Mark Sanford should be ashamed of himself

[dakota_democrat]

This is a note I posted to my Facebook and thought I'd punish y'all with personal editorials.

I was watching Fox News tonight (not by choice, I was at Burger King and that's what they always have on), and Greta Van Susteren had Republican Mark Sanford, the Governor of South Carolina, on as a guest. He's been in the news of late as a flavor of the month politician by stating that South Carolina wouldn't accept the approximately $700 million in funds allocated by the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. the stimulus bill).

I think his argument, on a superficial level, holds some water. Spending money that you don't have is generally bad. He feels that the federal government is just pushing the problem off to future sessions of Congress. I hear it; it makes sense (albeit on a very simplistic level) to me. His arguments, however, fail to adequately refute some of my largest criticisms of his actions:

1) The federal government trumps state governments. 9th grade Civics taught me that one. He shouldn't have the authority to say "I don't want a piece of legislation passed by the U.S. Government to affect my state." The federal vs. state battle has been fought since the Articles of Confederation were thrown out, and the state pretty much never wins.

2) South Carolina is in no position to rationally refuse help!!! According to Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/11/ap6154981.html), South Carolina's unemployment rate hit 10.4% in January, giving them the 2nd highest unemployment rate in America (behind Michigan). In addition, the state has a $430 million revenue shortfall for the 2009 Fiscal Year. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/12-18-07sfp.htm) elaborates on the South Carolina budget issue:

"Many of the states projecting budget gaps — Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia — face a structural budget imbalance, which means that revenues routinely grow more slowly than the cost of providing the same level of state services.

Simply put, the current budget model for the state isn't currently balancing revenues and expenses, and isn't going to in the future, the way that it's set up. The governor of a state in this position wants to lecture others about fiscal conservatism and responsibility? C'mon!

The stimulus money will create jobs, which will lower the state's comparatively high unemployment rate. Those newly employed individuals can then pay taxes on their income, which will go into the state's coffers, and help fight that budget shortfall that looks like it isn't going away anytime soon in South Carolina. On the other hand, South Carolina could decline the money. People would rather live on unemployment than have work, income, and dignity...right?

Stop grandstanding. Stop screwing the citizens who elected you to SERVE THEIR INTERESTS. Shut up and take the damn money.

[Wilber_Stool]

1. The money is to

stimulate the economy, not to pay off his bad debts.

[greenkal]

2. Why don't we just get rid of the SC government?

All it has been is trouble since they attacked the US military a few years ago that resulted in the deaths of 620,000 Americans. They should be punished for what they did. Sanford is part of that legacy that should be destroyed.