SC’s Graham says gov may control stimulus cash

S. 577, the resolution to over ride Governor Sanford and take the money from your grandchildren, passed out of Senate Finance today despite of the Governor’s second appeal to the White House to allow us to do something responsible with a portion of the massive expansion of Federal Government. Roughly $ 700,000 is at stake, the other 2 plus billion dollars go directly to state agencies and other local governments.

I offered a simple amendment to the resolution “…and will not appropriate non-recurring funds for recurring programs or purposes.” In other words, we will take the money, but we won’t use one time money to grow programs permanently.”

Unfortunately, my amendment was tabled, so the recklessness continues.

Let me ask you this question. Let’s say you’re out of work, but get a stroke of good luck and you win the lottery. Your earnings are 10,000. Would you take the $10,000 and use it for a down payment on a mortgage that has 500 per month payments? Certainly you would not.

Got news for you, the Legislature doesn’t spend your money like you spend your money. Well, common sense is uncommon in Columbia.

I’m fearful it’s going to help us dig our state in a hole that’s going to be tough to get out of in two years when the money’s shut off!

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR

March 17, 2009

The Honorable Barack Obama
President
United States of America
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I’d first thank you and Director Orszag for your response of March 16 to my letter of the previous week. Likewise, I have to express my disappointment that our substantive dialogue about the best way to adapt this stimulus to the unique situations of states across this country was interrupted by the Democratic National Committee’s launching of a petty attack ad against us even before we had received your response.

I’ve made clear my opposition to using debt to solve a problem created in the first place by too much debt – and I don’t believe this to be an unreasonable position. What I find less reasonable is the way this DNC attack ad returns a nation indeed yearning for change back to the same old politics-as-usual. Because I believe you and I share a common desire to escape this worn-out “attack first” mentality, I’d respectfully ask you to immediately condemn and put an end to this unnecessary politicization of a truly important policy discussion.

In the spirit of moving forward, I’d offer the following as a clarification to our using a portion of the stimulus funds to paying down our state’s sizable debt. With regard to the Education Stabilization Fund monies (ARRA § 14002(a)(1)) that must be used “for the support of * education,” we think it would be consistent with statutory requirements to use this $577 million to pay down the roughly $579 million of principal for State School Facilities Bonds and Research University Infrastructure Bonds over two years. This would immediately free up over $162 million in debt service in the first two years and save roughly $125 million in interest payments over the next 13 years, which could then be directed towards other educational purposes – just as paying off a mortgage early frees up the typical monthly payment for other uses.

Regarding the $125 million in the Fiscal Stabilization Fund (ARRA § 14002(b)(1)) headed to South Carolina, we’d lay out a few options for your consideration: first, paying down debt related to the state’s Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund that currently exceeds $200 million and would directly impact those currently out of work in this struggling economy; second, paying down debt related to state retirees, since that would seem to satisfy the statutory requirement that these funds be used for “other government services”; or third, paying down other bonded indebtedness at the state level.

We trust these alternative proposals fit both the statutory requirements and spirit of the stimulus legislation. Thank you again for your response, and we would again appreciate your opinion as soon as possible given that we believe this course of action will do more to ensure South Carolina’s long-term economic strength than would other contemplated uses of the funds.

I also await your response on pulling down the attack ads. A good part of your candidacy was fueled by the hope for change in the way political debate is conducted in our country. On this, actions will speak louder than words – words you have been so gifted in delivering – in determining where you really stand, not as a candidate promising to deliver on change, but as a leader now capable of bringing this change. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford

I’m sure I’ve made it clear that the stimulus package was a terrible idea. We can’t borrow from our grandchildren to get ourselves out of debt. That argument is water under the bridge. Congress passed the uberspending bill, and me must move on to the debate as to what we need to do now. When these chickens come home to roost, and the will, all of our taxes will escalate. South Carolina can’t refuse the money and then ask the Feds to exempt South Carolinians from future Federal Tax increases. Also, any money we turn down, is to be dispersed to accepting states.

I’ve never owned a horse, but I’ve been told that the least expense of owning a horse is the purchase. From what I can tell, because of the strings attached, it costs us more money to accept the money. Kind of like accepting a horse would cost you.

So what is the legislature to do from this point forward? Last week, the South Carolina House passed its version of the budget including the stimulus money as if it were here. The budget we take up in the Senate will have the stimulus money in it.

As you know, Congress made a provision for legislatures to over ride any Governor that refuses to accept the stolen cash. This was an amendment of our own, Rep. Jim Clyburn.

There was a resolution introduced in the Senate last week by Sen. Hugh Leatherman (Florence) S. 577 doing just that…asking for the money should the Governor refuse it. Ya’ll know I can’t support this resolution.

I’ve cosponsored a resolution refusing all stimulus money with Sen. Lee Bright. I doubt the success of this bill, but you know, where just agreeing with Sen. Barry Goldwater on his assessment of federal aid: HAVE LONG SINCE SEEN THROUGH THE
SPURIOUS SUGGESTION THAT FEDERAL AID COMES “FREE.” THEY KNOW THAT THE MONEY COMES OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS, AND THAT IT IS RETURNED TO THEM
MINUS A BROKERS’ FEE TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY. THEY KNOW, TOO, THAT THE POWER TO DECIDE HOW THAT MONEY SHALL BE SPENT IS WITHDRAWN FROM
THEM AND EXERCISED BY SOME PLANNING BOARD DEEP IN THE CAVERNS OF ONE Of THE FEDERAL AGENCIES. THEY UNDERSTAND THIS REPRESENTS A GREAT AND
PERHAPS IRREPARABLE LOSS – NOT ONLY IN THEIR WEALTH, BUT IN THEIR PRICELESS LIBERTY.” Conscience of a Conservative

May favorite idea is to take the money while adjusting state spending enough to match the pilfered funds with tax cuts. Target these tax cuts to the corporate level and we’ll see jobs spouting up all over this state. If we can figure out a way to do this, I’ll offer it up as an amendment on either the debate of S. 577 or during the appropriations debate. Which way to ya’ll think would be best?

Here is the tv ad and Governor Sanford’s response.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
MARK SANFORD, GOVERNOR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:        Joel Sawyer
       803-734-2100
       jsawyer@gov.sc.gov

Governor Sanford Responds to DNC Attack Ad

Columbia, S.C. – March 16, 2009 – Governor Mark Sanford today issued the following statement on the Democratic National Committee attack ad that’s begun airing in South Carolina:

“Over the past year, candidate Obama promised a break from ‘politics as usual’ – something that I joined with millions of Americans in indeed hoping for. I did so because my entire time in public life has reinforced how needed change is from ‘politics as usual,’ and because for better or worse I have always tried to debate ideas on their merits.

“My opposition to the stimulus bill was based on the merits as I saw them and has been well-chronicled, but rather than engaging our administration in that debate, Obama’s Democratic National Committee instead chose to launch a political attack ad against us for not supporting the stimulus plan exactly as the Obama administration saw fit. What may fit in one state may not fit in another, and accordingly I think tailoring stimulus responses makes sense.

“Equally disturbing is the fact that this ad was launched before the White House even bothered to respond to our request to use just one quarter of the available stimulus money to our state to pay down a portion of our high state debt. This still means a $2.1 billion spending windfall would come to our state – and one has to ask isn’t there a point when enough is enough in spending money we don’t have?  I don’t think this approach of targeting ads against anyone who sees an issue a little differently represents the kind of so-called ‘change’ many people were voting for in November.

“In his inaugural, President Obama proclaimed ‘an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.’ It’s in that spirit that I’d respectfully ask him to end this ad, as it shatters the idea of change he so well articulated this fall – and to ask his Democratic National Committee to put an end to this mudslinging and get back to an honest debate about the future of our country.”

-#####-