Mark Sanford for President in 2012; I expect that sometime after 2010’s gubernatorial election, I’ll be seeing some variation on that theme printed out in bumper sticker form all over the Upstate. Recently, Governor Sanford has been doing a little grandstanding for the national press, and you don’t have to be clairvoyant to see that his real focus these days isn’t so much on the here and now, but on his own political future when he leaves the Governor’s Mansion in January of 2011. Naked political ambition isn’t exactly a characteristic unique to Sanford, but given the climate in South Carolina these days, it does pose a troubling question: Where does Governor Sanford end and Presidential Candidate Sanford begin?
The last couple of months Governor Sanford has been all over the national media warning against the dreaded American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) signed into law. So far, it’s been quite a ride on almost-Presidential Candidate Sanford’s magical mystery tour, and the hits just keep on coming. He’s managed to compare President Obama’s spending programs with the economic collapse in Zimbabwe, and offered prayers (but nothing else) to an unemployed man who called in to a show on CSPAN and explained his situation to Sanford.
Meanwhile down here on good old terra firma, it was announced that South Carolina’s Unemployment rate jumped from 8.8% in December (click here for the PDF) to 10.4% in January putting us second in the nation behind Michigan. In all, 42,800 people lost their jobs in the state in the month of January. For its part, Spartanburg’s rate jumped 1.6 percentage points to 10.8%. A total of 15,313 people were unemployed in Spartanburg County in January. A year ago, that number was 7,704. The state’s Board of Economic Advisors has said that the unemployment rate may rise to 14% statewide by summer. South Carolina is hurting, and the Governor is playing politics.
Sanford’s biggest political moment so far, has been his proposed handling of South Carolina’s portion the ARRA money. Until last week, Sanford was being coy about what exactly he intended to do with the $700 million of the bill that falls under his discretion. On Wednesday, though, he said he intended to request a waiver to allow him to use the money to pay down the states existing debt; a chance to prove fiscal conservative bona fides plus the governmental office to do it equals political gold. Presidential Candidate Mark Sanford, I’d like you to meet Governor Mark Sanford.
The move has been widely criticized across the state by Republicans and Democrats as an unwise use of funds that were meant for local development projects like school construction. It’s widely expected that President Obama will reject the request, and Sanford has said that if he does, he will not request the funds at all. Pending the outcome of Sanford’s request, the State Senate is preparing to take up a measure that would make Governor Sanford’s refusal moot by passing legislation requesting the funds from the Federal Government directly.
The reaction by other state lawmakers and leaders who deal more directly with the realities of these trying economic times has been predictable. 52 of South Carolina’s mayors have signed a letter requesting that Governor Sanford reconsider his decision, and if he does not, that the legislature bypass him so that recovery funds can begin to flow into their communities. Among the letter’s signers are three Spartanburg County mayors, William Barnet of Spartanburg, Sallie Peake of Wellford and Wright Gaines of Inman.
The letter reads in part: “As mayors, we know that people don’t eat in the long run, they eat every day. We are Republicans, Democrats and independents and our letter has little to do with our political ideology or whether we feel the stimulus package is good national public policy or not. We are writing as citizens of this great state, who as mayors, are focused on our towns and cities, but we speak for the needs of all South Carolinians, whether in our cities or not.â€
These public officials are not radical ideologues, and they certainly aren’t interested in turning the country into some sort of quazi-socialist state as Sanford and other conservatives have implied about supporters of the ARRA. They are public officials who spend their days looking at numbers that scare the hell out of them, and should rightly scare the hell out of Governor Sanford as well. They’re not concerned with posing for national media cameras, and posturing with statements about fiscal responsibility. The mayors who signed this letter make it very clear that they would rather take action to help relieve some of the suffering in their communities than play political games with people’s livelihoods. They deserve to be praised for standing up to an ideological bully who would rather watch his own state suffer than compromise some supposed sense of fiscal responsibility. Those horrible economic numbers are actually people, and those people certainly aren’t doing that well right now.
For his part, Sanford has attempted to explain away the states high unemployment numbers by saying; “We’re sixth now in the United States of America in labor force growth. And what that means in practical terms is that one can load up the family and the U-Haul in Michigan or Massachusetts or a whole host of other states, say ‘There’s no economic opportunity. I’m outta here. I’m headed to a state like South Carolina’.” That sounds really nice, but there’s just one problem, South Carolina’s labor force actually shrank in January.
Also, I’m not sure if the Governor has heard this yet or not, but there’s a bit of a housing crisis going on right now. Nationwide declines in home prices, and a stagnant real estate market mean that most people aren’t moving much of anywhere. That sort of information isn’t really helpful to Sanford’s future ambitions though. The first rule of a Presidential Campaign is that when the numbers look bad, do whatever you can to make them look better.
Governor Sanford has a different set of priorities these days, and South Carolina seems to be old news. Republicans are looking for a conservative standard-bearer in 2012, and by the looks of things Sanford seems to be gunning for the job. Of course none of that bluster about fiscal responsibility is going to help the people in South Carolina find jobs, but you can’t really hold Governor Sanford responsible for those unemployed workers. He’s playing games on a bigger stage now, and Presidential Candidate Sanford appears to want to run away from the big ugly problems that Governor Sanford has presided over and really, who can blame him?
Christopher George
AH typical politician. Instead of being concerned with doing the job he has now, he’s trying to secure a slot for a job he has a small chance of getting in the future. I do wish there was a rule somewhere that there had to be a “cooling off period” between changes in political positions of about 2 years. Let them be private citizens between them with no campaigning or hints of it for 18 months of that period.
If not that, one cannot overtly or covertly campaign for another position while holding another. Meaning if you are running for office, you resign the one you currently hold to allow someone else to do that job.
I know I know. Wishful thinking
I agree totally with Mr. George. When I moved here five years ago I did not realize that SC ranked poorly in so many areas. Education, obesity, teen pregnancy, domestic violence, traffic fatalities, and the list goes on and on. Don’t get me wrong, I like living here and believe that Spartanburg has a lot of potential. It’s just sad to see the unemployment figures hit double digits and Sanford wants to play politics.
Thank You, “Drex Cheek” for moving here. I’m from here originally, and I love my state, but it looks like I’ll have to leave to make a living.
And “Sylvie” Sanford will be out of office for 2 years before the next presidential election cycle comes around. That’s why he is trying to show off as the next “great conservative hero,” but I do agree that campaigning for a position 4 years out is a bit much. He has time to run this state… into the ground!
Ditto Drex. Only difference, I grew up here and was aware. Still love living here and see great potential but can’t help getting down sometime about the chances of it ever rising to see it. Sanford doesn’t care about us…we’re just a pawn in his game. How does a person end up like that?
I can’t believe this. Watching the video clip of Sanford’s empty words of “I’ll pray for you.†was shocking—what planet is he from?
It takes some gall to act so dismissive toward a fellow citizen on national television who is not only speaking for himself, but for many others in a similarly dire situation, about how he is two seconds away from hitting rock bottom thanks to politics, and then to simply respond, “Oh hello Charleston, I’m from there too… I’ll pray for you.†Sanford’s words were completely empty, because he disavows all responsibility for South Carolina’s people when it comes to their situation by laying it all on some mysterious power above and beyond. As if to say, “Your life is in God’s hands…†What a cheap shot.
I seem to remember another conservative begin his presidential bid way ahead of everyone else. I’d barely moved to Spartanburg it seems, before I begin to see Mitt Romney for president signs posted around town….That really paid off didn’t it??
Lets hope our governor and our state legislature at least work at the jobs we elected them to. I personally am getting rather tired of all their shenanigans.
Oh me oh my…I know I’m going to be attacked full force on here, it’s expected because a lot of people here seem to have misguided ethics, frankly, but a voice of reason does need to step in about now and point a few things out.
I’m not totally defending Sanford, as he is trying, maybe hopelessly, to do the ethical thing, what you guys call, “playing politics.” To his credit though, short-sightedness is synonymous with irresponsibility, and that’s what the author, and these mayors, are demanding.
This money everyone wants is debt we’ll have to pay later, spending it on building things that takes money to maintain is just going to add to the pile. How about living within our means for a change, ya think? We’re gonna have to tighten our belt, either now, or even more so down the road.
Even though paying existing debt with this money is like using one credit card to pay off another, it’s better then going on a shopping spree, just making things even more dire.
Everyone admits this money is a short term solution to what is obviously a long term problem. To use this money wisely would involve not creating any more debt then absolutely necessary. Isn’t that plain as day? (Hello? McFly?)
It is speculation that he is posturing for a presidential bid. Even though it may be true that he has plans to run, the condemnation of him speaking out against what is obviously a step in the wrong direction financially for the state, saying it’s simply posturing, is avoiding the issue and is not a forthright approach to what the authors argument is, which seems to be.. give us something for nothing, and screw the consequences!!
How is he being ethical at all? In what way is he not grandstanding?
I mean, the whole point of the stimulus bill is to start the economy moving again by introducing a flood of cash into a machine that has frozen up due to a chilling effect on lending. Paying down the state’s debt won’t do anything to start that up again, and it certainly won’t put anyone back to work.
Plus, the debt he’s trying to pay exists because of the decisions of S.C. lawmakers — it’s South Carolina’s debt alone — and the stimulus spending is meant to create jobs and fund programs specifically to put the state’s economy back in motion. He’s basically trying to use aid money to pay for the state’s other, completely unrelated spending.
It’s about as unethical as you can get to use relief money like that.
Will paying down $700 million in State Government debt help anyone get a job? No. Will it help initiate new programs that will make the state more competitive? No. Will it help rebuild the infrastructure? No. Will it do anything other than slightly reduce the state’s interest payments? No.
And I’d argue that it’s actually wildly unethical, since it’s trying to subvert money from it’s actual purpose of relief and quite literally hurting people to do so.
It’s almost exactly as if the Feds approved, say, $700 million in emergency funds to address hurricane damage in Charleston, and Sanford then said “I’d rather not repair the damage, I’d rather use this money to lower the state’s debt and let all those homeless people fend for themselves under the existing underfunded programs.” Replace “hurricane” with “economic meltdown” and “homeless” with “jobless”, and you start to see exactly how ethically and morally wrong his actions are.
But it’s great publicity for people who like the IDEA of what he’s doing. He’s saying no to Obama — a liberal who actually clearly won an election — and he’s trying to keep South Carolina a Republican stronghold. Who cares that it’s making this state a laughingstock? Or that, if he’s successful, it’ll mean that S.C. just doesn’t get that money and the Federal government will find some other way to spend it.
I wasn’t saying he was acting ethically, he is a politician for goodness sakes, but he is at least trying to be. Using this money to build things that will take money to maintain is deepening our obligations and short sighted, was my point. People should get the money that has been extorted from them, but this money is debt that will have to be forcefully extorted from someone in the future, namely, us. I just call a spade a spade.
I’m about to embark on a fabulous weekend journey through Spartanburg, announcing my future, few day absence on here. Sorry to postpone our conversation on this, but maybe I’ll some of ya’ll out and we can chat.
It wasn’t extorted from me, although I can see why you’d feel that way. It’s exactly what I was hoping Obama would do when he took office. He’s using tax dollars to give funds directly to the states in a time of economic crisis, rather than to toss more cash into a pit to fund a war we have no business fighting. He’s doing what he was elected to do.
Before you go: Are you coming to the blogger meet-up on the 26th? We need to argue in person over pizza.
I shouldn’t have called anyone unethical, because it’s not good to just throw out judgments like that, sorry. I don’t know, I’m just a work in progress as always.
I think Sanford’s view is more of the long term moral view, but people do need help as soon as they can get it now. It’ll never be enough though, and it’s my hopes that these bailouts don’t become a regular thing, just because the price of living increase from added money in the system will make it harder on everyone as well, even moreso.
I understand some good things can be done with this money in the short term, its the collection methods I’m really against, and long term consequences too in the bigger picture.
..You yourself might not feel extorted from, and most people may just say, that’s the way it is, death and taxes, and all that, but that still doesn’t mean it’s right, at all, ..and that’s not my opinion, it’s an empirical observation that stands universally true, as in it’s unethical.
..As we claim to be civilized country, particularly one that heralds freedom and equality, it seems like we might would use a better system then one that is fundamentally funded by the threat of force and violence over its own citizens.
Is Obama really going to come through with that ending the war stuff ya think? ..because I’ll just have to believe it when I see it myself.
I’d love to go to the blogger meetup, I can possibly take a day off, but I won’t know for sure till Tuesday or so probably. If so though, let’s not argue, just talk, debate, or whatever, but with not with out mouths full, even though that is some dang good pizza.
While getting the state out of debt is a very sound idea and something every state, municipality and individual should be doing, I have to agree with Steve somewhat that this federal funding is not the means to do so.
Any personal financial advisor tells a person facing debt issues that paying it down is a grand idea, but not at the expense of income or basic living expenses.
While I am not a fan of the new federal stimulus package (we borrowed the money from somewhere going deeper into debt) the idea behind it has merit. It seeks to bring funding to help with basic infrastructure needs and as a result bring jobs directly related to that infrastructure. The hopes it will spur more economic growth
What I think Governer Sanford should be doing is seeing how we can get more bang for our buck with these incoming funds, so that our state’s tax revenue starts climbing upward again. All while he and the state legislature look at their own budget and see how state agencies can live within their means while keeping systems like our educational needs intact and vibrant. Maybe they all need to take some unpaid furloughs now and then, and eliminate all unessential expense in their own offices…Now that’s an idea.
Eat a slice of pizza for me at the Blog meet. Work has me stuck there til nine PM.
Talking without our mouths full (of pizza) I meant, dang typos. I understand what you’re saying Sylvie, and hope is the key word in your statement. I don’t think anyone imagines this stimulus is going to make everything all better, or our problems will suddenly be over now, but it is valid to ask if it’s just going to make it that much worse in the long run. Of course it’s really all speculation, and as the money is being channeled through a bureaucracy, folks involved are bound to get their cut, or their self interests may be appeased, and the trickle down will be short lived, but what then?
After the money is dispersed, will it be that now we have a taste for what some perceive as free money, is it not natural that people will demand more? Have we opened a fresh Pandora’s box of fiscal irresponsibility? We could all use more money, no matter how much we have, after all.
I’m not a fan of double posts, but this find warrants it I believe. Sanford in his own words explains his reasoning in this Wall Street Journal piece. It is only fair to see his view if one is at all interested in this topic, as Chris’ article doesn’t quite show Sanford’s position, but only attacks it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html
You do realize it’s not my job to post Mark Sanford’s position don’t you? It’s an opinion column not a news piece, and the only person’s point of view it’s supposed to present is…(drum roll)…mine.
Besides, Sanford has been writing op-eds for pretty much anyone who will have them these days-CNN, the WSJ, the State Newspaper-I don’t think his view is suffering from underexposure.
I didn’t see your reply till now. I understand what you’re saying man, I just thought it’d be nice for any passers-by that haven’t read his view to see the other side of the coin is all.. hence the link.
As it was the first piece I saw that he wrote on it, I wouldn’t be surprised there are others out there who haven’t seen it as well. Nothing wrong with getting the whole picture from both sides.