Sorry I’ve been out of pocket today — very busy, lots of meetings.
Ironically, late this afternoon I was in one with Chris Myers, and remarked to her that I was eager to see what her sister (Jean Toal) and company came up with. Neither of us knew that the ruling had been out for more than an hour at that point.
Anyway, all I had time for when I heard was a little bit of “I told ya” boasting on Twitter:
Unanimous, of course: 5-0, as I predicted. Since the outcome was so inevitable, the only thing to prognosticate about was the point spread.
And I don’t have time for much more now, even. But don’t let that stop YOU. Leave your comments about the stimulus drama right here…
Related Posts
And how about that “rare writ of mandamus ordering Sanford to apply for the money?”
Just in case that was still in question or anything…
The Court decided as expected. Ugly legal gymnastics to reach a preordained conclusion.
Arguments such as “we have to pay it back” should have no relevance in determining the law. I am sad but not surprised.
I am particularly troubled by Harpootlian’s opening statement that this is a legislative state and the the legislature elected the governor until the wrong sort of people messed that up during Reconstruction. He is correct, this has been a legislative state and will be for the forseeable future. The $700 million is our 30 pieces of silver.
Pat yourself on the back, you and everybody else following the case predicted it would be a 5-0 decision.
Interestingly enough, the Dept. of Education is now saying that this stimulus money isn’t enough and layoffs will continue. They, by the way, have a more funds this year than in previous years, even before the stimulus money is introduced. Yet they still are whining for more.
All of the legislators and especially the Democrats are happy today, let’s see how happy they are in two years when this stimulus money is cut off and the programs required to be created with this money start collapsing like a house of cards. Where is the money for these social programs going to come from then… property taxes???
McMaster and Sanford are correct, the executive branch is now deemed irrelevant and the legislature runs this state. Until we require term limits, it’s going to stay this way because South Carolinians as a whole are too ignorant to vote an incumbent out of office.
I smell a book deal on the horizon.
“How To Lose Friends and Alienate People,” by Marshall Clement Sanford, Jr.
This whole charade is only worthy of further comment in haiku form:
Nikki Haley yokes
herself to Sanford’s ego
at her own peril.
The mob is rejoicing, as they climb through the broken windows to grab up “their” case of liquor and “their” plasma TV, before someone else gets it.
Do any of you “haiku’ers” still have a pair or does your wife keep them in a jar in the closet? Which nickname did you hate being called more in high school, “prissy” or “pansy”?
That reminds me, Bill. Have you ever tried to write a haiku that rhymes? It’s an interesting challenge. Why don’t you give it a shot? You’ve got a lot of material to work with up there…prissy, pansy, testicles in a jar, etc. The creative juices are flowing. Put down that bottle of Miller High Life for a moment and show us your inner macho.
Anyway, here’s my stab at rhyming haiku:
Witness, friends, Bill C.,
“angry Libertarian”,
sad redundancy.
Actually, the chicks sort of dug it.
And who got a plasma TV? Dang it, I had dibs!
I prefer Bud, myself (to Miller). I’m perfectly willing, however, to cultivate a taste for PBR, if that would please Bill more…
You know what’s really great? Those kolsch-style summer ales. Harpoon makes a great one. So does Sam Adams. Beer…yum.
What is this store where they have the cases of liquor right alongside the plasma TVs? That is uber-convenient. Is it ALDI?
Kidding aside…
Greg, of COURSE this is a legislative state. In fact, it is the Legislative State, in capitals. I’ve been going on and on and on about that fact for 18 years now (since the Power Failure project in 1991), and pushing as hard as I can to get that changed. We even endorsed Mark Sanford in 2002 because he said he would work to get that changed.
But it hasn’t been changed. And Mark Sanford has at every opportunity (even identifying opportunities that most of us wouldn’t even have spotted, and pouncing upon them with enormous destructive force) wasted the political capital that might have helped bring change about.
For him to then affect not to KNOW this is the Legislative State, and to pursue a court case based upon an entirely different assumption, is absurd in the extreme. He should know it better than anyone.
All of that said, let me take this further. As I have pointed out, even if we were NOT the Legislative State, even if we were like the other 49 with a normal balance between the three branches, the appropriation of money is a legislative function. So is making the laws that the executive must live by. That’s the legislative part of the proper balance of powers. The only kind of executive that is exempt from legislative authority is an absolute monarch, and English-speaking peoples haven’t had one of them since before the Magna Carta. In other words, not since 1215.
One of the few strong executive powers that this governor has is the line item veto. But as in other places where such powers exist, a supermajority of the legislative body can override (otherwise the executive would have too much ultimate control over the essentially legislative function of lawmaking). And this Legislature did that, using procedures that any state with a proper separation of powers would honor.
I know you know that this is a legislative state. I was offended to hear Harpootlian say that was a good thing which should, by implication, be continued.
I have said this before and therefore I feel comfortable that you are not seriously asserting the divine right of kings. What I am saying is that I feel (and at the time of the adoption of the Stimulus legislation so did pretty much everyone else) that the legislation gave exclusive discretionary power to request the funds to the chief executive of each state. If he did so, the money would flow into the treasury where it would be subject to legislative appropriation in the normal course. This is no usurpation of the right to appropriate, but is, in my view following the federal law as written. I know you do not agree with me, but I think that this was a situation where the Court began with a conclusion and then invented a rational to get there. Certainly not the only time that has happened but certainly moves it, in my opinion from a legal victory to a political victory.
For you to accuse me of wanting an executive free of all legislative control is intellectually dishonest. I have explained my argument here on numerous occasions. Disagree with me but do not accuse me of that which I have not asserted.
I know that you and others see this as a victory. I see it as a very sad day and a further entrenchment of a system that has done much to hinder the progress of this State.
See, there you’ve gone and gotten my dander up.
Perhaps at this point we are just talking past one another.
You cannot reason with a mob.
The tone in this blog is refreshing in comparison to the name-calling and gloating going on over at The State. The time for rancor should be over. There is a lot of work to be done, and it should be done by South Carolinians and Americans working together. There are some real misconceptions about creating new programs with this money; very little of that will happen. Sanford wants to starve the public education system in the name of reform. This money will not erase the shortfalls, but will make the cuts less severe. It will also diminish the negative impact on the economies in many small communities in which school employees are a large factor.
Harry Harris says: “The tone in this blog is refreshing in comparison to the name-calling and gloating going on over at The State. ” and follows that up with: “Sanford wants to starve the public education system in the name of reform.” Physician, heal thyself.
Harry – we just learned that Mark Sanford had ZERO control over anything that goes on in this state. The court affirmed it. He can’t “starve” anything. All he can do is express an opinion – the opinion that our public education system is terrible and cannot (and has not) be fixed simply by throwing more and more money at it. The evidence supporting Sanford’s opinion is there. If you think he’s starving the public education system, please provide factual data showing where that has happened and what the result has been. It’s the educrats wasting public dollars on overhead who are starving the public education system
j-f-x, fake prole
he’s living large on the dole
socialist a-hole
I’m sure haiku is cool… to the people who spent their life wrapped around Dungeons and Dragons back in the 1980’s and can speak Klingon fluently.
jfx – Sorry, I don’t drink Miller High Life and I am not a member of the Libertarian party.
Brad – Switch to PBR if you like, if you can break away from the Capitol City Club wine and cheese crowd and drink the 2nd favorite beer of the average SC redneck. That would be 2nd to Natural Light, PBR is drunk only on special occasions… like with Christmas dinner or in the delivery room.
Forgot, Brad… what chicks are you talking about? The journalist groupies that used to hang out by the back door at The State waiting for the editors to appear? I hear the one with teeth was actually pretty cute except for the fact that she dipped Skoal (upper and lower lip).
Congrats, Bill! You did it! You wrote an actual haiku! Even under an alias, your snarky wit shines through. That last line (“socialist a-hole”) was particularly clever.
Welcome to the club, boss!
Well, now that the politicians in the legislature and the Dept of Education got all the extra money they wanted, I expect them so solve every problem in the state by year’s end.
No excuses will be accepted from educrats for any more failures.
And the unemployment rate will surely fall to normal levels within months.
All the roads will be paved, all the schools fixed, new busses bought, etc ad finitum.
USC and Clemson will be able to reduce their tuitions and fees.
Sales taxes and income taxes can be reduced.
This was a win-win. SC gets their money and Sanford jacks up his bonafides with conservatives. Pawlenty will look like a liberal when he runs against the Palin, Sanford, Jindal field. Of course, when the recession ends later this year, as most economists are predicting, and with the Hispanics completely alienated by the GOP Obama will coast in ’12.
How is the recession going to end?
Will the government hire all the unemployed they put out of work since August 2008?
Right now, most of this Stimulus Pork Money will not even be allocated to projects by the end of 2009, so any recovery will have to come from the private sector overcoming the socialist sabotage of the economy.
The bohemian chicks, Bill.
And I can’t abide light beer. If I can’t have a Bud, I’ll go with something heavier, like a stout…
Randy,
Can you please tell us the metric you will use to determine if the recession is over later this year?
A blip is not a trend.
Let’s be clear. This is the Obama economy in the U.S. and the Harrell/Leatherman/Toal economy in South Carolina. We are following their rules against the warnings from conservatives. If things get worse rather than better in the next two years, please don’t come back trying to pin it on anyone but Obama, Harrell, Toal, and Leatherman – the four horsemen of the Apocalypse.
I hope they are right. I don’t think they are. In fact, I think thing will get worse over the next two years.
And in response to Randy — yep, this was a very good year for Sanford. He took his stand, but the state got the money, so there are no consequences for voters to blame him for later.
And he kept the XGR tied up with this, so they got nothing done this year. Legislative paralysis is catnip to our gov.
Bobby Harell: “Wah! I couldn’t get ANYTHING done this year because Mean Old Mark Sanford held up 1.6% of the budget and forced me to come up with a phony scare tactic campaign to make sure all the dollars keep flowing. If not for him, I could have got something done on transparency, taxes, immigration, abortion, education. It’s all his fault! I mean just because he has no control over how we spend the money doesn’t make him any less responsible. Do you realize how hard it was to come up with a phony budget that put all the education dollars from the stimulus funds into one bucket so it would look like teachers would get laid off? Oh, and I also had to throw $4 million into the SC Supreme Court pot to make sure “justice” was served.”
Jim Rex: “If it weren’t for Mark Sanford saying the word voucher every month or so, I could focus on improving education in South Carolina. I mean, I’ve only had two years to make any sort of difference but I have to spend 40 hours a week dealing with the vouchers. What vouchers, you say? The ones that Mark Sanford has no power to implement. The ones that don’t exist.” (here’s a link to Jim Rex starting his transition into a candidate for governor where he calls public schools “dropout factories” courtesy of The Voice: http://thevoiceforschoolchoice.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/jim-rex-admits-some-schools-are-dropout-factories/
Brad: “Whatever it takes to make sure USC gets a nice little bump in funding on the backs of taxpayers is okay with me.. nudge nudge. Sure, they’ll probably raise tuition 7-8% again when the economy is tanking but we’re all in this together.”
Doug Ross: “Why does the legislature keep acting like a legislature?! Argh, it makes me so mad when legislators are biased toward their constituents! Argh! Why don’t they let our pure and incorruptible governor, whose motivations are completely transparent and untainted by professional ambition, execute his generous vision of reform based on rote ideology? Argh! Stupid government!”
Jfx,
“Biased toward their constituents”? Thanks for the biggest laugh of the day!
The next time any of our Legislative leaders does something for the sake of his constituents it will be the first time.
Keep drinking the Koolaid.
Doug,
You just make the mistake of thinking of constituents as the voters, the working people, taxpayers, business owners.
The legislature thinks of their constituents as teacher unions, lobbyists, Politic Action Committees, big business needing tax exemptions, Chambers of Commerce, and Congressmen who can bail them out with federal funds in return for votes.
And jfx, which of these statements do you deny?
1. The amount of money being argued over in the state court was 1.6% of the total budget.
2. The legislature created a budget that purposefully stacked stimulus money into a single section to force Sanford to veto the whole thing.
3. There was an increase in funding to the SC Supreme Court budget in the amount of $4M dollars thus creating a significant incentive for the court to rule against Sanford
4. There are no vouchers being used anywhere in public education in South Carolina
Sanford’s ideology is perfectly fine with me. He’s thinking about the future of the state instead of trying to build a kingdom in the legislature. Remember, all the leaders of the Legislature were there before Sanford and will be there after Sanford. So when the economy and education has tanked, how then does that become a Sanford issue? Shouldn’t all these guys who are “baised toward their constituents” take responsibility for what they have done?
Who said this today?
““While I have great respect for the Court, I am very concerned this decision has caused great damage to separation of powers within our state government. Separation of powers is a concept that has served our state and nation well.
“While I disagreed with the Governor’s decision to not apply for the stimulus funds, I believe it was his decision to make under the federal statute.
“With today’s ruling it appears our courts have substituted the General Assembly’s discretion for that of the Governor. One could easily see it, in a legal sense, as an assault on the highest office in our state. This decision will erode the power of the governor to make discretionary decisions conferred upon him by the federal government.”
Hmmm… Lindsey Graham. Will Brad call Lindsey out on this one or will he give him the same pass he gave Harrell?
Liberals constantly claim that “Hispanics will be alienated” by an expectations that Latinos are qualified for government appointments, by any attempts to enforce immigration laws, or by jailing Latinos who commit robbery, rape and murder.
Why do liberals have such low opinions of “Hispanics”?
Why are white liberals so quick to make racist stereotypes?
Doug, metrics for the end of the recession? Ask the “90% of the economists who predict the recession will end this year.” They know more about this than you or I. Here’s a link as Fox Noise reported.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522168,00.html
The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse in terms of this financial crisis were Cheney’s war of choice, W’s tax cuts for the rich, Gramm’s deregulation, and the GOP getting drunk off the spoils of govermental control (just as the dems did before them).
The Governor has blown a great opportunity to reform our state by alienating the legislature repeatedly over the last six years. There are many incremental reforms that probably could have passed (like changing the Employment Security Commission) but will never pass with his support. A good governor who wanted reform would play politics, cut deals, and stop making enemies among those he needs to make a deal. The Governor has the bully pulpit. However, it does him no good since it is usually “his way or the highway”.
The “90% of economists who predict an end to recession this year” didn’t give any criteria, or reasons for why they believe such a thing. They merely answered a poll.
When the same group of economists rejected the idea that we were facing a recession in 2007, they were not counting on the huge deficits and mortgage scandals of the Democrats.
Mr. Anderson –
Exactly how would YOU, as governor, worked with this corrupt legislature to achieve reforms?
Randy,
Did those same economists predict the start of the Recession? A year in advance?
And if the recession ends but is followed by a couple years of double digit inflation will you be happy? The conventional wisdom is that serious inflation issues will occur as a result of the “spend now, pay later” Obama plan.
I recommend a book called “The Black Swan”. It will teach you that there are too many variables to accurately predict anything related to the economy. The economy is not a function, it is a series of an infinite number of random transactions.
And if economists were actually good at what they do, why aren’t they rich? They should know when to buy/sell/short the market with staggering success. They’re about as useful as the tout sheet at the dog track.
We invaded Iraq after cleaning out the 9/11 attacker bases in Afghanistan, in order to destroy the hijacker training bases in Iraq.
The Bush tax cuts of 2001 were for EVERY taxpayer, equally, across the board. They immediately ended the Clinton Recession of 2000, brought on by tax increases.
The mortgage crisis was brought on by Clinton and the Democrats running FNMA and FMAC in a fraudulent manner, to make bad loans to unqualified blacks and illegal aliens. Clinton and Robert Rubin pushed through the merger of commercial banking, investment banking, and insurance. Lots of Clinton cronies and Obama advisors make hundreds of millions of dollars in jobs where they oversaw fraud.
Yes, the GOP got drunk spending borrowed money – half as much as the Democrats wanted to borrow in 2001-2006.
Then the Democrats got control and the deficits are 4 TIMES that of the previous highest deficit.
The conventional wisdom is that serious inflation issues will occur as a result of the “spend now, pay later” Obama plan.
-Doug Ross
What conventional wisdom? Frankly that is a concern that has no merit during the current crisis. With unemployment at 9.4% and the CPI running negative we can safely write off inflation as a problem. After the stimulus does it’s magic and creates the prosperity that typically comes with Democratic administrations then we will need to concern ourselves with inflation. At that time we should cut spending on military crap and raise taxes as Obama specified during the campaign, on the wealthy and the inflation concerns will largely go away. But even if we are still running deficits additional spending cuts may be needed. But definitely not now. Unemployment is at a 26 year high and inflation just is not in the cards.
Brad, this whole calamity with the governor over the stimulus money illustrates how foolish it is to focus on one issue while ignoring the entire body of work when making an endorsement. As you noted the editorial staff of the State endorsed Sanford in 92 based almost entirely on the myopic worshipping of the restructuring god. How has that worked out? Sanford was a creepy GOP hack in the congress with a voting record that cried out for rejection by the voters. Yet here he is the man you once endorsed.
Sanford is perhaps the worst governor in the history of the country with his religious adherence to the failed dogma of the far right wing of the GOP. How sad that a single issue, and a bad one at that, could sway the editorial board in such a profound and destructive way.
That should of course be 2002 not 92. Just doesn’t register in this old brain that it’s now 2009! Where has the time gone.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke expressed more concern about rising … “He came right out and said we’re worried about inflation,” said Arthur …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/05/AR2006060500613.htm
Treasury unable to sell bonds to finance spending.
Dollar discounted 20% since Jan 20, 2009.
$2.0 Trillion in welfare spending planned this year
$1.8 Trillion borrowed so far in 2009
Jimmy Carter gave us this kind of unemployment, low growth and 21% inflation.
I’m glad we got the money.
I’m sad we got the bad precedent.
The governor has blown any chance of balancing the powers for the near future.
I doubt anyone’s mind is changed by anything that has been or will be said here or elsewhere on this topic.
This makes me sad.
Mrs. Fenner,
You didn’t bring any new facts to change anyone’s minds.
Taxpayers, who overwhelmingly opposed this Democrat Pork Spending Act and the nationalization of banking, housing, GM and Chrysler, sided with the Governor.
Gross Irresponsibility and Corruption won.
You like that. Brad likes that.
This governor has restored a sense of responsibility to the office that has been eroded by hacks like Dick Riley and Jim Hodges.
Bud, in fairness to the editorial board back in 2002…
1. Hodges made a lot of mistakes
2. Sanford’s mask hadn’t slipped yet
Hindsight’s 20/20. Now we know our governor is a deep-pocketed Club For Growth libertarian, suckling like a tick on the marbled belly fat of the Republican party’s national infrastructure. This is the fascinating thing about these more clever “stealth libertarians” with higher aspirations. They know it’s the political kiss of death to be an overt libertarian, so instead they hide out in the GOP as innocuous “conservatives” for a while, work their way deep into the fiber, and boom, you’ve got a full blown ideological infection. As we see, a Sanfordian parasite is tough to shake. Your whole system shuts down.
Remember how Dick Riley and Carroll Campbell could actually communicate, and get along with people? Yeah. Good times.
Just like old times. No matter what the subject matter, no matter what the thread, Lee and Doug will grab it and launch into a rant. In Yogi Berra’s deathless words, “It’s deja vu all over again.”
When Brad starts the topic, it is usually about some corrupt politicians and government waste he likes.
Citizens rant.
The looter mob cheers.
I’m glad we got the money.
I’m sad we got the bad precedent.
The governor has blown any chance of balancing the powers for the near future.
I doubt anyone’s mind is changed by anything that has been or will be said here or elsewhere on this topic.
This makes me sad.
Kathryn-
While you and I disagree on the money everything else you say is spot on. This has become one of those divisive issues without a middle ground. It became more about the personalities than the process and I think that was a mistake. I am saddened by the entire experience.
Oh, I do disagree with you as to who was responsible for blowing the chance for balance of powers but agree that the chance was, tragically, blown. Harpootlian’s opening, reveling in the fact that we are a legislative state, demonstrated that.
jfx, you’re absolutely right. The endorsement had a LOT to do with Jim Hodges, and Sanford succeeded at positioning himself as a good alternative — who was for restructuring.
We were very critical of Jim — as critical as we’ve been of Sanford. And the thing is HE was a guy we’d always liked before he ran for governor, and for better reasons than those we used to endorse Sanford. Hodges was a very good, sensible House member, and did some good for SC.
Everyone knew what kind of person Hodges was before he was elected Governor. His stabbing the video poker industry in the back after they financed him, and then cutting a deal with the lottery industry was no surprise. Now he is a lobbyist for the lottery industry.
Dick Riley talked a good game, but accomplished nothing.
As a lobbyist, he convinced unsophisticated black county councils to cut deals to open landfills for Yankee garbage.
As Secretary of Education, Riley did nothing after the GSA found employees stole over $180,000,000 through misuse of federal credit cards for person enrichment.
Sanford is a breath of fresh air.
@steve gordy,
I’m sorry you are bothered to have to read facts versus lame attacks on the Governor. It’s funny how nobody can ever refute the basic facts and instead focus on “feel good” namby-pamby stuff. Somebody has to do the thinking around Columbia.
Brad/JFX, you are just plain wrong. Sanford had a long history in the United States Congress before running for governor. His tenure there showed him to be the ultra right-wing shill that he ultimately brought to bear as governor. Just because Hodges was a terrible governor doesn’t mean you have to endorse another terrible person for that office. Many papers don’t endorse a candidate if someone suitable isn’t available. Fact is The State has a pretty amazing history of endorsing folks who turn out to be really terrible: George W. Bush – twice! Mark Sanford; Sarah Palin. For Brad to get all high and mighty about folks who don’t want to wait in line 5 ours to vote then to turn around and make such awful choices himself smacks of an arrogance unbecoming of a professional journalist. He who lives in glass houses should never throw stones.
I’m not impressed by “lame attacks on the governor.” Doug, are you one of those people who believes that when there are basic disagreements on issues, the effective thing to do is to whine constantly that you have no influence? Power is conferred by law; influence comes from respect.
Steve,
These aren’t “basic disagreements” – they are fundamental questions about how this state (if ever) will turn around it’s economy and public education system.
People went ballistic over Sanford saying that the stimulus money (which represents 1.6% of the total budget) should have been used to pay down debt. They turned that 1.6% somehow into creating the impression that the schools would be overcrowded and prisoners would be set free to run rampant in the streets. If you truly believe that this state’s budget doesn’t have 1.6% in other areas besides education and prisons where money can be cut, then what else can I say?
I try to stick solely to facts and logic. Lee does as well (better with both but with less tact).
If influence comes from respect, then respect should come from ethical and intelligence. In my opinion, Sanford has both. Has anyone questioned his ethics? Has anyone refuted the basic facts he has tried to present in defending his position on paying off debt?
The frustrating part of these discussions is that those in the anti-Sanford camp won’t even address the factual evidence staring them in the face.
Fact 1: Sanford would have taken the money if it was used to pay down debt which in turn FREES UP money to spend on other things.
Fact 2: The legislature purposefully came up with a budget that shifted funds from the stimulus money into areas where it would do the most good from a political perspective. Sanford sent a budget that was ignored that kept education funding consistent with prior years.
Fact 3: IT WAS 1.6 FREAKING PERCENT OF THE TOTAL BUDGET!!!! How could that cause the problems the legislative leadership claimed while still finding money to pay for state run golf courses, Okra Struts, numerous boards, commissions, and a new police force for the State House, etc.???
The only good thing that came out of this lawsuit is that it puts the future of the state squarely in the lap of Mr. Harrell and Mr. Leatherman. Governor Sanford bears no responsibility — the Supreme Court has affirmed it with its decision.
The average pay raise for school teachers in SC was 10.7% last year, so that may explain why they have a “shortfall” this year, preventing any big raises.
Non-teaching educrats seem to keep on getting raises.
ok,ok,but