Thursday, Apr. 02, 2009

The state of South Carolina vs. Gov. Mark Sanford

A chorus of opposition

THAT FAVORITE conservative punching bag, The New York Times, handed Gov. Mark Sanford a fabulous gift Monday when it chastised him for refusing to request $700 million in federal stimulus funding that our state so clearly needs. That let the governor frame this as his battle against “the left-leaning media.” But that ignores the near-unanimity of media opinion here in South Carolina — from the conservative Upstate to the hometown paper that has been Mr. Sanford’s most consistent supporter.

The Aiken Standard begged the governor to request the funds. The Rock Hill Herald’s opinion editor, James Werrell, wrote that “anyone who would consider turning down federal help in getting this state back on its feet should be tarred and feathered.” The Anderson Independent-Mail argued that “Not accepting the money does nothing for South Carolina except perhaps enhance the governor’s image as the conservative’s conservative in the national arena with regard to fiscal matters.”

And on and on across the state, editorial pages echo most of the state’s Republican officeholders and the public (in the past week, our letters to the editor have been running 4-to-1 against the governor’s position).

But the most resounding chorus of reasoned opposition has come from our fellow big-four S.C. newspapers. The solidly conservative Greenville News, the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, probably the most conservative major paper in the state, and even The Post and Courrier of Charleston — Mr. Sanford’s most reliable cheerleader — all are urging him to set aside his ideology and swallow a big dose of pragmatism. So as a Friday deadline approaches for Mr. Sanford to decide whose side he’s on, instead of making our own arguments yet again, we turn our space over to their voices.

The Post and Courier, Sunday, March 29

S.C. needs ‘rainy day’ aid

The governor would have this state’s taxpayers assume responsibility for stimulus funding that’s already been approved by Congress and the president, but without getting the benefits.

In a state that now has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation, that’s just not a good idea.

Sen. Lindsey Graham probably speaks for most South Carolinians in his assessment of the situation: “I voted against the stimulus package because it was too large and created too much government. However, I do believe it is in South Carolina’s best interests for the governor to accept the funding as it will do some good. If South Carolina does not accept the funding, it will go to another state and future generations of South Carolinians will still be obligated to pay it back.”

The governor’s latest response has been to extend an invitation to legislators to discuss writing a budget, minus the $700 million in stimulus funding. Suffering builds character, but South Carolina already has more than enough pain in the current economy....

We can appreciate the governor’s fiscal conservatism — normally. But these aren’t normal times.

As Sen. Graham says: “This is clearly a rainy day for South Carolina and these funds can be helpful in our current budget situation.”

Spartanburg Herald-Journal, Sunday, March 29

Ideology over people

There is a time to make an ideological point, to push people to see your perspective. But that timing is wrong when your campaign will hurt people, particularly the people you have sworn to serve....

It was wrong for Washington to borrow more money, digging the nation even deeper in debt to other countries to fund a bloated stimulus package that will do more to grow government than to create jobs. Sanford is right about that.... (But) South Carolinians won’t get a tax credit or reduced rate because this state didn’t collect its share of the stimulus money....

Your point isn’t worth it, governor. You are not holding fast to a grand principle here. You have stated your case as well as you can. Further adherence to your hard line benefits no one, accomplishes nothing and hurts your own people. The rest of the state isn’t willing to suffer for your ideological obstinacy, and it shouldn’t have to. You have until Friday to change your mind. Recognize the needs of your people and the fact that they matter more than your political posture. Accept the stimulus money.

The Greenville News, Wednesday, April 1

Use the money, don’t lose it

Most Republicans in Congress opposed the excessive stimulus bill that greatly expands the reach of the federal government. So did this newspaper in several editorials. But the bill was passed, the fiscally conservative argument did not prevail, and every penny of those hundreds of billions of borrowed money will be spent.

So, as U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham was quoted as saying, the “question is do we use it or lose it?”

To that we say: Use it. Use it in this state, where 11 percent of the people are unemployed.

It makes no more sense for South Carolina to walk away from the $700 million intended to shore up a damaged state budget over the next two years than it would make to ask conservative South Carolinians to send back the money now flowing to them personally in the form of tax cuts....

Sanford is making a huge deal out of the $700 million coming directly to South Carolina for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund. Legislative leaders have every right to be upset that the governor has focused on this sliver of money while ignoring about $2 billion more that will flow directly to the state.

Some of the other money will go for worthwhile projects such as weatherizing homes and improving the energy efficiency of public buildings. Those uses, however, are far removed from the most fundamental functions of state government — functions such as educating this state’s children and protecting its citizens.

Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. Click here to subscribe.