South Carolina to Sanford: Stop Playing Politics With Job Creation

The reviews are in, and South Carolinians from both parties are rejecting Governor Mark Sanford’s decision to play politics with $700 million in federal job creation and economic recovery funds. On the same day the Washington Post is running a front-page story on the economic crisis in South Carolina, a bipartisan mix of South Carolina leaders are criticizing Gov. Sanford’s decision to put his personal political ambitions ahead of the people of South Carolina by threatening to reject economic recovery funds that will create or retain jobs, improve education, and complete infrastructure projects throughout South Carolina. As one local paper reports, “South Carolina's Republican-controlled General Assembly is poised to rebuff Sanford and seek the stimulus money on its own.”

“Mark Sanford is putting his personal ambition ahead of the people of South Carolina by cow-towing to the Rush Limbaugh-led, obstructionist wing of the Republican Party,” said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Brad Woodhouse. “Now is not the time to politicize these practical steps to create jobs in South Carolina and across the country. Governor Sanford should stop playing politics and work with leaders from both parties who want to use the economic recovery funds to help create jobs, fix our schools, reform our health care system, make America energy independent, and lay the foundation for long-term growth in the 21st Century.”

The Reviews Are In:
Bipartisan Rejection of Sanford’s Ploy

South Carolina Republican: State Needs Recovery Money. “House Speaker Bobby Harrell, R-Charleston, said the $700 million can help state agencies, such as the Department of Education, transition to smaller budgets over a few years rather than taking the hit at once. Charleston Mayor Joe Riley urged Sanford to change his mind. ‘Paying off the debt does nothing for the schoolteacher who is losing a job or the probation officer who is being laid off,’ he said. House Minority Leader Harry Ott, D-St. Matthews, said the House, which passed its budget early Wednesday, plans to use the money as a one-time fix. ‘The recovery money was intended to fix some problems, specifically in the education budget, but also to help generate jobs,’ he said. As the jockeying around the $700 million continues, the state Senate will begin debating the state budget.” [Charleston Post and Courier, 3/12/09]

Herald Online: Republican Legislature “Poised to Rebuff Sanford.” “Gov. Mark Sanford on Wednesday became the first governor to reject some of his state's share of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus money, spurning $700 million that he said would harm his state's residents in the long run…South Carolina's Republican-controlled General Assembly is poised to rebuff Sanford and seek the stimulus money on its own.” [Herald Online, 3/12/09]

Upstate Today: Local Lawmakers Question Sanford’s Stimulus Proposal. “While some local lawmakers may agree in theory with Gov. Mark Sanford’s proposal to use stimulus money to pay down the state’s debt, they’re also questioning its practicality and the governor's priorities. Sanford said he will seek a waiver from President Barack Obama to use $700 million of the $2.8 billion allotted to South Carolina to pay debts and contingent liabilities. ‘First of all, he is operating on the premise that he can get a waiver from the president to allow those funds to be used that way,’ Rep. Bill Sandifer said. ‘I personally do not feel there is any possibility of getting such a waiver. The stimulus package was written in such a way that the funds are designated for very specific things, with very specific conditions on their use. Beyond that Sandifer also said he and others in the General Assembly were irked by Sanford’s waiting to announce his intentions until after the House had passed on a spending bill to the Senate under the assumption they’d have all stimulus moneys at their disposal.” [Upstate Today, 3/12/09]


Clyburn: Sanford move all about 2012. “House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) minced no words in responding today to South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s decision to reject stimulus funds for state projects. ‘This is just political posturing aimed toward the next national election,’ Clyburn told reporters on a conference call today. ‘If he were looking out for the state he would be looking out for the people of the state.’ ‘He’s got a political agenda that runs contrary to the needs of his constituents,’ said Clyburn, noting the state’s more than 10 percent unemployment rate.” [Politico, 3/11/09]

Washington Post: As South Carolina's Job Losses Mount, Sanford Rejects Aid. “Gov. Mark Sanford (R) eschews the prevailing view in Washington that government money should be used as a salve to the economy and to people who have lost jobs. ‘At some level, government steps in to fill the void,’ Sanford said in an interview, ‘but we ought to be the lender of last resort, not the first.’ … While other states have looked to Washington for assistance, Sanford has been a foremost critic of the federal economic stimulus package. Yesterday, he challenged the law's intent, announcing that he will ask the White House for a waiver to use $700 million -- the part of South Carolina's share of the money over which he has direct control -- to lower the state's debt, instead of putting it toward new spending.” [Washington Post, 3/12/09]

Clyburn: Sanford Move “100 Percent Political Posturing.” “Anticipating that Sanford would oppose stimulus money, Clyburn did an end-run around the governor: He worked into the stimulus package a provision that allows a state legislature to accept the federal money if a governor rejects it. Yesterday, Clyburn lashed out at Sanford, saying his effort to get a waiver is ‘100 percent political posturing.’ While the politics play out, the surge in need is visible in the line that snakes across the parking lot at Harvest Hope, the food bank that supplies 400 nonprofits and runs its own emergency pantry.” [Washington Post, 3/12/09]

Rural Communities Suffer Most Under House Budget Proposal

In a surprising move the South Carolina House Ways and Means Committee decided that the best method for emerging from an economic recession is to raise property taxes, force layoffs, and reduce services necessary for everyday taxpayers and economic development. This crisis will occur if the House chooses to continue down the path set when Ways and Means balanced the state budget by slashing the Local Government Fund. Perhaps not so surprisingly, the House Leadership has decided that rural communities should once again pay the largest price for the state’s continued budgetary mismanagement.

The Local Government Fund is best looked at as the first property tax relief granted to the taxpayers of South Carolina. If funded according to the statutory formula, local governments are sent 4.5% of the last fiscal year’s State General Fund. This provides all counties with a predictable flow of income other than property taxes. Next year, for instance, we know the Local Government Fund will diminish because of the reduction in this year’s General Fund.

This money does not come to counties for nothing. Counties are statutorily required to comply with numerous mandates on behalf of state government. Some of these mandates include the housing of the judicial system, paying for magistrates, and providing office space and supplies for state agencies located in the county. All of these are state functions (indeed the authority over all rests in Columbia) but are funded by county tax dollars.

Clearly, the greatest suffering as a result of the ongoing recession is in rural communities. Many counties are experiencing double digit unemployment, companies laying off employees, and diminishing tax bases. Three years ago, the General Assembly sentenced the rural citizens of this state to second class citizenry as a result of imposing a millage cap caste system. The millage cap states that local governments may not increase the millage more than the consumer price index plus population growth in the county. In communities with lower population, this means that citizens will never enjoy the services available in more rapidly growing communities, even if they are willing to pay for it. With the proposed local government fund cut, the House leadership decided that turning their backs on the rural taxpayers of this state is not enough. They feel that our citizens do not deserve basic services, such as law enforcement, EMS services, and infrastructure maintenance. They want your property tax dollars to increase and go toward funding state functions while cutting those services that local taxpayers want and deserve.

Reeling from the millage cap and the recession Abbeville County, for instance, eliminated an ambulance station and turned it into a “quick response vehicle” station. This means that a truck with equipment and drugs is dispatched and works to stabilize the patient until a transporting ambulance can arrive on the scene. Abbeville has also instituted a one week unpaid furlough, cut four positions from the payroll, and reduced three other positions from full to part-time. The proposed action of the Ways and Means committee means another $660,000 cut from their budget, a cut that will put taxpayer lives at risk.

My constituents in Saluda County will lose $485,110 as a result of this cut. This is the equivalent of 9.88 mils. The millage limitation this year for Saluda County will likely be 3.9, which means, assuming county council raises taxes to the maximum extent allowed, we could make up $191,427. The remaining $293,683 will need to be stricken from an already lean budget utilizing either a reduction in force, furloughs, elimination of services or a combination of all three.

The result of cutting the Local Government Fund is apparent. Local governments are limited by a millage cap created in 2006 when the General Assembly, awash in cash, implemented a sales tax for school property tax replacement. At the same time they decided to emasculate local government fiscal authority by limiting millage increases to CPI plus population growth. Clearly, as a result of this measure, all local governments will be forced to increase millage to the maximum allowed under the limiting statute. In wealthy, populous communities, perhaps like those in the House leadership, taxpayers will see the taxes on the homes and cars skyrocket with some service loss. However in rural communities, already battered as a result of the General Assembly’s millage cap, this action will result in higher taxes, the slashing of local services, and most likely layoffs and furloughs in rural local governments. It is my hope House members who represent constituencies like mine will not once again succumb to the House leadership, but instead will save our taxpayers from the ruthless pillaging these actions represent.

By T. Hardee Horne, Chairman of Saluda County Council and a member of the Board of Directors of the South Carolina Association of Counties

Getting serious about governmental transparency

By Lt. Governor André Bauer

In the face of continuing news reports of lost, found, and stolen state funds, I am unveiling the Lieutenant Governor’s Office transparency initiative that can be quickly adopted at little cost by all state agencies, giving taxpayers an unprecedented view of state finances.

As a true conservative I believe that the people, the voters, the taxpayers, my constituents, have an absolute right to know how state government is handling their finances.

Therefore I am as shocked as any other taxpayer to hear about $5 million being stolen from Department of Social Services, one $7,000 check after another for more than five years.

I am as frustrated as any other elected official to hear that while we grapple with cuts to hospice programs for seniors and autism services for children, hundreds of millions of dollars are hidden from public view in reserve accounts by the Department of Health and Human Services.

I am as baffled as any business person that $250,000 for a veterans program can be ‘lost’ in the Governor’s Office, only to be quickly ‘found’ when a legislator calls for an audit.

Therefore I am completely delighted to implement a solution that lets anyone go to the internet and view what is tantamount to the monthly bank statement for every state agency.

This builds on the commendable efforts of Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom to provide taxpayers what are essentially the cancelled checks of South Carolina state government.

But, we can -- and we must -- do much more.

I applaud him for embracing my initiative by going the further step, which places on the internet a current report used by all state agencies and issued by his office – and is the equivalent of a monthly bank statement. It shows not only the checks written, but the balances.

My staff and Comptroller General Eckstrom’s staff are working together to make this process more user friendly. The beginning point is for state agencies to turn these monthly reports into pdf files that can be placed on the internet with little cost. Our objective ultimately is to adapt technology so that these reports become data bases that can be researched by taxpayers.

In the meantime, today I am sending every agency head in South Carolina my personal request that they take the identical steps we have taken in the Office of the Lieutenant Governor.

Let’s restore taxpayer confidence in our stewardship of their money. Let’s get serious about transparency. The people who pay the bills – the hard-working taxpayers of South Carolina – deserve no less.

Trends for 2009

Among our TOP TRENDS 2009, The Trends Research Institute forecast an imminent onslaught of "Hassle Taxes" to be levied by governments at every level from local to federal.

While the unfair and burdensome taxes will fail to balance budgets, they will succeed in infuriating the general public – to such an extent that tax revolts will break out around the country, along with incendiary displays of both civil and uncivil disobedience.

Blind to the repercussions, governments do not recognize that revolution, not prosperity, is just around the corner.

That’s not all. Beyond tax revolts and civil disobedience, 2009 will be a tumultuous year. Trends foreboding and trends promising:

• The Collapse of ‘09: Markets will tumble and major businesses will fail.
• The Greatest Depression: Worse than the 1930’s Depression. Why?
• Revolution: What will be the spark that ignites it? Who will fire the shot heard around the world?
• Obamarama: High hopes, broken promises: Some victories, major failures.
• Economic Slim-Fast: Like it or not, Americans will go on a spending diet and food diet.
• Bush Gardens: Lawns out, Edible Landscaping in. Why Bush Gardens?
• Whole Health Healing: 2009 marks a year of "attitude change" for the on-trend health aware.
• Little People Squeeze: Politicians will put the financial squeeze on the already squeezed.
• Regenerative Medicine: The time is ripe for stem cells to come out of the laboratory and into the clinic.
• That’s Entertainment. Lifting spirits – and drinking them – will be big business and major pastimes during the Greatest Depression.
• College Crash: Following the equity market meltdown, the real estate bust and the retail unraveling, comes the college crash.

What are your predictions for 2009?

A watershed time for state government

An Opinion Piece By Richard Eckstrom, S.C. Comptroller General

When you're spending other people's hard-earned money, it's just common courtesy to let them know how it's spent.

That's not a principle always embraced by government. Too often, tax dollars are spent under a shroud of secrecy, and decisions which affect your family are made out of public view.

Fortunately, this is a watershed time for South Carolina government. There's a growing movement afoot to improve and reform government, and chief among the reforms is increased transparency.

Earlier this year, I implemented a transparency measure with Governor Sanford which allows anyone with Internet access to view spending data on state agencies. It’s linked to the Comptroller General’s Web site -- www.cg.sc.gov -- and contains detailed yearly and monthly spending information for 80-plus state agencies. The premise is that state agencies are far more accountable when their spending is done in the open, and the taxpayers should have as many tools as possible to find out how their money is spent.

Aside from allowing taxpayers to see how their hard-earned dollars are used, it should serve as a reminder to public officials that their spending will be seen, and therefore they should act responsibly with your tax dollars. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant.

Several weeks ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers announced they’re renewing a push to have more legislative votes recorded for the public to see. There are too many “voice votes” on important issues, they rightly contend, and so they’re now leading a charge to have more votes cast on the record, in full view of the citizenry.

Like the spending-transparency Web site, this would be a tremendous step toward a more open, accountable government. Elected representatives who truly vote in their constituents' best interests should welcome this change.

Empowering ordinary citizens with the access to how money is spent and how their representatives vote will help safeguard the public trust, hold those in charge of our purse strings accountable and allow people to make better-informed decisions in the voting booth. At a time when many believe there is a real crisis of leadership and trust in our country, these common-sense reforms are more important than ever.

Ultimately, an informed citizenry is the watchdog that ensures sound governance.

In an election year, "change" and "accountability" become political buzz-words, so it is encouraging to know there's a serious challenge to the "business-as-usual" mindset which is pervasive in Columbia. Other good-government reforms which will likely see vigorous debate during the upcoming session include restructuring state government so that it operates more efficiently, and capping the growth in state spending so that overzealous government doesn’t outpace our ability to pay for it.

But if we are to truly change the ways of Columbia, we must first change the way we view the role of government: We serve the people, and they have a right to know how we spend public money and how we arrive at decisions that impact them.

Good government can flourish best in full view of the public.