« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Sanford to accept $700,000,000.00 in Porkulus cash for SC, use it to pay down debt

By: Jeff Emanuel (Diary)  |  March 10th, 2009 at 05:56 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) sent a letter to the South Carolina General Assembly today in which he outlined his intent to request a waiver from the Obama administration that would allow him to use the $700,000,000.00 in Porkulus cash due his state “to pay down South Carolina’s sizable debt and contingent liabilities,” rather than to fund new pork-barrel, make-work projects.

Sanford has said he will refuse the portion of Porkulus funds that carry with them the requirement that the state expand unemployment benefits, but the fact that he is accepting them at all is somewhat of a surprise to me, as he had, it seemed, been hinting that he would be refusing to accept them altogether (hence the inclusion of the Clyburn Clause in the Porkulus bill, which allows state legislatures to override executives who refuse Porkulus funds). Here’s what he had to say on the topic:

Our objections to the so-called stimulus bill have been well-chronicled for the way it spends money that we don’t have and for the way that this printing of money could ultimately devalue the American dollar.

Those of us opposed to this package lost the debate on these merits, and I now think it is important we look for creative ways to apply and use these monies in accordance with the long-term interests of our state.

Color me, well, whelmed with the decision not to leave it up to the legislature, but to go ahead and apply for the federal cash with the stated intent of simply trying to direct it better than other states intend to. I’ve got an email in to a contact within the administration, and will be sure to update this when he gets back to me.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Achance

    It puts the Governor of every Red State against his/her Legislature. We can’t give them that advantage over us. Joe Blow from District Six wants to bring that money home to his district with every fiber of his being. He also wouldn’t mind running for Gov. So, the incumbent Gov is going to give Joe his issue? Don’t thing so!

    Better to take the money and not give the Ds their “divide and conquer” moment. The winning move is to accept the gambit and then do the sorts of things I advocated in my Homeland Defense diary to make the Ds pay for playing this game.

  • http://www.phxgonline.com phxg

    Besides, the number one thing to do when receiving “found” money is to pay down debt. I’m all for it.

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/group/republican587/ Elizabeth Christian

      n/t

  • candoo2

    by the State of South Carolina. I’m missing the point where this is a win for Governor Sanford. The so called money left off the table is peanuts.

    Is a win in this debate just a simple dismissal of a few bucks (considering the amount overall)?

    Governor Sanford, either say NO or stop talking. Either you agree or you don’t. Either this money in the porkulus bill is bad for Americans AND South Carolinians or it isn’t.

    Which is it?

  • panchita

    At this point we must stand on principle. How else to distinguish ourselves from the libs in 2010? For heavens sake our country is self destructing!! I 73 will only help the illegals get up north quicker to get all those green jobs.

    sanford just tossed out any hope for 2012.

    • liberalrepublican

      South Carolina has been one of the states that takes in more money from the Federal government that it gives the Federal government.

      For example, in 2005, SC received $1.35 in federal money for every dollar raised in taxes in the state.

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

      The state has been on Federal Welfare for years – every year since at least 1981.

      http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html

      • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

        on left wing sites that try to show that the “Red” states take the most money and the Blue states give the most.

        I am not sure how accurate it all is, but my counter is that most of the states that receive money have the highest percentages of minorities,

        Minorities have the most poverty, crime, illiteracy, drug addiction, and teenage mothers. So I always just ask the liberals, “Why do you hate minorities?”

        • liberalrepublican

          A fact is a fact.

          You want to take a Federal/taxation issue and turn it into a racial discussion?

          Weird.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            Its not a simple taxation issue and you know it. It is a bit of rhetoric used by the left to make a political point that people in conservative areas are really panhandlers and do not practice what they preach.

            But they purposely ignore the obvious reason behind the phenomena. In they same way they often denigrate the southern states as being behind in areas like illiteracy and leading in areas like obesity. But the same reason applies.

            You never hear a liberal saying “Wow those black people are really dragging South Carolina down” But you DO hear “All those mouth breathing hicks and fundy Christians are dragging South Carolina down.

            Oh, and BTW as for the “facts”, I haven’t looked at them closely, but I would wonder as to exactly what taxes and expenditures were counted, I never believe liberal “facts” at first glance.

          • liberalrepublican

            If I understand it…

            Your position is: that the federal government needs to spend tons of money in poor states and redistribute wealth because it helps minorities.

            While my position – the Fed government should NOT use money to exert control over states and that washington politicians can’t be trusted is the LIBERAL position.

            Got it.

            Don’t agree. But got it.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            because you are being willfully obtuse and immature.

            No where did I say I condoned this sort of spending, I simply gave a reason for it.

          • Rod_Patrick

            Fiscal conservatism is now owned by the Republican Party. And the MSM is using this now as an ammunition in presenting the Republicans as “hypocrite”. A good example is the recent news story in Yahoo News.

            http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_spending

            Nearly all earmarks serve some public purpose, even the so-called “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska. But abuses have included tying earmarks to kickbacks, including those that sent former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif., to prison in 2006.

            See how they emphasized that republicans are into earmarks and one Republican was even sent into prison because of it?

            This is why I believe that the Republican Leaders really need to explain a clearer stand on this issue.

      • Achance

        Since everyone here likes to bash Alaska on this point: leaving aside how much of what the fed spends here for its own land, its defense establishment and related activities, and on federal Indian programs, Billions of dollars are paid out in taxes on Exxon-Mobil, BP, and Conoco-Phillips’ profits from their Alaska operations but the companies are not headquartered in Alaska so the profits are shown and the federal taxes collected in Delaware or some such place that had nothing to do with making the money.

        The money in/money out comparison is inherently unfair for this reason alone. Companies are headquartered in places that either give them favorable incorporation terms, e.g., Delaware, for favorable state and local taxation, for proximity to the financial markets, or simply for status.

        • liberalrepublican

          Based on stuff you’ve said before, I looked into Alaska.

          I don’t have a problem with Alaska on that list – I understand how much tax revenue is not counted because the oil companies are not included.

          So, thank you for helping clear that up.

          Than being said, I don’t give every redstate a pass.

          From what I can tell, it has more to do with redstate politicians not living up to their principles and choosing to ship federal money to their state in exchange for better re-election chances.

          • Aaron Gardner

            The point being that the simple give v. recv ratio on federal dollars doesn’t actually tell the real story.

            Instead of realizing this and adjusting fire appropriately, you go straight to the mod playbook and blame it all on the Republicans…or Sanford more specifically….I guess once again the 11th commandment has only a selective use to you.

            In this sense moderates and liberal are the same.

          • liberalrepublican

            A core R value.

            Limiting the size of the Federal Government.

            Limiting the redistribution of wealth by the Federal Government.

            Even in Red States.

            Maybe calling it welfare was unfair, but if it walks like a duck…

          • Aaron Gardner

            Are you now going to get on all of the pro-choicer’s butts for having gone against the core principle of life as stated by the GOP?

            Even in Maine?

            Maybe calling it murder is unfair to the sensitivities of moderates, but if it walks like a duck.

            Anyhow, I will reiterate my point since you haven’t gotten it yet:

            Don’t pull out the 11th Commandment to defend the feckless attitudes of moderates while denying that same defense to those who are known as conservatives, it makes you appear to be nothing more than a hypocritical moderate who lacks all principle and should never be trusted.

            Clear?

          • liberalrepublican

            I am very confused as to the specifics of your disagreement with me as it relates to the issue of the Federal government using the redistribution of wealth to exert control over states.

            Do you just think it doesn’t happen?

            Or that its not important?

            Or if it happens in a redstate with a R Governor, it doesn’t warrant criticism?

            What specifically do you have a problem with – try not to bring up abortion or race or defense or anything else and help me understand.

          • Aaron Gardner

            The first thing I object to is your comment that started this thread. You throw out a link explaining that red states take more federal money than they pay taxes to the fed and you leave it out here with absolutely no context. The message that you send with that comment is exactly what Kyle was objecting to as well.

            Achance gave you an opportunity to adjust fire in your argument, instead you acknowledged only Alaska as having a legitimate reason, automatically assuming wrong doing on all of those other RedStates.

            As far as bringing up abortion….well I am starting to think that you brain is made of mush….I was not actually bringing up abortion, rather just using a core principle of the republican party to show your selective outrage and hypocrisy.

            More than any of this though is the fact that you are one of the first to stick up for moderates, like Gov. Schwarzenegger, running around screaming about the 11th commandment in one thread while simultaneously bashing conservatives in another thread.

            The hypocrisy is what pisses me off the most…and the fact that you can’t see that the 11th commandment does not apply to 5th columns.

            And don’t come back talking about “he who disagrees with me 20% of the time is not my enemy” crap because that argument just doesn’t hold any water with me. For 2008 the ACU ratings are in Snowe got a 12, Collins a 20, Specter a 42, that means that these people disagree with me 58% to 88% of the time. They are 5th column traitors in my book.

            Now you can go ahead an continue being a hypocrite, and waiving your moderate banner all you want, but when you start pulling the shivs out on conservatives just know that I, or someone like me, will be there to challenge you and your half assed hypocritical arguments.

          • liberalrepublican

            The Federal Government uses money to control states. I believe it and I think its wrong.

            I had a discussion with Achance before on this issue and went off and did some research on my own. What I learned is that Alaska really is different from other states. The Fed government takes a much larger role in building infrastructure there and it has to if we are going to be able to use the oil reserves there. Those Federal expenditures are offset by the massive taxes paid by the oil companies there. For example the state alone collected $6 billion earlier this year when the price of gas went up.

            One thing I would like to ask Achance is if he ever feels like the Fed tries to exert greater control over Alaska. I have no idea and would be curious to hear what he says…

            How Arnold got in the discussion, I have no idea.

            I still don’t know what specifically you have a problem with in my comments – my best guess is that you object to me being critical of a red state when its politicians don’t live up to their principles.

          • Aaron Gardner

            my best guess is that you object to me being critical of a red state when its politicians don?t live up to their principles.

            If that is all that you got from our discussion, then I am not quite sure what good talking to you can have.

          • liberalrepublican

            Do you think the Federal Government should be redistributing wealth among states?

            Yes or no.

          • Aaron Gardner

            But that ship has sailed and now we have to deal with the consequences of not being able to count on Speter, Snowe, and Collins. The Gov is doing just that, he is dealing with the consequences the best possible way he can.

          • liberalrepublican

            I know from personal experience.

            I had many sleepless nights over it.

          • Aaron Gardner

            If Sanford says no to the “hand out” and the SC Legislature overrides him via the Clyburn Clause does that constitute a win or a loss in your book?

            Conversely if Sanford says no to unfunded mandates and instead exercises his authority under the 10th amendment to direct the remaining funds as he sees fit by paying down the State deficit and creating a foundation for easing the tax burden of the citizens and businesses of the state, is that a win or a loss in your book?

            Furthermore, back to the original subject of this thread and how RedState take in more fed money than they are taxed, SC is another state that rcvs a ton of money from the Federal govt in order to maintain the 7 military bases in the State, not counting National Guard Bases.

            The point being that your original post in this thread was crap, even if statistically factual.

          • Achance

            Only about a third of that landmass marked as Alaska on your map is the sovereign territory of the State of Alaska. About a third is “Indian” land over which the State has limited rights and powers. The other third is the sovereign territory of the United States in the form of parks, preserves, national forests, wildlife refuges, military bases and reservations, federal buildings and various offices, etc. Until we bought it from the US in the early ’80s, even the Alaska Railroad belonged to the US.

            They spend a huge amount of money here on their own stuff, especially the military, Coast Guard, and FAA. Most air freight to and from the Lower 48 and the Orient comes here to refuel. Most over the Pole freight and passenger traffic from Europe to the Orient come either to Alaska to refuel or through Alaskan airspace. Most container traffic from the orient to the West Coast comes through Alaskan Waters on the Great Circle route. The largest and richest fisheries in America are in Alaska waters; outside 12 miles, that is a federal province.

            As to the oil provinces, that is all either private or State. The road from Fairbanks to Prudhoe Bay is state maintained, though I think that like most roads in the Country, much of the original construction funding was federal. The only thing the fed does regarding oil in Alaska is get in the way.

      • itrytobenice

        If you are willing to count military bases and pay on the same basis as welfare and pork, you can make that assumptions.

        Most of us aren’t so stupid as to do that, so we politely request that you find a new talking point.

        • Aaron Gardner
    • Rod_Patrick

      It’s very telling of the issues of the Rs, the stats, and how the libs and moderates use them as attack lines.

      Who will win? I dunno.

      Librep scored on Kyle.

      Librep tied up with Achance.

      But Aaron is now in full battle gear, I think. Librep, run if you can.

      • liberalrepublican

        “But Aaron is now in full battle gear, I think. Librep, run if you can”

        But how is this anything but a conservative issue?

        I know the issues where I fall on the liberal side of the fence, but I always thought my dislike for big Government, my distaste for the tools it uses to expand it’s power and my mistrust of Washington politicians was my conservative side.

        Who knew?

        • Rod_Patrick

          Don’t misunderstand my post, please.

          The exchanges seem like a very good class debate and it’s a learning process on my part.

          I’ve been reading all your main points. Consider me as a bystander.

          Just don’t mind my post. I mean no harm . He he!

        • Achance

          Annual Financial Report online. What you’ll find is that most of the federal spending is not discretionary and is mostly for federally mandated welfare programs including Medicaid and for SS and Medicare expenses. Even in Sen. Stevens’ “porkiest” times, most federal money that went to the State of Alaska was for social welfare spending that states cannot deny eligible recipients. Here where we provide almost all education funding, including school construction, at the State level, our education spending doesn’t come close to our social welfare spending and despite Sen. Stevens’ best efforts, even our transportation and public facilities spending never got to the HSS level either.

          So, principles or not, there a lot of federal money that a state really can’t turn down.

          • liberalrepublican

            Can it be refused?

            I know if you accept it, the Fed is going to use it to expand it’s power.

            Can any of this money be refused.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Yes the money coming from the fed can be refused by the Governor, but the Clyburn Clause in the porkulus allows for the State Legislature to override the Governors decision to refuse.

            I already stated this in our own back and forth….too bad you weren’t paying attention.

            this was also brought up by Zootsuit….you should read the topic and get the details before you start throwing R’s under the bus as unprincipled.

          • liberalrepublican

            Was porkulus in place in 2005?

            Cause that’s where the numbers I reference cam from.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Have we now totally jumped the shark? Are we no longer talking about stimulus? Are we forgetting about all the military bases in SC that require Federal Money to be maintained?

            I have refuted most of your points throughout this thread and all you have done is circle back around and obfuscate when confronted with facts that you would rather not acknowledge.

          • liberalrepublican

            Since you were commenting off my comment and NOT the original post, I assumed your comments to me were about my post.

            My main point is that the Federal Government redistributes wealth to the states and uses that money to exert control.

            And that’s a bad thing.

            Show me where you refuted that, cause I missed it.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I never said that it is a good thing, I said that it is what it is and you have to work within the framework of what you are given to mitigate the adverse affects of rcving govt money.

            Go take a reading comprehension course and get back to me.

          • liberalrepublican

            You are arguing the existence of me on this site and not the specifics of what I actually wrote in the thread.

          • $peciallist

            or the 30 minute economy pack?

          • Aaron Gardner
          • liberalrepublican

            You injected some of your own thoughts into my comments.

            For example, I didn’t bring up the SC governor or legislature in my comments.

            But you repeatedly challenged me on that.

            I think you eventually thought by injecting it so many times, I must have talked about it.

            You also brought up Arnold, abortion rights in ME, military spending, Reagan’s 11th commandment, Arlen Specter and the ACLU.

            But you never seemed to get around to even arguing my main point about Federal Redistribution – in fact you agreed.

            So, excuse me if I don’t really get what the argument is about and assume it’s personal.

            From the top, I was specifically was talking about the fact that from 1981 to 2005, SC received more money in Fed Funds than they gave.

            I thought that was a bad thing.

            I called it welfare. Apparently, that was inflammatory. Maybe I should have gone with “redistribution bonus”? If you have a better term, let me know.

          • Aaron Gardner

            The Diary itself set the subject not you.

            The discussion does not exist in a vacuum of your creation, sorry.

          • liberalrepublican

            But if you are going to challenge my comments, why not stick to my comments?

          • Aaron Gardner

            You pulled out a couple of links to back up a claim that SC has always been on “federal welfare for years”.

            In the context of it being a reply to someone who showed disappointment with Gov. Sanford’s decision, it can be assumed that you shared in the disappointment and were one of Gov. Sanford’s detractors.

            So, sorry to inform you but my challenge remains unanswered, and unaltered.

          • Martin Knight

            How much of all that Federal money went to maintaining military bases (about seven, I believe), National Guard assets, Federal land and property? How much of it had to do with Federally set mandates and not specifically requested by the state of South Carolina?

            Achance made the point of alerting you to Alaska’s special situation, which you conceded mitigated your sniffing about AK receiving “welfare.”

            Do you always accept liberal premises and arguments at face value without any background checks by yourself? And to be honest, I’m wondering what exactly this “SC receives $1.35 for every $1.00 sent to DC” factoid have to do with the OP …

          • liberalrepublican

            And when did The Tax Foundation become liberal?

            Here is what they say:

            “States send federal taxes to Washington and receive federal spending in return. However, some states benefit more from federal taxing and spending policies than others. Some “beneficiary” states receive a positive return from Uncle Sam, making other states “donors” who pick up the tab. The most important factor determining whether a state is a net beneficiary is per capita income. States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax. Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements.

          • itrytobenice

            Other factors include whether states have powerful Members of Congress, the number of federal employees present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements.[bolding mine]

            Federal employees are our military men and women. Yet you act like a state that has a large proportion of military basis is somehow or another sucking on the public tit. You are offending us. Quit now.

          • itrytobenice

            Federal employees include our military. Obviously not all federal employees benefit us and shouldn’t be grouped in with the bunch that makes our lives free and safe.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Martin Knight

            … without making any effort to ascertain *why* it receives more from the Federal Government than it sends? Is it or is it not because of “the number of federal employees [including military] present in a state, and the number of residents receiving Social Security, Medicare and other federal entitlements …?”

            I think you first of all need to get that settled before spouting off. Although, again, I wonder what this had to do with the OP.

            Your M.O. on this site to date is really getting tiresome. Every single time this site is applauding something said or done by a Republican (or Republicans) that is remotely in line with conservative principle, you’re always on hand to piss all over it with some irrelevant factoid to make you seem like you’re above it all.

            itrytobenice is being nice to you by offering you some good advice; quit it.

          • Achance

            AFDC-type funding even though you have to match and supplement it. And even if you technically could, you’d probably get sued on all sorts of civil rights grounds and catch total Hell politically. ‘Course, the flip side of that is if you cut that stuff out, the people who live on it would go to one of those nice Blue states where you can live real well on Welfare.

            You’re right on the essential point though. There is a lot of federal money that is solely to serve specific Democrat constituencies and lots of grants that really only give enough funding to provide a sinecure for a Democrat or two in a state. I hinted at this in my diary on Republican Homeland Defense but maybe I should do another diary on the price of accepting federal grants and contracts and how you should administer them if you do accept them.

        • Aaron Gardner

          You still think that Gov. Sanford really has a whole lot of say in the matter.

          Bottom line is that he really doesn’t, this is the best opportunity for him to ensure more local control over the money that is being forced on him and his state.

          If Gov. Sanford were to deny the money the SC legislature would override him based on the Clyburn Clause, then the money would be distributed as the US Congress decided. This would cede more local govt control to the federal govt.

          What Gov Sanford is doing is making the best out of a very bad situation. he is doing the responsible thing and paying down his states debt, which is fiscally responsible.

      • Rod_Patrick

        Lib fought back.

        Can’t wait on Aaron’s next response.

        • pilgrim

          .

          • Rod_Patrick

            The debate is really interesting. I’m averse to both sides. And I can’t really make a stand.

            But I’ll stop. He he.

          • $peciallist

            “…tackled…we’ll be right back after a short commercial break..”

            :)

          • Rod_Patrick

            Dad pilgrim scolded me. He forbid me from watching footballs on TV.

            So I just went to the field and picked up dandelions instead.

  • Finrod

    .

  • Flagstaff

    The money will be spent whether Sanford takes SC’s allocation or not. His demand that he be able to use it in the best interests of SC puts the onus on Obama to show that paying down SC’s debt isn’t in that best interest. He should, however, couple it with a reduction in whatever SC’s primary source of tax money happens to be–sales, income, property, or maybe business taxes.

    • Flagstaff

      How can the US Congress pass a federal law that overrules a state’s normal procedure for passing bills?

      • AKSteveB

        How does he avoid that?

        • Flagstaff

          the state legislature can override the governor’s rejection with a simple majority. According to the bill, that’s AOK. So, it supersedes the states’ rules on overriding “vetoes.” That’s what I referred to.

          It’s probably a lot more nuanced than that.

  • Praying

    from Tennessee, also said last week he would accept ALL the porkulus money – even though TN will have to change our unemployment laws to accept the stimulus money. Which just goes to show, I guess, that all politicians are corrupt, and all politicians can be bought… Sad, since it is we who are paying for it…

    • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

      when he’s gone in 2010?

      • Praying

        I don’t know what part of TN you’re from, but I’m sort of hopeful about Knoxville mayor Bill Haslam as a candidate in 2010. I’ll watch it closely. I plan do get VERY involved in the election!

        • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

          No,I’m not a native to TN. When I first moved here, I loved it. B’s first term was bearable but, then, he didn’t do nearly what he has done in this last term. If I could sell my house for a decent price, I’d get out of here, but I keep hoping, since we got the marginal majority in the state legislature that things might start looking up soon.

          • Praying

            I was born in Ohio – came to K’ville for grad school – just in time for the World’s Farce – er – Fair. I hated it, but after 9 or so years on the Gulf Coast (New Orleans and Dallas) we couldn’t wait to move back! I have to say I love it here – so glad I’m not in Ohio, and we moved from N.O with no job offers we were so anxious to get the heck out of Dodge. I really can’t say anything bad about TN – 4 beautiful seasons, reasonable cost of living, better schools than most areas, and a population that still believes in God and country. I do travel to Nashville (for swim meets) – it’s bigger and more expensive, so I might not be as enamored as I am over here. I’m pretty impressed with some of the TN legislators. It is looking up!

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            I missed the tea party. Grandson had strep throat from school and guess who got the honors of keeping him for the day? Not that bad, really but I wanted to go to the tea party… pout, pout.

            I’m tentatively planning on attending the Roots HQ in Sep. It will be good to meet some of my fellow bloggers and it sounds like there’s going to be some good brainstorming, too.

          • Praying

            I thought it would be a good chance to meet some “movers and shakers” (or potential movers and shakers) in Tennessee.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            I like to get at least one look at the people vying for my vote, so I do my best to get that look. You just don’t get the same sense of a person from a TV screen.

        • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

          only because I don’t know much about the others, yet. I had a visceral reaction to the announcement of the fellow from Memphis but otherwise, I’m just watching and learning as it goes.

          • zarathustra57

            I’m not in TN, but I do like what I’ve heard and read about Wamp.

          • http://hillbillypolitics.com Steph C

            .

  • Chieftain1776

    Some of you guys are adopting the rhetoric of the idiots on the the left that think just because we use highways we shouldn’t oppose higher taxes or further government involvement.

    First of all it’s not the Government’s money. I’d indeed say keep the funds if South Carolinians were exempted from paying for it in taxes now or in the future. I’d say keep it if when the bad effects become apparent they then get reduced taxes and removal of unfunded mandates from the fed gov’t to compensate them for its politically driven and wrong approach. In those cases I would indeed tell the federal government to keep “its” money.

    To say “don’t spend it” is an unfair proposition. Should only Democrats then get to spend all of our money on their constituencies then?

    And I feel the same about the brouhaha over earmarks (gasp). The argument over earmarks is even worse in that it insists the congressmen cede their authority over spending to federal bureaucrats and Obama’s corrupt appointees. If it’s going to come out of individuals pockets it should go to the most localized representative possible when it comes back. But that’s another matter.

    Sanford is actually doing something very interesting in insisting he be able to spend the money as he sees fit. Hopefully he wins out and the Obama machine can’t entrench the various interest groups in his favor. And preserving the few vestiges of federalism is a good fight to have in my opinion.

  • ZootSuit

    Maybe even three-quarters of a point.

    The Clyburn Clause does make it virtually impossible to refuse the Porkulus pork. Refusing the money would have been a principled stand but I’m not sure it would have even been a Pyrrhic victory. If he did, the state legislature would simply override him and the pigs would still be at the trough.

    But by accepting part of the money, Sanford may be able to argue that the Clyburn Clause is not in effect, accepting less money but having total authority to use the money for better purposes. And framing the argument as “who knows better the needs of the state, the state of the Federal government” is, I believe, a real winner for us.

    On the other hand, I am also somewhat disappointed that the governor of my state is accepting any money.

    But on the gripping hand, I give him credit for thinking on his feet and, in what may be my own solitary opinion, regaining some initiative on the issue.

    • AKSteveB

      in terms of getting funds, when you don’t have any way to opt out of contibuting to them. As an example, I think Social Security is a nightmare on a number of levels, and I’d opt out yesterday if I could, but I’ve paid in, and should it be possible, I’ll collect, even if it is more than I contributed. We’re all going to be stuck with the inflation and taxation from this thing, we might as well grab what we can. Art Chance had some good ideas on this for the red states. I do agree on not taking anything that will eventually turn into an unfunded mandate.

      • ZootSuit

        Like I wrote above, standing on principle would have been a Pyrrhic victory at best. I just hate “Porkulus” so much I just wish Sanford found a way to simply override it.

    • Adjoran

      Sanford knew the spend-happy SC legislature would override any move to decline the funds; that’s a given. Those guys are big spenders on both sides of the aisle.

      What he has done is strike a preemptive blow for how it’s spent, and against taking money which requires ongoing future spending increases by the state. It’s called “making the best out of a bad situation.”

      Now at least the legislature will have to explain why just blowing the federal windfall like they blow everything else they get their hands on is a better idea than improving our financial balance sheet in difficult times.

      • ZootSuit

        you are absolutely right. And the sad thing is that the Republicans in the South Carolina Legislature are just as bad as the Democrats. Witness some of the fights Governor Mark Sanford has had with them.

        Sanford in 2012, get on the bandwagon now!

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          stimulus funds that required permament changes and/or those that would require state tax hikes on businesses but that he would accept some stimulus funds under certain conditions given that his own citizens are going to have to pay them back thru fed taxes or inflation.

      • omar

        ummm I think that was what hoover did. I don’t think history looks too kindly on him for that one.

        • Aaron Gardner
          • omar

            you guys are just so friendly…

          • Aaron Gardner

            well played.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    Beforehand, you fight like a dog for separate checks. Unfortunately, you lose that one and it’s determined that the bill will be split equally.

    Whether you order the lobster or the hamburger has a miniscule effect on your share of the bill. But whether you order lobster or hamburger directly affects whether you eat lobster or hamburger.

    I’d be pissed at having to pay 1/50th of 49 lobsters. If I can’t change the payment rules, however, I order and eat lobster rather than save 1/50th of the difference between the cost of lobster and hamburger.

    • JDidSaint

      I completely agree. The people of SC are going to be paying in to this travesty for years to come – to completely reject their own money would be foolhardy and counterproductive. To accept it with the caveat that, “We’ll spend it however we damn well please,” that’s a stroke of political genius.

      The $700m would be spent anyway and I don’t think a party who sees $1,200,000m as still not quite enough of their children/grandchildren’s money would be too brokenhearted about spending $700m of a “partisan hack’s” share.

  • omar

    I don’t think this is going to be as uncommon as it looks. He’s be public about it but speaking to a good friend in a state budget office this is very much what the state governments intend to do anyway. The only difference is they aren’t being public about it. Any money that isn’t specifically targeted at direct projects is going to go into state budgets and be used to fill in gaps they have. My impression is most state governments have some amount of budget deficits. This is the REAL problem with the stimulus, the money isn’t going to get anywhere, it’s only going to serve to prop up state budget shortfalls.

  • http://www.itsmyblog.com uttles

    Let me just say that I think Sanford did the right thing. The money was going to be forced upon him regardless, so this way he at least gets to put 25% of it towards paying off debt. Instead of creating and funding more new socialism, he’s just trying to pay the bills on the existing stuff.

    If I were governor, we’d take the money then secede, but that’s not a realistic action, so I think Sanford did the right thing.