Sanford hands off decision
Governor says he won't fight Supreme Court's call
By Yvonne Wenger
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford
COLUMBIA — The answer to South Carolina's $700 million question could come this week.
Gov. Mark Sanford said Monday that after waging his fight against the federal stimulus package for four months, he will let the state Supreme Court have the last word. The justices scheduled a hearing Wednesday morning to ultimately decide if South Carolina will receive the cash.
If the high court rules against Sanford, the money would begin flowing to public schools, law enforcement programs and colleges and universities on July 1. The money is to be split evenly between the next two fiscal years.
Sanford said he wouldn't be surprised if he lost the court battle. But if he wins, it is less clear what would happen with the disputed $700 million. That money could be divided among other states, and public school officials warn that fewer teachers will be in the classrooms at the start of the new school year.
"I think you need to decide in every debate where you stop, and our stopping point is, when the Supreme Court rules, we will abide by whatever they decide," Sanford said.
Jim Rex
The two-term Republican governor is by many measures the country's most outspoken critic of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that was signed by President Barack Obama in February.
South Carolina's share is $2.8 billion, which could grow to $8 billion when tax breaks and grants are included. Sanford maintained that he could only reject $700 million, the portion set aside for education and law enforcement spending in the next two state budgets. The governor said, though, that he would accept the cash on one condition: The Legislature must apply an equal amount of state dollars toward debt.
Sanford is adamant that spending the stimulus cash at the state and federal level will create a worse economic situation in the future. He argued that the state could fund its core government services, such as public schools, adequately if lawmakers were more responsible with money.
State Education Superintendent Jim Rex's response to Monday's events at postandcourier.com
After cutting more than $1 billion from government agencies in the last year, legislative leaders said Sanford's position was not realistic.
The White House twice refused Sanford's debt proposal. The Legislature also dismissed the idea and attempted to force Sanford to take the money, which in turn spurred litigation.
Earlier Monday, a federal judge said the state Supreme Court was the appropriate venue to resolve the dispute. U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson Jr. sent two of three stimulus lawsuits back to the state's high court.
The third suit was filed by Sanford against Attorney General Henry McMaster, in his official role to enforce the laws of the state. The governor asked the court if the Legislature overreached in its attempt to force him to take the money, and upset the balance of power in the state.
Sanford said he would drop that suit if he loses in state court. A hearing in the federal case is not expected until after a decision is returned on the state suits.
If he does lose, Sanford said he hopes residents will better see the problems with the state's 1895 constitution.
"We continue to believe that this issue is fundamentally about the balance of power and separation of powers in our state, and our hope is that however it turns out it will serve as a reason for more people to make their voices heard about the outdated and bizarre government structure in South Carolina," Sanford said.
Previous story
Taxpayers to cover legal fees, published 05/28/09
Senate leader Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, said that the governor's assertion proves that he is more interested in power than the merits or demerits of the stimulus cash.
"This is a power hunt," McConnell said. "It validates my opinion that he was in the federal courts looking for them to legislate from the bench to rewrite the South Carolina Constitution."
Sanford press secretary Joel Sawyer said the governor is only interested in creating more coequal branches of government. The Legislature's control over South Carolina's governance is undeniable, and if McConnell believes the current system is working, then he is kidding himself, Sawyer said.
"Senator McConnell's life in politics has been about preserving and increasing power for the Senate; we see where it's gotten South Carolina," Sawyer said.
Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, a Democrat, said he is pleased that Sanford won't prolong the court battle if the Supreme Court rules against him.
The state Department of Education estimates, based on district surveys, that about 2,600 jobs, including 1,500 classroom teaching positions, will be eliminated next year unless the state receives the first $350 million installment of the stimulus cash. If the money is available, 700 jobs could be saved, including 500 teaching positions.
Lowcountry districts anticipate avoiding layoffs by not replacing staff that retires or quits at the end of the school year.
"We need to resolve this fiasco in a way that doesn't hurt kids," Rex said. "Every other state and governor is getting this done, and we need to get it done here, too."
Reach Yvonne Wenger at 803-799-9051 or ywenger@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
mmoe63 (anonymous) says...
An utterly foolish or senseless person. (Sanford)
June 2, 2009 at 6:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
upstateislander (anonymous) says...
My, My, My....dear ole guv.......is that the proverbial handwriting on the walll that I see? Well actually the rest of us have seen it for some time now, Your 15 minutes are just about up guv!
June 2, 2009 at 6:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realamerican (anonymous) says...
It will be a great day for South Carolina on Sanford's last day in office. He has been the worst governor our state has been saddled with in recent memory.
June 2, 2009 at 6:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PoliGadfly (anonymous) says...
No, far from it. If Rex doesn't want to hurt kids over this, he should have made sure the confounded legislature made them a priority before now. "Kids" are now being exploited to simply cover legislative ineptness. Clyburn's remarks about providing them a good education so they can help pay back the debt his handler has decreed they have was very telling.
June 2, 2009 at 6:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Clearly, muddle-headed thinking is the winner again where both the legislature and executive branches are ceding their power to the judiciary. The 3 branches are equal which means that the courts do not have the mythical final say. If you would simply look back at how the founders actually governed with the government that they create, then you will see that it was common practice to ignore the doings of the other branches, doing what they do to balance the effects of the other during differences. They certainly did not cede their responsibility to another branch.
June 2, 2009 at 6:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flamingo (anonymous) says...
Governor Sanford's house on Sullivan's Island is on the market for 4 Million. His children go to PRIVATE school! He doesn't care about South Carolina as a state. He cares about making a big name for himself. Well he has succeeded in making a name for himself....wonder if its the name he wanted.
June 2, 2009 at 7:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mb300sl (anonymous) says...
When it is all over Gov. Sanford will have made his point and the big spenders in the legislature will have their stop-gap money for a couple of years...what's going to happen in two years when the Obamessiah's porkulous money is no more? Hold on to your wallets!
June 2, 2009 at 7:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
However we might feel, this is in fact consistent with American history. In the 1830s, Alexis de Toqueville observed that, in America, political decisions are frequently resolved into judicial decisions. This has not changed and it is the political class's safety valve to avoid making extremely controversial decisions that could easily get them booted from office. In this particular case, ALL OF THEM are punting. They ALL have the cover of saying a court has decided and we all must obey the law. Thus, in counterpoint to the simpleton posts about Mark previous to mine, he is engaging in the same behavior that ALL politicians engage in, whether right/left wing, Dem/Repub, or other.
So the real question devolves to a demand I would love to see made of all the poltical simpletons where they had no choice but to answer the following question. "Your guy is engaging in IDENTICAL behavior to my guy. What EXACTLY makes it OK for your guy to engage in this behavior and WRONG for my guy to do exactly the same thing".
Of course, there would never be a logical answer from such a shockingly limited mentality. It's simply not there.
June 2, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realamerican (anonymous) says...
Posted by mb300sl
"what's going to happen in two years when the Obamessiah's porkulous money is no more? Hold on to your wallets!"
------------------------------------------------------------
When the stimulus funds are depleted hopefully our state will be in a better position as the economy improves. And yes, if we need to raise taxes to fund enough teachers for our schools and police for our cities so be it.
Our states catering to vacation house owners and the retiree population has left our state without a tax base capable of even a minimally adequate government. A certain portion of our population is not willing to pull their share of the load. While they raised their families in states that supported them in retirement they come here and decide they have already paid enough in taxes and are not willing to pay their fair share to support our schools and governmental services.
It's about time ALL citizens paid their fair share.
June 2, 2009 at 8:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
Best leader in the State hands down and ya'll want to get rid of him! Oh my the "never do wells" will always be whining about someone else getting what they deserve. It never changes. Bless your hearts!
June 2, 2009 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
shoelaces (anonymous) says...
REALAMERICAN.....Gee, you're right. I guess Beasley and Hodges were better than Sanford. One term "blunders."
At least Sanford has the guts to stand strong and by his convictions. I would much rather have someone leading our state who is willing to stick his neck out and possibly damage his political career than a couple of "men" who just wanted to appease the masses. How DID that work out for the previous governors?
FLAMINGO.... Could you provide me with a list of US governors who send their children to PUBLIC schools? Our president sends his girls to private school....any problem with that?
June 2, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mattcofc (anonymous) says...
I guess the SC Supreme Court gets the final say if they don't appeal to the US Supreme Court if at all possible. Just remember their decision isn't final because it is right, it is right because it is final. This would have seemed to be a much better public referendum if possible, it might have cost less than all of these legal fees.
June 2, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justlaughin (anonymous) says...
Shoelaces - when a black president or other politician sends his children to private school, it is because of security reasons; when a white politician sends his children to a private school it is because he is a racist and doesn't care about the public school system. Haven't you drunk any of the Kool-Aid yet?
Sanford has made such a public spectacle of himself because he has aspirations of a higher office. He wants to go on record as "I told you so." In sticking to his "principles", he has cost the state even more money with these lawsuits and schools and colleges are in upheaval, still not knowing what their real budgets will be for the next school year. In trying to make a name for himself, he has hurt his state. I have spoken to many who have said that they have voted for him in the past, but never will again. I am in that same group. Many of us are against the stimulus, but it passed in Congress and we are going to have to pay it back whether our state takes it or not. Sanford planned all along to take the money, he just wanted to hold out long enough to get national attention. He can get national attention on his own from now on. He has abused his position and the welfare of our state long enough to get this attention. Let him try to get to a higher office when voters from S.C. refuse to vote for him and see how that works out. He just dug his own political grave.
June 2, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
I got an idea. How about we reduce the food stamp program down to WIC style benefits (store brand only, and necessities.) Then that will give all of the taxmoney-sucking government service dependents an incentive to work for their Pepsi and steak. Thus, they would have to get a job which would lead to more tax money to pay off the state debt and pay for this education problem that the blind majority think money can fix. Make the people actually contribute to the things they are complaining about. Make them improve their own community, and destroy the entitlement stigma.
Make the parents make better decisions in life (become independent of government) and the kids will make better decisions in school.
Better parents= Better children= Better schools. Not the other way around. Throwing money on a fire doesn't put it out, it only makes it burn higher.
June 2, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
crankyyankee, Spar me the patronizing attitude! You and your flawed assumptions that all liberals are "never do wells", what a crock! Just because we didn't have a rich daddy and maybe had to take out a loan to pay for school, (and by the way have to pay back). Nope, we didn't have daddy to help us, pay for school, bail us out of trouble or anything else. Oh yeah, it is a lot easier not to need the government when you have daddy!
June 2, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
BTW education is easiest and best way to become upwardly mobile, but then again some people always have daddy to help them out!
June 2, 2009 at 9 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
geekboy (anonymous) says...
Posted by realamerican on June 2, 2009 at 8:09 a.m.
When the stimulus funds are depleted hopefully our state will be in a better position as the economy improves.
***************************************************
So let's throw $700 million on black, and hope that's where the marble comes to rest?
Yeah, that's a really good plan. [rolls eyes]
June 2, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
Guidedbystewart, nobody needs the goverment. But they got you right where they want you. You say "Just because we didn't have a rich daddy and maybe had to take out a loan to pay for school, (and by the way have to pay back)." You are endorsing Sanford and you don't even know it. That's cute. He wants us to pay back our debt while the opposors say to forget financial obligations, just keep spending the monopoly money.
For the last 30 or so years, America has been off at college getting drunk, partying, doing what we wanted to do, and loaning money to our bumming friends (the welfare recipients) because they still wanna hang out with us and party. Well our rich daddy (China) isn't too happy with us right now and doesn't think we're getting good enough grades in our economics class to pass, much less pay off the student loan he gave us. SO what happens when our rich daddy pulls tuition and we're out in the real world (a non-debt based system) with nothing but a printing press. Can you say Weimar America?
June 2, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
The problem with big daddy is Daddy = government from my pocket to yours...not the things we share but to your pocket alone.
June 2, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
realamerican (anonymous) says...
nopartisan_noproblem, Yeah right. It's the poor on food stamps that caused the current financial difficulties and housing bust.
Weimar America? You are an idiot! Why didn't you speak up as Bush destroyed our standing in the world and started wars in your name under false pretense? Amazing how you republicans have all of a sudden become super patriots and the 80% of the population who disagrees with you is wrong
June 2, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
as I have previously posted...
not would be so against paying off the debt if it wasn't for...
1. The CURRENT condition of the State's economy
2. The fact that Sanford has done little to nothing to invest in the FUTURE of this State.
3. This is not just federal handout but stimulus money there to create jobs. Something our governor fails to realize and another one of the main reasons revenues are down!
4. And last but not least, the fact is that Sanford and the legislature shifted the tax burden more to the middle class through an increased sales tax.
A tax that is more contingent on the economic downturns, therefore one of the true reasons tax revenues are down!
It is sort ironic how now the Republican are now so worried about the deficit, but has little concern about it for maybe the last 30 years or so, just an observation folks!
June 2, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Posted by theronce on June 2, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"The problem with big daddy is Daddy = government from my pocket to yours...not the things we share but to your pocket alone."
How true, we live in a vacuum don't we, theronce. The people of this State prospering, becoming more upwardly mobile, and becoming more competitive in a global market could never benefit others or the State as a whole?
Another short sighted remark...
June 2, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
First of all realamerican, I guess thats your name because Biden said "paying taxes is patriotic." Secondly hence my name nopartisan, that means I have no party i enslave myself to. A welfare recipient is anybody that receives any sort of bailout from the taxpayer ( unemployment, food stamps, mortgage recovery, corporate bailout.) If you think that only the "poor" receive welfare, you are prejudice and close-minded. I do disagree with Bush starting wars under false pretense. I would never label myself under any party. When you do that, your own opinions and views are molded solely to stick within party lines.
The food stamp program I was referring to was just one idea to bring more tax revenue to the state for debt relief and education money, being that many people that support spending the money are under taxpayer assistance. I believe that anybody that doesn't work should shut their mouth about anything to do with tax dollars.
And it's not that I think a lot of people are wrong. They're just apathetic, ignorant, and are too emotional about issues to give logic any room.
The only way you are not poor is if you have absolutely no debt in your name and receive no outside funding not solely earned by yourself. And I know Weimar America is extreme, but don't think America is immune to hyper-inflation. When we have nobody to borrow money from, do you think we will change our fiscal policies, or just continue to print.
"Wealth is a state of mind, not a state of currency"
June 2, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhatMeWorry (anonymous) says...
postman, great post at 0804. It's amazing how many people would rather see their party win than their country (on both sides).
The idea that we use stimulus money now during this recession with the expectation that the economy will improve in the coming years is a gamble, but not a gamble akin to geekboy's roullette analogy.
While there's no such thing as a "sure thing," the odds are extraordinarily good that the economy will rebound. (Just think of the odds of the alternative outcome, that the economy stays this bad forever... not likely!)
Sanford has played this well for himself. South Carolina will get the money and he can use his stance as a talking point in 2012. Unfortunately for him, South Carolina will not likely improve enough under any political regime (until the culture of its people progress) for him to look like an effective politician.
June 2, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhatMeWorry (anonymous) says...
nopartisan, wrote, "The only way you are not poor is if you have absolutely no debt in your name"
I disagree with that. Many successful (financially and otherwise) people have educational debt and are not poor.
My family did not have the money to pay for the education I needed to achieve my goals, so I borrowed. As a result, I have a dream career in which I look forward to going to work everyday and receive very fair compensation.
Not all debt is equal. Debt on a car or a credit card is irresponsible as neither can be viewed as a sound investment. Debt for education, if used wisely, certainly can be a wise investment. It has made me "wealthy" (rather than poor) by my own standards.
June 2, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Larz13 (anonymous) says...
RealUnamerican said:
It's about time ALL citizens paid their fair share.
You said one thing perfectly--it is time to get the lazy liberals off their posteriors and do something positive for this country instead of depending on the TAXPAYERS. Burn more $$ on educating the dregs who will end up in prison anyway.
June 2, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
You're right WhatMeWorry. I was speaking in a financial situation. Education debt is for a greater cause, but financially speaking anytime money owed is greater than money owned, you are broke. Kudos to you for making a very plausibly sound investment. And as your last sentence states, that is all that matters.
"Wealth is a state of mind, not a state of currency"
June 2, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
A Republican Governor and a Republican legislature have controlled this state for 20 years. In the Lowcountry, we've lost industry and picked up a growing population of retired people who aren't going to be able to support themselves and won't be willing to pay any taxes. Florida is already in trouble due to the same problem. Bright, young people and their families leave for better schools and opportunities elsewhere. We're left with jobs making beds. We've promoted tourism and real estate development, but there is no future there. The plantation of the future has a golf course and the Lowcountry may already be committed to an economy where quality employment is very scarce.
June 2, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
guidedbystewart on June 2, 2009 at 9:29 a.m.
as I have previously posted...
not would be so against paying off the debt if it wasn't for...
1. The CURRENT condition of the State's economy
2. The fact that Sanford has done little to nothing to invest in the FUTURE of this State.
3. This is not just federal handout but stimulus money there to create jobs. Something our governor fails to realize and another one of the main reasons revenues are down!
4. And last but not least, the fact is that Sanford and the legislature shifted the tax burden more to the middle class through an increased sales tax--------
-------------------------------------------------------
1. The current condition of the economy has more to do with all the feel good programs funded by the state, free breakfast and lunch at school, having a teacher and a teaching assistant in classrooms of only 15 to twenty students, funding things the lottery was supposed to cover, and just plain bureaucracy. To many wasteful programs to list!
2. Sanford has attempted to invest in the state by improving the school system with vouchers. Everything he has tried to do has been squashed by the legislative branch.
3. Create jobs! You mean construction jobs that will be finite projects. Road crews are going to bring us back in line for our state budget. Foolish statement!
4. The sales tax shifted the burden to the middle class? So, the wealthy and the poor do not pay the increased sales tax?
The wealthy create jobs, and the more jobs the more people with money to spend, hence higher tax revenues. But, when higher tax revenues are obtained the government will spend it without paying down the debt as they did a couple of years ago.
SANFORD HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS FOR YEARS, BUT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT LISTEN BACK THEN AND NOW YOU BLAME SANFORD AND THE WEALTHY.
I DEAL IN FACTS NOT IDEALOGY, BASED ON WEALTH ENVY AND CLASS WARFARE!
June 2, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WorkingTommyC (anonymous) says...
So, with all these state and corporate welfare bailouts and the acquisition of General Motors, when are we going to be able to get on the program to purchase cheap peoplecars?
Oh, wait--nevermind! I was thinking for a moment that this was NAZI Germany.
Easy mistake to make. Fascism is an economic system that we've mostly had for a while now but which is consolidating and firmly entrenching itself now.
The VERY SAME POWER to ignore the Supreme Law of the Land and assume powers not granted to it, also allows the federal government to start herding citizens up and putting us in concentration camps.
By the time enough of the "sheeple" (as the recent editorial in Pravda referred to us) wake up and scream, "STOP!" it will be too late. We're building our death chambers one brick at a time.
Go ahead, keep your mind stuck on these trivialities and sell your souls and principles for some soon-to-be worthless dollars. Then watch how much more power the Feds assume in response.
June 2, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
That was nice Outrage, nice!
June 2, 2009 at 2:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Outrage, you are the one that reeks of ideology and not facts. Wealth envy, class envy, or whatever, WHAT AN ARROGANT BS!!!!!!!! Fact is the wealthy always stack the cards in there favor then try to dupe the rest of us as if they are the ones that are the victims, what BS!
"1. The current condition of the economy has more to do with all the feel good programs funded by the state, free breakfast and lunch at school, having a teacher and a teaching assistant in classrooms of only 15 to twenty students, funding things the lottery was supposed to cover, and just plain bureaucracy. To many wasteful programs to list!"
The reason our State's economy is in the ringer has nothing to do with free lunch and everything to do with our State's inability to compete in the global market! This all goes back to our crappy educational system from top (secondary) to bottom! Our secondary school systems are one of the lowest funded in the country, lottery money or not, and you have to have well trained teachers in order to have a decent school system!
"2. Sanford has attempted to invest in the state by improving the school system with vouchers. Everything he has tried to do has been squashed by the legislative branch."
Vouchers are not an investment! I written about vouchers several times before but here is to refresh some of yours memories!
"Posted by guidedbystewart on March 25, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There are a couple of reasons why private schools out perform public schools, but the main reason is that private schools do not have the dilemma of educating the masses.
But anyways here are the reasons broken down...
Private schools can be picky at whom they take in, public schools can not. It is much easier for a private school to kick out incorrigible students, under performing student, ECT.
Parental involvement is much getter in private schools, but then again, if you are paying a bunch of money into your school, your child's academic achievement would be much more monitored.
On average, the class size in private schools are much less than of that of public schools.
The teachers' employment is more competitive in private schools, also many teachers do not have to deal with the same kind of "riff raff" that they would in many public schools, because of the above reasons.
June 2, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Yet, we do still have school choice and private schools are an option. If you want your child to go to private school and you can not afford it, you should push your kid enough for them to get a scholarship. It is doubtful that a voucher system would lessen the cost of private schools. If private schools received vouchers, all it would do is raise the tuition in order to keep the masses out. There is no way the government can give money to the private school system without taking money away from the public school system. This is the last thing that needs to happen in this State. Besides private schools are a business, they are there to make money, public schools are not.
June 2, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
"3. Create jobs! You mean construction jobs that will be finite projects. Road crews are going to bring us back in line for our state budget. Foolish statement!"
It worked before during the depression, oh right FDR was democrat and you guys tend to over look there accomplishments.
"4. The sales tax shifted the burden to the middle class? So, the wealthy and the poor do not pay the increased sales tax?
The wealthy create jobs, and the more jobs the more people with money to spend, hence higher tax revenues. But, when higher tax revenues are obtained the government will spend it without paying down the debt as they did a couple of years ago."
Oh yes, the trickle down economic mentality has sure worked for this State! Where are the statistics to prove "trickle down economics" works? The fact is the opposite is true! As taxes decrease in the wealthy, the disparity of wealth increases, FACT!
BTW, outrage, did Daddy take care of you also? Sure sounds like it!
June 2, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
Guided - Actually I grew up in a housing project in NY with two sisters and my mom.
I went to public school in classrooms of around 35 students and 1 teacher.
I went to college in MI with student loans that I paid back on my own, and got a Bachelor's degree in Business Mgt.
My youngest sister has a Bachelor's and my oldest sister has a Master's degree.
No excuse of growing up poor, or from a broken home. Just a desire to better my OWN LIFE, BY MYSELF!
I have not had a father since I was eight, but you did not know that so no hard feelings.
We got student loans on our own! We knew that an education was the way out and it was our responsibility, not the govt.'s job to give us a higher education!
I moved to SC because NY is a tax to death state, driving business and jobs away.
I believe in Federalism, so I moved to improve my quality of life. You might want to look Federalism up, it is a great concept.
I did not use ridicule as you did, but I answered your personal attack with a quick bio.
I guess my story would qualify me for the Supreme Court?
June 2, 2009 at 6:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
outrage (anonymous) says...
My retort!
GBS said - "Fact is the wealthy always stack the cards in there favor then try to dupe the rest of us as if they are the ones that are the victims, what BS!"
Outrage - The wealthy take the risks of business(entrepreneurs) and provide the jobs to the people. Henry Ford and Bill Gates are examples. You have to start looking at the difference between profit and profit margin. If you did, you would see that the cosmetic companies must be greedier than Exxon.
You are a victim of your own decisions!
GBS said - "The reason our State's economy is in the ringer has nothing to do with free lunch and everything to do with our State's inability to compete in the global market! This all goes back to our crappy educational system from top (secondary) to bottom! Our secondary school systems are one of the lowest funded in the country, lottery money or not, and you have to have well trained teachers in order to have a decent school system!"
Outrage - All those feel good programs that have to be funded drain an economic system. Look at California, Mass., and NY. Your tax the rich programs do not work, or those states would not be dying financially and people moving away.
GBS said - "There is no way the government can give money to the private school system without taking money away from the public school system.
Outrage - My point exactly, take the moneyy from Govt. schools. The education should be contolled by the states not the Federal Govt. Why does the Detroit school system need BILLIONS to be bailed out? Sounds like your theory of throwing money at a problem does not work.
Teachers are there to coach, guide, and communicate to the students. The students job is to learn and apply.
The cost per student in a Charter School is less than the cost per student in Govt. schools.
The government can not run anything without being a wasteful bureaucracy and you know it!
As for your FDR comment, FDR and the 16th amendment were two pieces of kindling that got this bonfire going.
Please read a book on economics.
* Economic facts and Fallacies by Thomas Sowell is a good start.
June 2, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tigerrecord (anonymous) says...
Hey, guided by stewart, didn't FDR also create the Social Security and Medicare program that is the proverbial shackle on the proverbial ankle of our economic system.
Grow up my man, learn real economics, come back when you have knowledge, besides what you deem as arrogance, and quit the rhetoric.
Look up the voting records, see what Clyburn, Rex, and the other liberals have proposed, juxtapose that against what Governor Sanford has proposed, logically, honestly, and with the intent on discovering the truth, and then respond.
You'll find that the liberals of our state, and our "conservatives" (cough, McConnel) have given us on the return of our tax dollars. It looks like, walks like, and smells a lot like horse crap.
June 2, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BillytheKid (anonymous) says...
I used to like him, voted for him at one time but the things he is selling don't do well for me. Lower taxes for the rich and reduced services because of the lower taxed had put SC in a very bad spot. Having to borrow to pay for the unemployed and him fighting not to do it shows how foolish he is. Only because the federal government stepped in did our system stay afloat.
This "right to work" state status and always fighting having unions, the Charleston fire department spent more time fighting the union then it did training their "soldiers" how to properly fight fires. Their union tried to tell them for years that they were too old school. It is time to get this state straightened out by electing some new blood in all offices. I don't care what party they are in they all have to go. We are getting nothing from Columbia, they did come up with a law to force a druggist that mixes Rx's for polo horses to mix them right or they would be in trouble. I am so glad that my polo horse is safe now. What they have going with the SPA is a joke, too many hands in it to make it work properly. We are going to loose a lot of business of the way the port is run.
I could go on forever, but I would like to be able to elect my judges, I don't need anymore buddy system judgeships given out by out so-called leaders. They can't do much without a lobbyist giving them a nudge.
Sanford is too conservative for me. I don't need God in government but I need him in my heart. I don't care if people of the same sex want to be together and if a woman has to choose to end a pregnancy that will have to be her choice.
June 2, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StonoMud (anonymous) says...
Two short comments.
Many have been saying that Sanford's actions have hurt the State. All he is trying to do is to keep greedy bureaucrats from exhausting our tax dollars. If he had succeeded, the state would have been in a good position as the nation heads toward a real depression. Now, we are just going the way of California.
This talk about private school having better students than public is not completely valid. That may be true for the prep schools, but is not true of many small schools. I have worked in a couple of small private schools where we tended to have many public school rejects. Yet, we still were able to turn a few of these rejects around.
Vouchers will give parents more control of the education of their children. If one system does not work, they are able to try others.
June 2, 2009 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reader (anonymous) says...
I can't believe how many judicial activists are posting on both sides of the issue today! Whether Sanford is right or wrong is not dependent on whether taking the money is a good idea or not. You people who are arguing about how bad the schools are or about budget deficits as a basis for your opinions are way off. It is 100% dependant on the language of the law.
The law says something like this: The Governor of a State desiring funding shall apply to the federal government.
The problem is this: Does the participial phrase "desiring funding" describe Governor or State? You could read the language as saying that if a State wants the funding (as the Statehouse would have to decide), then the Governor SHALL fill out the paperwork. But, you could also read it as saying that if the GOVERNOR-of-a-state himself desires the funding, then, and only then, shall he apply. In that case, the "of a State" is a stand-alone preposition phrase of no real consequence.
Is the word "shall" actually mandatory? Whose desire is really the important trigger in the process?
Those are questions of statutory construction and do not have anything in the world to do with the soundness of actually asking for the money.
June 2, 2009 at 11:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flamingo (anonymous) says...
To Shoelaces: Two governors that send their children to public school are the governor of Alaska (remember her) and the governor of Michigan. I know those two for sure.
June 3, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GMCBROWN (anonymous) says...
Is South Carolina the only state that does not value public education? Is it ok to pay for something and expect almost nothing in return. I think, as a taxpayer, I should expect that we get the most from our tax dollars not less. Public education funding seems to always be on the chopping block in this state, while our neighbors seem to invest more. We think the answer lies in vouchers and privatization of schools. Can we stop this madness??? We seem more interested in prisons than schools. Is anyone embarrassed by the "Corridor of Shame?" Are we proud of being last in everything good and first in everything bad? Is it prudent to have a fixation on paying down debt while your friends and neighbors lose their homes and their families starve? Govenor Sanford, please address these questions.
June 3, 2009 at 2:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
eyfigueroa (anonymous) says...
Harold, lay off Barry Manilow! He's the man!!!
;-)
June 3, 2009 at 2:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charleston1960 (anonymous) says...
Why are people so ignorant that adding 700 million to the budget for 2 years means disaster in 3 when there is no incoming money to cover the increased hires or programs? All Sanford wants to do is keep the budget real and under control. Adding 700 million that does not exist currently within the state's tax revenue income based system is irresponsible. Would your personal budget allow you to utilize a 40,000 budget when your income is only 35,000?
Every person wanting to accept the 700 million should have to sign a contract. It would be an agreement to cover the high taxes that will be needed to cover the 350 million each year after the state begins to pay back this $700 million 'loan'. Those not wanting it could sign a binding agreement that the loan is not their responsibility and it should allow them to be excluded from future tax hikes.
June 4, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
