Category Archives: Mark Sanford

Alternative reality

You know, setting the record straight on the bizarre things Mark Sanford says could be a full-time job. If only I could figure a way to get paid for it.

Basically, to continue to hold the positions the governor does, you have to cling to an alternative version of reality. Take some of the things he has said over the last day or so:

He told Sean Hannity that in joining these tax protests today, he is speaking for a “silent majority.” He should leave the Nixonian expressions alone. Does anyone on the planet Earth think that the anti-gummint types have been “silent” about their resentment toward paying their taxes? Ever? Certainly not in this state. They whine constantly, and the Legislature grovels at their feet and gives them whatever they whine loudest about at a given moment, which is a big reason why our tax structure is such an irrational, patchy mess. They are the reason why lawmakers hardly ever let a session go by without a major tax cut, but have only raised a general tax once since 1987 — and that was the sales tax increase that was passed to offset the virtual elimination of school taxes on owner-occupied homes (perhaps the whiniest of all tax whiner groups). Whether they are the majority remains to be seen. But they have never, ever been silent for even a moment. And they are always heard.

Then, he put out this statement:

“Today it’s worth noting the fact that we are at a truly frightening tipping point with regard to federal spending, and the consequences it will have for every current -and especially future – taxpayer here in South Carolina. This year, government spending will account for more than a quarter of the entire economy, a level not seen since our country was fighting for its survival against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Federal debt is nearly the size of our yearly economy, and is about four times the size of the economy when you add in other government promises like Social Security and Medicare.

“That’s why this stimulus debate we’re having in South Carolina is so important. Though today’s taxpayers are the ones who benefit from the so-called ‘stimulus,’ they’re not the ones paying for it – it will be their children, their grandchildren, and likely their great-grandchildren. We continue to believe that in the midst of this spending, it’s important to leave a dividend for those future taxpayers in the form of debt repayment.”

Ahem. We are not having a “debate” on the stimulus. The debate occurred in Washington. Sanford’s point of view lost the debate. South Carolinians WILL be paying for the stimulus, which WILL be paid out to the states. If South Carolina is insane enough (and we never do quite give up trying to prove wrong the axiom that we are too large to be an insane asylum) not to
take its share of the funds, that amount will be paid to other states and territories.

There’s no debate. There can’t be a debate, because the governor does not have a position that can be rationally argued — except, of course, by pretending that the facts are other than what they are. Which is what he continues to insist on doing.

Joe Darby’s revelation

Joe Darby’s quicker than I am, I learned from his op-ed piece today:

South Carolinians of every cultural and political mindset have asked why the governor has drawn a firm and ludicrous line in the sand on the use of stimulus funds for education; they have wondered whether he’s cold and insensitive, out of touch with the common people or laying the groundwork for future political aspirations. I had the chance to talk with the governor prior to his first-term election and early in his first term, and I think the real reason for his stance is that our governor really isn’t a Republican — he’s a libertarian.

I probably had a lot more exposure to Mark Sanford than the Rev. Darby did, during the 2002 campaign and in the early days of his administration, and it took me several months to fully realize what Joe picked up on from fewer clues, if he realized it way back then.

Sure, his idea for cutting back income taxes was out there during the campaign, as was his tuition tax credit proposal. But they didn’t seem that central at the time — the tax credit idea was presented as a sort of boutique, experimental, peripheral thing, not his entire education strategy, which is what it turned out to be. And lots of “conservative Republicans” have some economic libertarian ideas mixed in with their other positions.

But it took a lot of exposure on my part to realize how very different this guy was from that herd. I had picked up on the way he stood aloof from other Republicans, but that had seemed almost a virtue, hating parties the way I do.

Then, one day, in a private conversation in his office, it hit me fully just how outside the box he was, and I blurted out: “You ran as a ‘conservative Republican,’ but you’re not that at all! You’re a libertarian!” He allowed as how perhaps I had a point.

Yeah, I know — that sounds amazingly stupid on my part, mainly because everybody knows now that that’s what Mark Sanford is. But the realization had to do with the utter purity of the difference. What I had realized, and what I was saying, was that he was utterly unlike any other Republican, and certainly any “conservative,”  I had ever met. And suddenly I was realizing how many GOOD points normal Republicans had, points which he lacked. Normal Republicans wanted efficient, streamlined government, and felt a responsibility to make it run on time and on budget. This guy simply didn’t believe in government, on a very deep, fundamental level. Lots of “conservatives” grumble and even rant about government. None dismiss it as fully as he does.

There was, essentially, nothing conservative about him. He was a classical liberal, through and through, and his ideology was utterly unmodified by experiences in the real world. Most people, as they live and work and interact with the world, modify such extreme views, seeing how they don’t always work. Not this guy. Most people try to get things done, and to get things done you have to face reality. He had never cared about getting things done. He hadn’t in Congress. He was perfectly satisfied to cling to hermetically sealed ideals, unsullied by experience.

And yes, there was a time when that was a revelation to me.

Cindi sets the governor’s numbers straight

I highly recommend Cindi’s column in The State today, which debunks the numbers the governor uses in arguing his quirky view of the stimulus, and does so in highly understandable (even for me) terms. A sample:

The governor’s other numbers aren’t quite as obviously skewed, which is why we need to take a closer look at them. Since Mr. Sanford consolidated most of his claims in a recent op-ed column, let’s just work from that:

• “Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion.”

The budget passed by the House, which includes all $928 million in stimulus funds, was $21.2 billion, but because of another across-the-board cut last month, it will have to be cut to $21.1 billion. If you left out the $350 million Mr. Sanford wants left out, you’d be down to $20.7 billion. That’s about $800 million more than the current budget of $19.9 billion, which has been cut many times, but it’s less than the $20.9 budget the Legislature passed last spring.

On top of that, more than a third of the money is federal funds, which agencies don’t have the discretion to divert the way they can state funds. And of course our population is increasing, which increases the demand for government services.

• “Even education spending will go from $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion.”

After I raised questions about the first figure, Mr. Sanford’s office sent out a note Tuesday saying it got bad figures from the State Budget Office and it should have said education spending will go from $3.43 billion to $3.55 billion. But even the “correct” numbers demand explanation. The budget passed by the House includes $3.8 billion in state and federal funding for the state Education Department; eliminate stimulus funds, and it drops to $3.55 billion. Last month’s budget cuts would reduce that figure to $3.5 billion. So, the increase would be $70 million, not $200 million.

Still, that is an increase. Sort of. Here’s where context is crucial: The budget the Legislature passed last spring promised $3.8 billion to the schools, so they started this school year thinking they had $3.8 billion to spend; they paid the raises the Legislature mandated, and kept their staff at the levels that would support. Then the state budget cuts started. Since schools were barred by law from laying off teachers or cutting their pay, they had to dip into their reserve funds. That means they will actually spend significantly more than $3.5 billion this year.

So getting $3.5 billion next year would be a reduction, and reductions mean layoffs. (At an average $61,000 in salary and benefits, a $100 million cut takes out more than 1,600 teachers.)…

But you should go read the whole thing. It’s all valuable.

There’s no journalist in South Carolina who understands, or explains, state fiscal matters better than Cindi. I’ve relied heavily on her ability to explain these things — to me, and to the readers — for over 20 years.

Why do Democrats resent Barrett helping on the stimulus?

The thing I noted in my previous post has gone a step further:

Columbia, SC– South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler issued the following statement today in response to Congressman Gresham Barrett’s meeting with Columbia City Council regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Earlier this year, Barrett spoke out against the federal stimulus bill, and he joined the state’s other Republican members of Congress in voting against it, but today he said he supports stimulus funds for local governments.

“Gresham Barrett is showing himself to be hypocritical in his early campaigning for governor. He was vocal about his opposition to the stimulus, but now that this view has proven to be unpopular in our state he’s modified his stance.  That’s not going to work with voters in 2010.  The only thing we need to know from Mr. Barrett is whether or not he supports Gov. Sanford’s rejection of $700 million in stimulus funds primarily dedicated to public education. Decisions need to be made quickly to avert thousands of teacher layoffs and other deep cuts in our schools. South Carolinians don’t want or need another Republican governor who’s willing to play politics with the lives of real people.”

Maybe some of y’all could explain this to me: Why would Democrats resent Gresham Barrett, who had opposed the stimulus, now helping local governments get their share? Don’t they want him to do that? Or is criticizing a member of the other party SO important to partisans that they have to criticize the guy as “hypocritical” when he tries to do the right thing? In other words, is hitting the other side more important than S.C. communities getting the benefit of the stimulus.

It’s not even inconsistent. As rational people keep pointing out, the stimulus debate is over. Now it’s time to make sure that South Carolina gets its share of something that South Carolinians will have to pay for whether we get the benefit or not. This is obvious to rational people, whatever party label they wear — unless they are one of the dwindling band of Sanfordistas.

Those of you who have trouble understanding me when I talk about how parties foment conflict purely for the sake of conflict, see if you can understand me now. This is what I’ve been on about. Yeah, I agree that we don’t need another governor, of any party, “who’s willing to play politics with the lives of real people.” But isn’t that what you’re doing when you place criticizing the opposition ahead of making sure everybody’s on board in getting the stimulus funds to real people in SC?

Meanwhile, over in the real world…

Laurin raises a question over at Indigo Journal (and by the way, it was nice seeing Laurin, if only for a split-second, at the rally last week): She wonders why Columbia City Council would be meeting to be talking stimulus with Gresham Barrett, an opponent of the stimulus who has no obvious political connection to the Midlands other than running for governor.

Well, I don’t know exactly. But it didn’t strike me as all that odd. After all, Mayor Bob mentioned to me several weeks ago, about the time I was doing this column, that Jim DeMint’s office was being helpful to the city in its effort to get in line for stimulus funds. And there’s nothing strange about that.

Here’s the thing that I have to keep reminding folks on both the right and the left about: The stimulus passed. It’s now time for those who are elected to represent the people to make sure their constituents (and, in Barrett’s case, those he would LIKE to be his constituents) get their share of it. After all, we will all be paying for it (as will our children).

This is the thing that Mark Sanford’s dwindling cadre of supporters still fail to grasp: This isn’t a left-vs.-right or Democrat-vs.-Republican thing now. Every public servant who takes his responsibilities seriously, who believes in doing the job, will usually make SOME effort to make sure the people they work for don’t get shortchanged. Rhetoric’s one thing; doing the job is another.

Mark Sanford is the only significant officeholder I know for whom ideology and rhetoric are the only reality. Now watch — Doug and others will say that’s him being consistent and principled! But they’re not following me. Sanford never notices when his ideology is at odds with reality. He doesn’t care.

For instance, just to mention something routine that illustrates my point, take the hydrogen conference last week. Any other governor in the country would have been proud to have that going on a couple of blocks from his office, and would have broken through barricades to make SOME sort of appearance at it. I’m talking about basic courtesy here, not political opportunism. Something like that comes to your state, to your capital, and you acknowledge it. You encourage it. You care about it. Our governor doesn’t give a damn about it, so he ignored it. What he cares about is taking ideological stands that get him into the national news.

Any other governor, one who was serious about the responsibility of the job, would make it clear that he had problems with the stimulus, if that’s his point of view. But once the debate was over (and at most, the viewpoint of a governor on such a congressional matter is peripheral), he would go ahead and facilitate the flow of the funds, to keep his state from losing out on a benefit that it was going to pay for.

That’s at the least, the very least. What Mark Sanford is doing, acting deliberately as an obstacle, is so far beyond the pale of what any public servant who believed in serving would do that it is inexcusable. And this governor is the ONLY officeholder I have ever run into who would do anything like this.

We are not amused

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.

Welcome to ‘Sanfordville’

Have you reserved your space at the “Sanfordville” tent city set to go up tomorrow at Finlay Park? Here’s where to sign up, and here’s the release I got about it today:

South Carolinians to protest Sanford’s refusal to use stimulus money for education and law enforcement with “tent city” near Governor’s Mansion

On Tuesday, April 7, concerned citizens from all over South Carolina will erect a “tent city” in Finlay Park (Taylor and Gadsden Street) near the Governor’s Mansion in Columbia. The “tent city protest” will run from 10:00 AM until midnight. The symbolic protest is in response to Governor Mark Sanford’s continued refusal to accept $700 million in federal stimulus money meant for public education and law enforcement. State leaders from both political parties predict that Sanford’s actions could lead to the firing of thousands of teachers and hundreds of prison guards.

South Carolina’s unemployment rate is currently the second highest in the nation and education and law enforcement budgets have already endured deep cuts.  Sanford has consistently ignored pleas from teachers, parents and law enforcement officials to use this funding to prevent disastrous consequences.

Special guests will visit the “tent city” throughout the day. A list of guests will be distributed by tomorrow morning.  Contact Brady Quirk-Garvan for more information at 843-743-5453 or Sanfordville@gmail.com

——————–

###

Yes, you’ve seen this before.

Doug Jennings and the teachers


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?

Way to go, Reggie

Sorry I haven’t posted this earlier; I haven’t been at a computer all day — and I need to run now, too. But I couldn’t let the day go by without thanking Reggie Lloyd for being a voice of sanity on the stimulus issue:

State Law Enforcement Division director Reggie Lloyd on Thursday openly disagreed with his boss — Gov. Mark Sanford — over Sanford’s plan to use federal stimulus money.

Not spending the $700 million as intended by the White House would have “devastating” consequences for state and local law enforcement agencies in South Carolina, the state’s top cop said.

An agitated Lloyd, 42, told The State newspaper in an interview before an afternoon news conference he “didn’t care” if his views get him in trouble with Sanford, who nominated him in January 2008 to lead the state’s premier investigative agency.

“I’ve thought long and hard about it; it’s not personal,” said Lloyd, a former state circuit judge and U.S. attorney for South Carolina. “My professional career has been devoted to … public safety, and I’m not going to sacrifice that for anybody. This means more to me than this job does.”

Mind you, this was Sanford’s “new broom” who went to SLED to run the agency the governor’s way. But obviously he cares more about doing the job and serving the people of South Carolina than about any sense of duty to follow the governor as he tries to lead our state over a cliff.

McMaster confirms the worst

… or, at least, does so to the extent that a mere Attorney General’s opinion can do. Basically, Henry says the Clyburn amendment can’t bypass Gov. Sanford, on account of the 10th amendment.

There also seems to be some separation of powers stuff going on. Here’s a copy of Henry’s letter, which says “the General Assembly itself may not coerce the executive branch to act in accordance with the legislative will.

James Clyburn, meanwhile, is ticked:

ECONOMIC RECOVERY DEBATE: CLYBURN STATEMENT ON McMASTER OPINION
WASHINGTON, DC—House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn today responded to an opinion released by South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster about the interpretation of the so-called “Clyburn workaround amendment,” Section 1607 in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Today the State of South Carolina added another chapter in its ongoing effort to maintain a standard of minimally adequate education.  For over 100 years, the last 20 in state courts, leaders in our state have fought to uphold that standard.  Over the last several weeks and without even going to court—the proper venue to determine constitutionality of federal laws—Attorney General McMaster, Governor Sanford and Senator Graham have gone out of their way to ensure that South Carolina continues its long history of providing a minimally adequate education.

“Rather than renewing the age old debate over States’ Rights and the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution our leadership should be seeking common ground to provide our schools the funds they need to retain teachers and maintain healthy, safe buildings in which our students can learn.

“What makes ‘state stabilization’ funding different from the funding Governor Sanford has authorized to rebuild highways or increase unemployment checks?  Why aren’t Attorney General McMaster and Senator Graham calling on Governor Sanford to use the very same pen to accept the state stabilization money—which our taxpayers are providing—to retain teachers and give our state’s schools the opportunity to move beyond their minimally adequate legacy?”

-30-

If you ask me, there’s a lot more going on here than some sort of Democrat-vs.-Republican tug of wills over “minimally adequate” schools. But then, Rep. Clyburn didn’t ask me.

Neither, obviously, did the governor. So what do we do now? I don’t know. Maybe y’all have some ideas.

Drowning time for state government

Maybe y’all can explain this to me, since I have no morning editorial board meeting at which I would ask Cindi and Warren to answer this question: “In what sense is this alleged ‘deal’ Mark Sanford is offering on the stimulus a compromise?”

Let’s see — he doesn’t want the $700 million spent to “grow government,” which is the phrase used on his home planet for what English speakers call “restoring some of the cuts to essential services.” He wants to devote the money instead to “paying down debt,” which means many things in Sanfordese, including paying “debt” that won’t even be incurred for a generation — anything, absolutely anything, other than spending the money on immediate needs.

And the Obama administration said no, then when he absurdly asked the same question again (the governor is not bothered by repeating himself; he doesn’t get bored), it said hell no with added language to the effect of, “what part of ‘stimulus’ don’t you understand?”

So now he’s offering a “deal” whereby the Legislature spends that money, but sets aside an equal amount from other sources — which means money that we taxpayers paid for state services we expect — to “pay down debt.” So he gets, let’s see, everything that he wants, and the state doesn’t get anything it needs from that part of the stimulus.

Oh, and by they way, you have to go ahead and make every cut in spending that HE wants, and you can take your deliberative process and stuff it down the oubliette.

That’s my understanding, anyway.

By the way, for those of you who don’t understand the governor’s thinking on all this, let me explain it to you. You’ve no doubt heard that the governor’s ideological ally Grover Norquist wants to shrink government “to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” (Oh, and if you follow that link and think, “Mother Jones! What do expect from a left-wing rag?”, allow me to explain that when Grover came to visit with our editorial board a few years back, he brought at copy of that article with him to make sure we’d seen it. He’s proud of what they wrote about him.)

The recent drastic cuts to state agencies are just catnip to the governor and Grover and their ilk. Once you get government down to where services suffer, they can point to it and say, “See how ineffective government is! What did I tell you?” That gives support to their argument that we “waste” even less money on gummint, thereby making it even less effective… and pretty soon, it’s drowning time.

Our governor isn’t about to let some meddling Obama administration drain the tub right when state government is going down for the third time. This is the moment he’s been waiting for.

How much is this foolishness costing us?

Just a quick reaction to this message received this afternoon:

Members of the Press – we just had a very important Senate Finance Committee meeting regarding the state budget and the federal stimulus money.

In an initial Finance Committee budget meeting today Chairman Hugh Leatherman instructed subcommittee chairmen to work into the night creating a budget without federal stimulus funds. He has instructed the chairmen to cut $370 from the House budget, including $161 Million from K-12 education and $44 Million from higher education.

The Finance Committee will reconvene tomorrow at 9:00 am to review the proposed cuts in Gressette Rm 105.

Please email me with any questions.

– Wesley Donehue
SC Senate Republican Caucus

I wonder how much this insanity of Sanford forcing the Legislature to do TWO budgets is costing us, in staff time and such? Drafting the budget each year is the biggest, hairiest lifting the General Assembly does. And they’re having to do it TWICE, because of the bizarre whims of one man?

Higher education funding in S.C., by the numbers

xxx
By BRAD WARTHEN
brad@bradwarthen.com


For once, let’s start off with some numbers and dates:

· 17 percent – the amount of the University of South Carolina’s funding that now comes from state appropriations. Our state’s major research universities now get less than a fifth of their funding from state appropriations. In recent years, those in the know have stopped calling them “state institutions” and started calling them “state-assisted.” We’ve now reached the point at which even that seems like an overstatement.

· 1st – South Carolina’s ranking in percentage of higher education funding cut last year. South Carolina, before the December and March reductions, had cut 17.7 percent from higher education budgets. (After those cuts, it has slashed higher ed budgets 24 percent.) The second worst state was Alabama, at 10.5 percent.

· 38th – Our state’s ranking for higher ed funding before the past year’s nation-leading cuts.

· 1995 – The last year that state appropriations, as a dollar amount, equaled the current level, before adjusting for inflation.

· 1973 – The year that matches the current level of funding, once you adjust for inflation. (Think for a moment what North Carolina and Georgia have done in higher education since 1973, pulling light years ahead of South Carolina.)

· $29 million – The value of one grant (from the National Institutes of Health) brought in by a single one of the 13 endowed chair holders at the Medical University of South Carolina.

· 25 – New technology companies started by USC faculty in the years since the endowed chairs program started, which places the university 19th among public institutions in the nation in number of start-ups.

· 50,000 – S.C. jobs provided directly or indirectly by USC.

· 11 percent – South Carolina unemployment rate in February.

· 43rd – South Carolina’s national ranking for percentage of adult population with college educations.

Those are a few of the figures I picked up from the presentations that Clemson President James Barker, Medical University of South Carolina President Ray Greenberg and USC President Harris Pastides (joined by Garrison Walters, executive director of the state Commission on Higher Education) made to a joint meeting Wednesday of two Senate panels that deal with higher education funding, such as it is.

They were there to try to stop the bleeding, and to send the message that dealing a further blow to these institutions’ already last-in-the-nation funding by not accepting federal stimulus funds would be beyond insane (my wording, I hope you’ll note, not theirs).

In some cases, they had requests that bore specifically upon their respective institutions. For instance, Dr. Greenberg’s wish listed included a request that if tuition is capped, graduate and professional programs will be exempted. But in keeping with the extraordinary collaboration that has marked the interaction of the three presidents in recent years (which is no less than miraculous, given the petty, wasteful, tit-for-tat competition that characterized the decades that went before), he also cited priorities shared by all: Regulatory relief (which President Barker has explained as minimizing cost by requiring the schools to jump through two or three hoops instead of six every time they make a move); a state bond bill for capital needs; and passing the cigarette tax increase, with a major portion of the revenue going to Medicaid. OK, so maybe that last one has the most immediate effect on the medical university, but its benefits to the entire state are so obvious as to absolve it of parochialism.

And they had a sympathetic audience. “You’re number one in the country,” in budget cuts, Sen. Nikki Setzler noted. “If that isn’t a challenge to this committee to carry forward to the full General Assembly, then shame on us.”

Of course, Sen. Setzler is a Democrat, but that doesn’t count for as much of a difference in the S.C. Senate as it does in some venues. And when it comes to the federal stimulus upon which the GOP leadership is completely dependent for keeping essential state services running, there are only two sides – on one is Gov. Mark Sanford and a few allies to whom ideology is the only reality; on the other the vast majority of lawmakers.

Republicans don’t come more conventionally conservative than Senate Education Chairman John Courson, to whom Ronald Reagan was a demigod. And here’s what he had to say about the stimulus: “If we don’t accept that money, it does not go back to the Treasury; it goes to other states.” Which is just common sense, of course – nothing ideological about it. But this is a moment in South Carolina history when commonsense statements are in pathetically short supply, so every one uttered takes on added value. In an interview later, Sen. Courson explained the rationale adopted by most Republicans whose top priority is not posturing for national media: He opposed the stimulus bill when it was being debated in Washington. There’s a lot in it he doesn’t like; if he had been a member of Congress he would have voted against it. But that’s all over now. It’s a fact, and South Carolinians are going to be paying for it along with everyone else. Therefore, not taking the money makes no sense at all.

Tuition cost was on the senators’ minds, and well it should be, now that the bulk of higher education costs is on students and their families rather than state taxpayers. “I am pledging to keep any tuition increase for next year to a minimum,” said Dr. Pastides. “I’m keenly aware of the burden that a tuition increase would put on students and their families.”

But what happens with tuition depends upon the General Assembly’s actions – and the governor’s. “Will tuition and fees increase next year?” President Barker asked rhetorically. “The answer is: Almost certainly, but the level of increase is very dependent on what happens with state funding. Tuition is Clemson’s last-resort response….”

Mr. Barker pointed out that the effect of stimulus money on tuition is not direct, since he, like the other presidents, would use stimulus money for one-time, not recurring, expenses. But when asked by Sen. Harvey Peeler the expected effect upon the institutions of not accepting the stimulus money, the Clemson president said it “would be devastating.”

Other senators, seizing upon that word, asked other witnesses whether they agreed with it, prompting Dr. Pastides to oblige them by saying for the record, “It will be devastating, and it will have an effect on tuition” if the stimulus is blocked.

Normally, I’m not what you’d call a numbers guy; words are my thing. So I appreciate that the senators were groping for just the right word to describe the situation. But in this case, for once, the numbers impress me more. We are so far behind in our state. And if our governor has his way, we’ll take an additional giant leap backward.

This is my first weekly online-only column after leaving The State. Watch for more here on bradwarthen.com.

Is anyone looking into impeaching Sanford?

At the Verizon Wireless career fair.

At the Verizon Wireless career fair. (credit: caberry@thestate.com)

Just wondering. It’s not that I’m advocating it or anything. Yet.

It just occurs to me to ask whether, once lawmakers have asked him to reconsider and he’s brushed that off (as you know he will), they have a backup plan for making sure South Carolina gets the stimulus that we’re going to be paying for anyway.

The stakes are huge, and they’re way more important than Sanford or whether he continues to hold office. For years, we’ve held our breath at the notion of Andre Bauer becoming governor, but at least he would accept the funding that is essential to continuing such critical services as, say, keeping prisoners locked up or teachers in the classroom.

Did you see the piece in today’s paper about our 11 percent unemployment rate in February, and the projection that it’s going to be a long time before things get better? (By the way, I borrowed the above image from thestate.com. If that’s not OK, somebody tell me.) An excerpt:

More than 900 people showed up this week at a Verizon Wireless career fair in Forest Acres for 120 call-center jobs with $27,000-a-year starting salaries and full benefits.

Though not required, many applicants had college degrees —desperate for work in a state with an unemployment rate that rose to 11 percent in February.

South Carolina continues to have the nation’s second-highest jobless rate, as 241,000 people last month hunted for work, the S.C. Employment Security Commission reported Friday.

Yep, we have the second-highest unemployment rate, and a couldn’t-give-less-of-a-damn governor.

The problem with the Clyburn bypass on stimulus funds is that it might involve a 10th amendment violation, what with the federal government telling a state what it has to do. But the bizarre situation we find ourselves in is that we have a governor who couldn’t care less about our actual state or its needs, but whose every decision is guided by his own desire to strut upon the national stage.

So, this raises the question: Is anyone at the State House looking into what it would take for South Carolinians to seize control of their own fate, which could involve taking control back from this ideological dilettante?

I have no idea what the legal possibilities are. But surely someone does. And surely someone is considering this contingency.

Leatherman’s letter to Sanford

Folks, here’s a copy of the letter that Hugh Leatherman wrote to Sanford about the stimulus. Don’t know what to add except that his point, that South Carolinians will pay for this stimulus whether we get the money or not, is one that I heard Republican senators making yesterday at the State House.

Hardly seems worth mentioning because it’s so painfully obvious. To everyone but Sanford. Did you read the short item in the paper today about what Bobby Harrell had to say?

COLUMBIA, S.C. — House Speaker Bobby Harrell said Wednesday South Carolina lawmakers should prepare a budget without using federal stimulus cash unless Gov. Mark Sanford reverses himself and decides to seek the money.

“We’re probably not going to have that money with the governor not requesting it,” Harrell, R-Charleston, said. “It is time to write a budget that does not include that money.”

But Sanford spokesman Joel Sawyer said it is time for legislators to sit down with the governor and come up with a budget plan that uses $700 million stimulus cash the governor will control during the next two years to pay down state debt or forgoes the federal cash altogether through budget cuts. “So far, they’ve not indicated a willingness to do so.”…

That comment from Joel really gets me. He might as well say, “The governor has invited lawmakers to poke every citizen of South Carolina in the eye with a sharp stick, but so far, they’ve not indicated a willingness to do so…”

Asking Sanford to reconsider

So here is what we’re reduced to, after Senate Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman raised the alarm that the Clyburn amendment notwithstanding, the Legislature might not be able to bypass him to get the stimulus funds: Asking Mark Sanford to reconsider.

Which, I’ve got to say, is not much of a plan.

The senator said, in the story in The State this morning, that he plans to ask the governor to reconsider his quixotic stand against common sense. And at a Senate Finance subcommittee hearing that I attended this morning (to hear the three research university presidents make their budget pitches — more about that later) several other senators urged the presidents, and their trustees, and students, and the small army of alumni attending Carolina Day at the State House, to make their concerns known to “the man downstairs,” as Sen. Darrell Jackson referred to him, even though he was speaking in the Gressette Building rather than the State House proper (and maybe he was talking about some “man downstairs” in the basement of Gressette, but I doubt it).

And what do you think the chances are that the governor will be moved by any of this? Essentially, zero. You have to understand that real-world consequences mean nothing to this governor, whose only reality is his ideological constructs. Especially when the consequences are felt by people other than Mark Sanford.

Maybe you can think of an argument that will cause him to see how nuts it is to refuse money that South Carolinians will have to foot the bill for later anyway. But I’m fresh out.

Sanford presumes to speak for us

You don't want that stimulus. Really. Take my word for it. Now put it down, right this minute...

You don't want that stimulus. Really. Take my word for it. Now put it down, right this minute...

My Wall Street Journal subscription The State paid for has expired — I got the third notice recently — but the last few editions are still coming. So it is that I had the privilege of being appalled at this op-ed headline:

Why South Carolina Doesn’t Want ‘Stimulus’

So you see, it’s not just our governor who keeps embarrassing us with his antics who doesn’t want the stimulus. Seems that we don’t want it, either. Did you know you didn’t want it? Came as a big shock to me, I can tell you.

Of course, the piece was written by Mark Sanford. And you know, it raises the scary possibility that he actually and truly believes that “South Carolina,” defined by him, doesn’t want the stimulus. Which means that he is only talking to, and listening to, that slice of our state that is crazy enough to agree with him that we should not get to stimulate our economy with a stimulus that we will be paying for.

This was beyond ridiculous when it was just Mark Sanford doing his solo act, his Horatio at the bridge, his boy standing on the burning deck. Trying to include us in his bizarre behavior takes this to a whole new level of absurdity. I liked it better when he was trying to dramatize his lonely specialness. This claim that he speaks for the multitude is most unsavory.

Today’s column, other stuff on my new blog

9 Replies

FYI, today's column — the long-promised one about Gresham Barrett (a perfectly pedestrian column that didn't deserve such a buildup, but at least it technically fulfills the promise) is to be found on my new blog, bradwarthen.com.

Also, I've posted a nice (I think) note I got from the governor, which I hope you will help me decipher…