that after 6 years of Sanford in the governor’s mansion we now have the 2nd highest rate of unemployment in the nation. He refuses to do one damn thing to create jobs other than to utter his 1980s mantra about getting government out of people’s lives. Where has that gotten us? Very high unemployment. Very low life expectancy. That’s where. This whole sordid affair illustrates beyond any shadow of a doubt how much of a failure conservative governance is. It fails the people every time it’s tried. Until we learn that lesson, as most of the nation finally has, we will continue to flounder at the bottom.
The really sad part is than many of the victims of conservatism are the very people hurt the most. Sad. Really sad.
If a family won a lottery that sent them a windfall larger than their paycheck for the year, the family that actually set something aside to pay down the mortgage or the credit cards would be viewed as prudent.
-Doug
You absolutely, positively cannot compare a family’s budget to the governments. The two are not the same and should never, ever be treated the same way. Government spends when needed and taxes as needed to provide services to the people. During hard times government should spend more, much more in the current recession, to keep the people afloat. Deficit spending is actual laudable during hard times. Families, on the other hand, should spend less to match declining income (if that occurs) with needs rather than spending on luxuries. The two are not comparable and the analogy is bogus.
In this case, “we” would be Sanford and all his imaginary friends who think he’s perfectly justified in taking targeted federal stimulus money and doing whatever he wants with it.
“Thanks very much for these apples, but I……I mean……WE… will only accept them if I…errr…..I mean…..WE….. can use them as oranges.”
This is not the “royal” we. It’s the “royally oblivious” we.
State spending exploded when the economy under President Bush was creating a surplus of billions of dollars. Their excuse was, “We might as well spend it, because it’s here.”
Now the legislature says they must spend more money than last year because there is a recession. The excuse is, “We might as well spend it, because it’s here.”
A little light reading.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf
It’s the royal “we,” and we find it so off-putting.
Bud,
So let me get this straight, when the economy is down, then government should grow. When the economy recovers will we then see cut backs in government? Has that ever happened in the history of the world?
The government is the least effective way to grow the economy. If it wasn’t, then why don’t we turn the entire economy over to the government? Oh wait… that’s what we’re doing.
Obama’s vague notion of how to run the economy by central planners controlling semi-private businesses has already been tried by:
Mussolini’s Italy
Nazi Germany
Spain under Franco
Roosevelt’s New Deal
England under McMillan
France under DeGaulle
Venezuela under Hugo Chavez
Kenya ( where Obama’s father was one of the planners)
Tanzania
Zimbabwe
South Africa
Nigeria
Some obviously did a better job than others, for a while.
What I’m amused at is the number of hours Brad spends thinking about Governor Sanford. If our governor were a woman, she would have had a restraining order out on Brad by now. Obsessing about one person this much is not normal.
Some argue Keynesian Policy (deficit spending) has never been proven to end a Recession. These examples prove otherwise:
The US – 1932-1940 – under FDR
Enormous public works projects undertaken. Unemployment dropped from 25% to 10% as the economy expanded every year save one – the year FDR let himself get talked into returning to a conservative fiscal policy.
The US – 1941-1945 – still under FDR
Government control over the economy reached an all time high. 10 million Americans Drafted: Full Employment. War-related Industry boomed.
Germany – 1930s – under Hitler
Enormous public works projects such as the Autobahn. Unemployment dropped from 30% to Full Employment by 1939. Military conscription. Price controls, rationing. War-related Industry boomed.
Ethics and Ideals aside, the financial problem with those examples is: economic improvements came at the price of deficits which would be unsustainable if run over the long-term.
Ideally we should run a surplus during a boom so we can tap it during a bust – but policies which are both sensible and responsible appear to be beyond us.
Doug, government is imperfect. And no, government spending won’t decline once a recovery takes effect. That’s one reason why we have inflation. And at times, as in the 70s, it can get out of hand. But now is not the time to worry about that. The house is on fire and we have to put it out. If that creates problems for our children by making them pay for the water to put the fire that’s a shame but it can’t be helped. If we don’t put the fire out our children will have to live on the street. Only Bill Clinton came close to the ideal when the economy was prospering. Surpluses were too small but at least we were on the right track. Bush completely missed the boat with all his war spending and wasted trillions on military crap. And indeed his failure to apply Keynsian economics to a prospering economy will only make things more difficult.
FDR – New Deal a complete failure at reducing unemployment until 1940, when military manufacturing got a cash infusion, and then in 1942, when the work force lost 10,000,000 people to the military.
Post WWI Germany – stimulus spending created hyper-inflation, destroyed the economy and the republican form of government. Hitler elected.
Socialist fantasy – “Bush wasted trillions on military…”
FACT: All the Bush deficits were due to increased welfare spending.
Obama will waste more money in 2009, and run up more debt in one year, than Bush wasted in the six years he was in control of spending.
Bud–Right on!Tell it like it is!
Brad–I’m enjoying your blog even more now you’re just you! Less establishmentarian, now you’re on the street–sorry as I am that it had to come to this.
Tim, jfx, KP–LOL and Amen!
Greedy socialists, clamoring for other peoples’ money.
They don’t care that the state is awash in more revenue than it had last year, or any year before.
Politicians like Hugh Leatherman and Jim Rex lie about “shortages”, and “shortfalls”, and “crisis”. It is all a BIG LIE, that fits right in with the way Obama and the Democrats operate.
Another example of “bail out” spending helping in a crisis:
The German Currency Reform of 1948.
Suffering from poverty and a paucity of produce post-WW II, the Germans finally got some much-needed help when the Allies decided to convert their near-worthless Realm Marks into a new gold-backed Deutch Mark.
Then every German was *given* 40 DM. Followed by 20 more 2 months later. Once-bare shelves restocked overnight.
Bill C., Brad is certainly not the only person obsessing over Governor Sanford these days. If you’re not, then you’re not paying attention.
Dang, Lee, I wish Jim Rex was a politician. Maybe one day. He’d make a fine governor.
What’s Karen Floyd up to these days? I hear she’s going to mobilize and reinvigorate the SC GOP with some dynamic new “web templates”. Whoa! Look out world!
If 40 German DM to each family was enough to revitalize the economy instantly, why did the latest tax rebate stimulus checks fail to have any effect?
Why did Hoover’s running deficits of 50% fail to slow the recession?
Why did Roosevelt’s running deficits of 68% of spending fail to prevent the recession from becoming the Great Depression?
Answer: because their other socialist policies consumed capital and savings, destroyed confidence and incentive.
KP, no… I’m just not a flaming liberal who wants feels entitled to a hand out like a downtown Columbia panhandler. I respect the fiscal responsible actions of our governor… now back to your Mayor Coble fan club meeting.
Lee, Bill, guys — pay attention. It’s our own money that we want. We’re going to have to pay the bill for this thing along with the rest of the country; it’s utterly insane even to contemplate our not getting the benefit of it.
Why is this so hard for you guys to grasp? The debate about whether to have a stimulus is OVER. There is no decision to be made as to whether South Carolinians are going to be paying for it; we are. The issue is whether the stimulus money destined for SC will come here or go to some other state.
How many times does this have to be explained?
If this money is not being borrowed, but printed (as a large portion of this will be) then neither we, nor anyone else, will pay it back in the traditional sense. There may well be a weaker dollar or higher inflation but there will not be a higher tax bill due to debt service. Love Obama or hate him, this rapid increase in the money supply is very worrisome. When we print more money with the same underlying asset base it seems inevitable that the money must be worth less per unit and that we have not increased the overall value.
You know Brad I think everyone understands, some just disagree. Condesendsion is beneath you.
The Governor honestly believes that finding a way to use the monies to pay down debt will have a more positive long term effect on the finances of the State. I tend to agree. A wise man said on November 3, 2002 that what puts Sanford apart from and above many other politicians is that he will always put personal belief above politics. That was true then, it is true now.
Greg, I don’t understand the point you’re making. The money has been authorized by Congress to stimulate the national economy and as far as anyone can tell, it WILL be spent. If we don’t use it here, it will go somewhere else.
South Carolinians will share equally in the pain that results from the stimulus package, whatever it is….won’t we? Whether we pay it back in the traditional sense or in the sense of a weaker dollar and higher inflation, we’ll all pay whatever bill comes due. Why should we not have any of the benefit that accompanies all that pain?
Brad what you don’t understand is that on top of this unnecessary $700 million debt, we also have the existing state debt to pay off. What do you do when you’re in debt and receive a one-time chunk of money… fools spend it, smart people pay off existing debt before thinking about spending any that’s left over… or better yet, establish a savings plan. We are not receiving this money without strings attached, the people handing out this welfare payment not only are telling us how to spend it they’re also telling us how much money we’re going to have to contribute to be able to spend it. It’s like giving a minimum wage earner a Ferrari with the stipulation that they will have to pay the insurance , scheduled maintenance, and SC property taxes on it. Why is it so difficult for some of you to understand something so simple? It’s like you’ve never managed money before.
I think the Governor believes that the money should be spent in a way which I think is economically prudent and is willing to go to great lengths to see that happen. Why are you not angry with the General Assembly for not talking with the Governor about working out a plan that both feel will work. I fail to understand the mindset of saying that the Federal plan may not be wise but as long as it has passed lets suck off of that teat because we will suffer the consequences along with the others. There is the matter of principal, when all the other kids are doing something wrong should you join in if you believe that you will all be punished. I think that is is what the Governor is saying.
And, again, I think the phrase “we’re going to have to help pay it back” confuses people. I think the man on the street thinks that his taxes will go up as a result of this money. by and large that should not be the case.
And, again, I think the phrase “we’re going to have to help pay it back” confuses people. I think the man on the street thinks that his taxes will go up as a result of this money. by and large that should not be the case.
But it sure as hell should be.
brad, it is NOT your money that you want.
This money is either borrowed from future taxpayers, or created by printing worthless currency and debasing the value – inflation is a sales tax.
Most of Obama’s supporters are in the lower income groups who pay no income taxes. They definitely don’t plan to pay anything back to society. This is the reparations Obama promised them, to make “whites and Jews share the wealth.”
The Treasury just auctioned off billions of 30-year T-bonds at 4.37%, due 2038.
That wasn’t sufficient to finance the deficit spending, so they auctioned 5 year T-notes last week …. and couldn’t sell but half of them.
So they are just printing money.
The money supply has increased 20% since Obama took office.
The Democrats are going to impose huge taxes on the working classes and those on fixed incomes, through inflation and the “carbon taxes”.
Brad,
I grasp the fact that we will be paying back the $700M. Why can’t you grasp that Sanford will take the money if he has some say over how it is spent? If you want the office of Governor to just be a figurehead, say so.
A bank CEO I know told me tonight that he agrees with Sanford’s position on the stimulus money being used to pay down debt but that he should just take it now even if it will be misused. He said it won’t make a difference two years from now when inflation is out of control trying to pay back all this borrowed money. He said that worries him far more.
Sane people understand what Obama is doing. He better by a sweater like Jimmy Carter’s because there’s going to be a long cold winter coming.
“I think the Governor believes…”
Yeah, see, that’s the problem. The Governor THINKS his personal beliefs trump the specified conditions of this particular disputed portion of the stimulus outlay.
His personal beliefs do NOT trump those specified conditions. He’s wrong. He’s getting an earful about it, too. Rightly so.
The Governor, and a small but shrill cadre of apologists for him, liken this education portion of the stimulus outlay to a windfall.
Well…no. Your windfall lottery winnings have no conditions on how you spend them. The stimulus ain’t a lottery. And Orszag, et al., put specific conditions on this portion PRECISELY to ensure that it wasn’t shanghaied for this or that alternative purpose by rogue elements.
Our rogue Governor will shine the klieg lights on Leatherman and the legislature, and pretend the problem’s over THERE. But it’s clear most people aren’t buying it. Most folks see that Sanford created this particular public relations trainwreck himself, by puffing his chest up and stupidly insisting that his personal beliefs warranted an extra-special exemption.
No one disagrees with the IDEA of paying down debt. We ALL want to pay down debt. Debt sucks. But that’s not the issue. You don’t pay down debt with THIS money. Nope. That’s not allowed. Not even if you’re the new star poodle of the Club For Growth.
Why do you say Sanford is isolating himself Brad? There are many, MANY of us who agree with him and just wish he would go further down the road he has chosen.
“Isolating” is a pretty strong word.
Why don’t we want to take this money, which the state does not need, and pay down debt or reduce taxes by the same amount?
Hugh Leatherman’s own “budget” has no reductions in overall spending, which is higher than last year. Leatherman and others in the legislature are just shifting spending to hurt education and law enforcement, in order to create a phony impression of spending reductions, and generate public anger, misdirected at Governor Sanford.
It is an old trick.
How many times are you and Brad going to fall for it?
Further examples of Brad’s misrepresentation of Sanford as some kind of loner ideologue.
Here’s the five other states with governors who are pursuing similar approaches to the stimulus money as Sanford:
“Alaska – Palin has backed off her initial position to turn down $288 million of the nearly $1 billion allotted to her state, including $170 million for schools, $56 million for weatherizing homes and $15.6 million for unemployment, but she is still negotiating the issue with state lawmakers there. “It is possible that there will be areas where the state will not choose to apply for funds,” the former Republican vice-presidential candidate said in her certification letter to the White House. Top Alaskan legislators, including conservatives, have said “they’re likely to accept” at least most of the federal economic stimulus money that Palin does not, The Anchorage Daily News reported.
Alabama – Gov. Bob Riley has turned down $99 million in stimulus money to expand unemployment benefits, saying it would lead to a $17 million tax increase when the federal dollars stop coming. State lawmakers have moved to pass a resolution that could help them accept the funds, The Birmingham News reported.
Louisiana – Jindal has said he will reject $98 million in federal funds to expand unemployment benefits besides $9.5 million for health insurance coverage for people leaving welfare and $58 million for the hospital system. “We will continue to examine fund-specific requirements to ensure that we are not growing government in an unsustainable way,” he wrote in his certification letter to the White House.
Mississippi – Gov. Haley Barbour (R) has said he will refuse $56 million in stimulus money for expanding unemployment benefits because it would cost business owners an additional $16 million each year once the federal government’s money is spent. The state House has passed a resolution to get the money, but the Senate has not.
Texas – Gov. Rick Perry (R) rejected $555 million in federal stimulus money that would expand state jobless benefits to part-time workers. While Perry will accept other funds from the stimulus, he is opposed to using these funds to expand existing government programs, “burdening the state with ongoing expenditures long after the funding has dried up,” he wrote in his letter to the White House. Perry’s decision has come under fire from U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson who is expected to challenge Perry for the GOP nomination for governor in 2010.”
—-
I think what we are going to see is that as time passes and the scare-tactic Senate has to continue to defend the indefensible, public sentiment will shift slowly to Sanford. Maybe never 50% but every day there will be more people who become educated on the Senate scam as the facts come out. Perhaps that’s why the spend-it-all crowd went for the scorched earth strategy — hoping that Sanford would cave before they’d actually have to prove their dire forecasts.
What we need is a public debate on ETV.
Whom would Sanford debate?
A bunch of dishonest legislators, or ill-informed faux journalists who consider themselves to be a branch of government?
I think a civil trial, where Leatherman, Jim Rex and others have to testify under penalty of perjury, about their spending plans and revenue streams, and produce evidence to back it up, would quell a lot of the disinformation.
Interesting collection of state’s Doug. Blood Red each and every one and generally much more economically destitute than the rest of the nation. The GOP has tarnished it’s image with all this nonsensical adherence to Hooveresk economic policy. The recession cries out for stimulative spending by the government, not ideological purety that will only keep unemployment levels high for years to come. The people voted for change and most of the states are following the prescription essential to economic recovery. It’s a shame folks in the Limbaugh dominated GOP don’t understand basic economic policy.
Hoover ran huge deficits that failed to stimulate the economy.
FDR denounced deficit spending during the 1932 campaign, then increased them when elected. He lied, just like Obama lied about tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, and elimination of earmarks.
It is a smear, a lie to claim that opponents of this redistribution of wealth from future taxpayers to current deadbeat supporters of Obama and the failed Democrat mayors who bankrupted their cities, are just “ignorant of basic economics”.
Thousands of career economists bought ads in major newspapers to denounce this scheme. Financial people denounce and explain every day.
But Obama doesn’t want economic recovery. Obama wants to redefine recovery as “fairness”, redistribution of existing wealth, instead of the creation of prosperity for all.
Doug wants a televised debate.
Lee wants a civil trial.
OK, then.
Get to it.
Rally up, men. Amass your silent majority, if you believe you have it, and agitate for change.
I’m still waiting for the big Pro-Sanford rally at the State House. When is that, again?
Doug’s list makes it clear that 6 governors….out of 50….expressed intent to reject some aspect of federal stimulus funding.
If the breakdown in Doug’s list is correct, then of the 6 governors….out of 50….rejecting portions of the stimulus, Markie Mark is the ONLY one (now that Palin changed her tune) explicitly rejecting portions earmarked for education.
1 governor….out of 50…..rejecting that particular portion. If it looks like a lone ideologue, walks like a lone ideologue, quacks like a lone ideologue…
The mantra of “getting government off the back of the people” is nothing more than code for dismantling the public schools and reimposing the sociopolitical system that existed prior to the civil rights movement.
Whenever the government, federal or state, sought to expand people’s rights–particularly the rights of the disenfranchised such as African Americans–there was a hue and cry about big government engaged in expensive social engineering.
What conservatives really want is even greater wealth distribution toward the top than we have already experienced as well as the re-enserfment of our minorities and poor whites. They want all our money to go into preserving our overseas military empire while returning to a conservative government that would not challenge their social and religious prejudices.
Think of the impending argument in S.C. and elsewhere over gay rights. The federal government, during Obama’s presidency, will probably rescind “don’t ask, don’t tell” as well as enrshrining a right to equal treatment under the law regardless of sexual orientation.
The religious right, which never saw a bloody war it did not like (just read the book of Revelation–positively dripping with the blood of people who disagree with them), is going to fight this, but they will lose.
I predict that the 60-vote threshold in the Senate is going to become history. Increasingly, bills emanating from the House will have a clause in them mandating conference committee reconciliation thereby triggering an up-or-down vote in the Senate. I am a bit unclear as to how this happens exactly.
But I know that the Democracy controls both houses Congress by simple majority. The requirement of a super majority in a House (the Senate) that is already undemocratic to begin with because it does not represent the people but rather the states is a travesty of representative democracy.
I’ll bet the Jews in Nazi Germany were not thinking about dismantling public education when they want to get the government off their backs.
Rich is using Hitler’s propaganda techniques to create straw demons and impute base, ridiculous motives to those who oppose this fascism of Obama.
Is the argument here that Sanford is or isn’t an idealogue or that we should or should not accept the funds?
What Sanford is doesn’t make it any more right or wrong to accept or reject the stimulus.
To say that rejecting the funds is a lonely idealogical stance doesn’t make it wrong. It doesn’t make it right either.
The case for accepting the funds must be that whatever consequences accepting the funds bring are not as bad as the consequences of our State losing that $700 million (and I tend to believe we should accept the funds). Bringing up the characteristics of Sanford just muddles the debate.
A debate over whether Mark Sanford is a bad governor is an entirely different issue. I think we should make this current issue about our state not our governor.
But I do agree with Doug on this — there should be more televised debates (and I’m not talking about the worthless televised campaign debates).
Speaking of “don’t ask, don’t tell” – I’m an Air Force veteran.
One of the vets I keep in touch with from way back in Basic is gay. We all knew he was as early as Basic, but none of us felt the need to “out” him. Why would we? He never harassed anyone. He did his job well. And as it turns out, he’s the guy who tracked us all down and put us back in touch.
Our current policy is outdated and pointless. NATO moved beyond the banning of homosexuals years ago. For a long time, Turkey and the UK were the only NATO countries banning them – simply because they were the most Puritanical of the NATO countries. But even the UK relaxed the ban some years ago, and it hasn’t proven to be a problem.
Our current policy is costing us troops at a time when it’s hard to recruit and keep them. We’ve lost a number of important Arabic translators because they were gay – in other words, our policy could cost us valuable intelligence and thus lives. If somone can do his or her job well, they should be allowed to do it. If they can’t, they shouldn’t. Period.
And there’s a dirt cheap solution to privacy problems: shower curtains.
We already issue underwear and towels.
Thanks, Travis, for your remarks. I am a public-school educator here in S.C. and I, too, bat for the other team, but I am absolutely not out at work, and sometimes it makes things awkward when people discuss or involve their families in their professional lives, much as they do in other social spheres.
Heteronormativity is something the religious right clings to because they want hegemony over the schools. They want confederate history, reaganomics, very limited government, creationism, and a conservative christianist regime in the public schools.
They’ve lost the election and they are decisively losing the culture wars as well.
Religious people of moderate views, however, seem to understand that we can agree to disagree and that no one should be imposing his political, religious, or social views on anyone else.
There’s wide room for disagreement, but there is no room in the big tent of American democracy for the truly intolerant. Either they change or they get left out of the national political conversation, relegated to Fox News and Rush’s absurd radio program.
The “other team” is the socialist enemies of America.