Community Health Centers Receiving Recovery Act Funds

WASHINGTON – Four community health centers in the 5th Congressional District are receiving funds made available by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, according to U.S. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).

“People who lose their health insurance are turning to health centers for care,” said Spratt. “These funds will help the centers provide care to more patients during this recession, and create or retain health center jobs.”
Health centers deliver preventive and primary care services to patients regardless of their ability to pay; charges for services are set according to income. Health centers served more than 16 million patients nationwide in 2007, about 40 percent of whom had no health insurance.

The following health centers in the 5th District are receiving funds.

Health Center - City - Amount
CareSouth Carolina - Hartsville - $614,758
Community Medicine Foundation - Rock Hill - $225,857
HopeHealth, Inc. - Florence - $126,933
Sumter Family Health Center - Sumter - $231,126

Speaker Harrell Comments on Supreme Court Ruling

House Speaker Bobby Harrell issued the following statement about today’s Supreme Court ruling that directed the Governor to follow state law and prevent money our citizens will have to repay from being sent to other states:

“I am glad this issue is now behind us. The debate on whether or not the Governor should send our money to other states, money that our taxpayers will have to pay back either way, has lasted far too long. Now is the time to move on and focus on our state’s unemployment problem. I am committed to working with the Governor and helping him use all the economic development tools he controls to focus on improving our state’s third worst in the nation unemployment rate. We cannot afford to let another minute pass before our leadership’s focus is turned to job creation and retention in South Carolina. The number of unemployed workers in South Carolina has doubled since 2003. The over 100% increase in the number of jobless citizens in our state has to be addressed and the House of Representatives stands ready to help Governor Sanford work on this problem.”

Rex says federal funds will be available in time to help students next school year

State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex said that
today’s South Carolina Supreme Court ruling paves the way for
federal stabilization funds to be drawn down quickly and sent to local
school districts in time to help students next year.

“What I’m hearing today is a big sigh of relief from local school
districts,” Rex said. “This ruling – and the governor’s pledge
not to appeal it – gives them assurances that federal help is coming.
Now they can move ahead and approve budgets that save teaching positions
that were going to be cut. They can save effective programs that were
on life support.

“Class sizes were really going to go up next year as a result of
these cuts, and many programs were on the chopping block for big
reductions: summer school, after-school programs, adult education,
athletics, you name it. Courses were being canceled right and left.
Students were going to feel a direct impact, and now schools may be able
to avoid some of that.”

The five-member high court determined that Gov. Mark Sanford must
follow the wishes of the General Assembly, which recently approved a
budget using federal stabilization funds, and directed the governor to
apply for them. Sanford, who had refused to apply for the money, said
he would not appeal the court’s ruling that he do so.

Rex said he had been assured by the U.S. Department of Education that
the federal agency would expedite South Carolina’s request for $350
million in stabilization funds, $184 million of which would go to local
schools. The rest of the funds would go to higher education and law
enforcement agencies.

“The USDE says that South Carolina’s application could be approved
in as little as 10 days,” Rex said. “We might end up being the last
state approved, but at least our local districts won’t have to face
the worst-case scenarios that were looming for them on July 1, when the
new fiscal year begins.”

Rex has already completed and signed South Carolina’s application,
which now requires only Sanford’s signature.



At stake in the court battle was $700 million in federal stabilization
funds -- $350 million the first year – that Sanford had refused to
draw down unless the General Assembly agreed to devote an equivalent
amount of money to reducing state debt. The White House Office of
Management and Budget had twice told Sanford that such a move would
violate the intent of the federal stimulus law.

South Carolina schools have been hit with nearly $400 million in cuts
this year, and absorbing those midyear reductions has left many
districts with few alternatives except to consider cuts to their most
important assets – their classroom teaching positions. Eighty to 90
percent of a typical school district’s budget is salaries, with most
of those salaries going to classroom teachers.

Many school districts across South Carolina have placed their budgets
on hold because of uncertainty over how many positions they would have
to cut next year. A South Carolina Department of Education survey of
school districts indicated that about 2,600 jobs, including 1,500
classroom teaching positions, would be eliminated next year unless the
state receives the stabilization funds. With those funds available,
about 700 jobs would be saved, including 500 teaching positions.

The state-funded 2009-10 Base Student Cost – the fundamental building
block for local school district budgets – would have been $2,687 per
student had it been fully funded. If Sanford had prevailed in court,
next year’s BSC would have been $2,034 per student. Once the federal
stabilization dollars are applied, next year’s BSC would be $2,334.

Stimulus Funds Flowing Into Darlington County

Funds from the Recovery Act have begun to flow into Darlington County, according to U.S. Rep. John Spratt (D-SC).

Spratt said that one of the latest recipients of stimulus money is the Society Hill Library, which is receiving $787,200 through the Agriculture Department’s Community Facilities program. The program helps to finance and develop community facilities for public use in rural areas. Spratt said the library would use the money to build a new, larger library building to house the Society Hill library collection.

“This project is one of many in the Recovery Act aimed at creating or saving jobs and helping rural communities expand their services,” said Spratt. “I was pleased to learn that the library will be receiving funding.”

President Obama signed The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) into law on Feb. 17, 2009. It is designed to jumpstart the nation's economy, create or save millions of jobs and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges. The Act includes measures to modernize the nation's infrastructure, enhance energy independence, expand educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need.

Spratt said other Recovery Act funds are slated for Darlington County, including:

* $614,758 for CareSouth Carolina, of Hartsville

* $80,000 for repairs to the Darlington Armory

* $30,375 for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program

“These funds are just a few examples of the Recovery Act at work,” said Spratt. “Hopefully, stimulus funding will blunt the impact of the recession and help our economy recover.”

S.C. Dems ask Sanford to act quickly on budget, economic recovery funds

Columbia, S.C. – The S.C. House voted overwhelming Tuesday to pass a budget that requires Gov. Mark Sanford to request the rest of the federal economic recovery funds that are due to help South Carolina's public schools and other needs. Because the House budget matches one passed last week by the S.C. Senate, the budget bill goes directly to Sanford. The governor has five days to sign the bill, veto it or do nothing, in which case it will become law after the five days pass.

"Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate have spoken in one voice: 'Governor, take the money,'" said Carol Fowler, chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

"South Carolina Democrats call on Mark Sanford to act quickly," Fowler said. "Governor Sanford has spent most of this year arranging media events to advertise his opposition to President Obama's recovery plan. The governor has been ignoring the best interests of South Carolinians by trying to turn down $750 million of those funds due to South Carolina over the next two years. Surely, it won't take him five days to make a decision on this issue."

"Governor Sanford has been wasting both our time and our money. The only benefit of his dawdling has been to allow him to use the governor's office to build a national constituency among hard-core conservatives, especially those opposed to our public schools. This might help Sanford win a Republican presidential primary, but it would be at the expense of South Carolinians and their school children."

New taxpayer group urges Sanford to “Take the Money”

The South Carolina Taxpayers Alliance (SCTA) today announced that it was launching a 60-second television ad encouraging Governor Mark Sanford to accept South Carolina’s $700 million portion of federal stimulus funding.

“We agree with Governor Sanford that the stimulus legislation was a bad idea. But we lost that fight,” said SCTA Chairman Adam Fogle. “Now that the Stimulus Bill is law, if the governor refuses the funds, our share will go to other states and South Carolinians will still be on the hook to pay off the debt. That just doesn’t make any sense.”

The ad, entitled “Take the Money,” will begin running Wednesday along the coast and in the Florence area with the intent to run it statewide as the group continues to raise funds.

Fogle said he formed SCTA as a way to stand up for South Carolina taxpayers. It is a nonprofit advocacy group designed to give taxpayers a voice on major issues impacting their lives.

“I was inspired by the recent Tea Parties and wanted to do something to help fight for taxpayers,” said Fogle. “So I formed the South Carolina Taxpayers Alliance to empower average citizens like me and give us a voice on a number of important issues without fear of retribution from individuals in power.

“We chose the stimulus as the first of these issues because it directly relates to what is best for taxpayers.”

You can view the SCTA ad “Take the Money” on YouTube by clicking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbYuwBO3g9k

Sanfordville: Tent City Named After Governor

Protesters are setting up a tent city in a popular downtown park they're dubbing "Sanfordville" to bring attention to Gov. Mark Sanford's opposition to $700 million in federal stimulus cash aimed at education.

Brady Quirk-Garvan is spokesman for the volunteer group that's setting up at least 10 tents in Columbia's Finlay Park Tuesday.

Quirk-Garvan says Sanford wants to take nearly all of the federal stimulus money intended for South Carolina but not money that would help schools and teachers.

Sanford wants to use the money coming to the state during the next two years to pay down debt. The White House has twice rejected that idea.

Columbia Mayor Bob Coble doesn't mind the protest, but notes protesters can't spend the night because camping is prohibited.

From Huffington Post

Governor signs resolution giving districts flexibility, but stimulus impasse still looms

COLUMBIA – South Carolina school districts struggling with state budget cuts will soon have more flexibility to manage their dwindling resources.

Gov. Mark Sanford today signed legislative resolutions that give districts more leeway to shift funds, furlough employees or renegotiate salaries for some retired teachers who have returned to the classroom. The measure also delays the deadline for districts to offer teaching contracts for next year from April 15 to May 15.

“This is welcome news for school administrators and board members who are up against the funding wall at this very moment,” said State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex, who asked the General Assembly to approve the flexibility measures at the start of the current session. “Realistically, though, this development is overshadowed by the issue of whether federal stimulus money will be available for schools over the next two years. As long as that decision is delayed, it has the same effect as a negative decision for public education and for our state.”

Rex said that even a one-month delay in the teacher contract deadline may be too late for districts making their 2009-10 spending plans. “Given the stimulus impasse, districts can’t build next year’s budgets based on dollars they might not have,” he said. “They don’t have a lot of confidence that a stimulus deal will be struck quickly enough to matter.”

Flexibility to allow teacher and administrator furloughs, along with the ability to transfer funds between mandated programs, will be useful as districts close out the current school year and look to preserve jobs, Rex said. He cited a planned two-day teacher furlough in Charleston County that reportedly will save the school district about $1.7 million.

“That could translate into nearly 30 saved teaching positions,” Rex said. “We’ve said all along that our focus is on saving as many teaching positions as possible and keeping the impact of these budget cuts away from the classroom. And beyond that, adding to the state’s overall unemployment rate is that last thing we need to do now.”

Additional latitude to shift program funds is another boon for hard-pressed districts that will allow more resources to be allocated for core academic functions. “Frankly, some of the categorical funding for mandated programs is inadequate now, especially programs that have been around for awhile,” Rex said. “Under the current circumstances, the money would be better spent on more critical needs now and next year.”

The resolutions signed today also give districts flexibility on the use of state lottery funds, and they also require districts to establish uniform methods in renegotiating salaries for some retired teachers who have returned to the classroom.

The measures also encourage districts to reduce expenditures by such means as limiting low-enrollment courses, reducing travel for district staff and boards, reducing and limiting activities requiring dues and memberships, reducing transportation costs for extracurricular and academic competitions, and expanding virtual instruction.

Fowler: Barrett Playing Both Sides of Stimulus Fence

Columbia, SC- South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler issued the following statement today in response to Congressman Gresham Barrett's meeting with Columbia City Council regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Earlier this year, Barrett spoke out against the federal stimulus bill, and he joined the state's other Republican members of Congress in voting against it, but today he said he supports stimulus funds for local governments.

"Gresham Barrett is showing himself to be hypocritical in his early campaigning for governor. He was vocal about his opposition to the stimulus, but now that this view has proven to be unpopular in our state he's modified his stance. That's not going to work with voters in 2010. The only thing we need to know from Mr. Barrett is whether or not he supports Gov. Sanford's rejection of $700 million in stimulus funds primarily dedicated to public education. Decisions need to be made quickly to avert thousands of teacher layoffs and other deep cuts in our schools. South Carolinians don't want or need another Republican governor who's willing to play politics with the lives of real people."

Governor Reverses His Decision on Stimulus

Decision benefits SC citizens who will have to repay funds either way

(Columbia, SC) – Contrary to the Governor’s attempt yesterday to ignore the stimulus deadline and possibly lose funds meant for South Carolina, today Governor Mark Sanford reversed his decision and announced his intent to certify all stimulus funds slated for our state.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell issued the following statement about the Governor’s decision:

“We are pleased to see that Governor Sanford has reversed his decision to ignore hard deadlines and instead decided to certify funds that could have potentially been lost to other states but still repaid by South Carolinians. I fully expect the funds will be used to restore cuts made to education, health care and law enforcement as originally intended and as the law clearly states it must be.”

Speaker Harrell Comments on Governor’s Attempt to Ignore Stimulus Deadline

(Columbia, SC) – In a press conference held earlier today, Governor Mark Sanford expressed his intent to ignore the April 3rd deadline to draw down a portion of stimulus money for South Carolina. Speaker Harrell made the following statement on the Governor’s decision to disregard the facts of this deadline:

“The Congressional Research Service, members of Congress, our state’s own Attorney General, the language of the law itself and even the President have made it clear that April 3rd is the hard deadline for the Governor to accept or reject South Carolina’s stimulus funds for education, healthcare and law enforcement. After April 3rd, the Governor will have shirked his responsibility to the taxpayers of our state, and according to the law, money originally meant for our state will be sent to other states, and South Carolinians will still be required to repay this money.

“We adamantly opposed this so-called stimulus bill when it was proposed. However, we realize – as do most of our state’s citizens – that because this plan became law South Carolinians will have to repay this money whether we accept it or not. That is why it is so difficult to understand the Governor’s rationale for requesting millions in energy efficiency money while rejecting money for teachers and law enforcement officers.

“The Governor’s press conference raised many concerns about his actions on the stimulus funds, but the most disturbing comment came on the subject of jobs and unemployment. Given our state’s current 11% unemployment rate, the second worst unemployment rate in the country, the Governor was asked what his job creation plan was. Unfortunately, the Governor had no answer to the question.

“We are at the 11th hour of this debate. It’s time for the nonsense to stop and for the Governor to request the funds our citizens will have to pay back anyway.”

Take the Money or Lose It

From The Palmetto Scoop

Among the numerous rumors swirling around Columbia tonight is a report that President Barack Obama has told Gov. Mark Sanford that if he does not apply for federal stimulus funds, the money will not be available for South Carolina.

And The Palmetto Scoop has now confirmed that Obama has, in fact, sent Sanford a very blunt, personal letter saying just that.

The correspondence reportedly states that roughly $700 million in discretionary stimulus money allocated for South Carolina will be revoked on Friday if Sanford declines to accept the funds and that, by law, no alternative options can be accepted.

The letter is in line with a nonbinding opinion issued Tuesday by Attorney General Henry McMaster that said Sanford — not state lawmakers — have the final say over whether the state accepts federal stimulus money.

“Under the (stimulus act’s) express provisions, only the Governor (or in other cases, other officials pursuant to the particular terms of the Act) may apply to the Secretary of Education (or other federal agencies) for such funds, based upon the federal criteria for eligibility of such funds,” McMaster wrote. “Federal law bestows upon the Governor, as chief executive of the State, the discretion as to whether to apply for these funds.”

Sanford has requested on numerous occasions that the money be used to pay down debt. Obama has repeatedly denied those requests.

But tonight — with the deadline to accept stimulus funding only 72 hours away — marked the first time that Obama has formally told Sanford that he must either take the money or lose it.

Obama’s letter would explain reports that Sanford has approached the General Assembly with an offer to cut a deal. Sanford has allegedly offered to accept the stimulus money if the legislature diverts state funds to pay off debt.

SC Dem Chair Responds to Sanford Furman Visit

South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler issued the following statement today in response to Governor Mark Sanford's address at Furman University. During an address to Furman's Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow, Sanford will make his first public statements on whether he will accept $700 million in aid from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Last week, state lawmakers urged Sanford to accept the funds after the Congressional Research Service issued an opinion stating an amendment in the stimulus bill that would allow the General Assembly to bypass the governor's decision may be unconstitutional.

"Maybe Mark Sanford's anti-stimulus views were applauded by the Conservative Students for a Better Tomorrow, but the rest of South Carolina isn't cheering him on. In fact, we're ready for the governor to get in touch with reality. South Carolina desperately needs all of the funding it has been allocated under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act-our taxes will pay for it, whether or not our state uses the money. This is money that will go to keep public school teachers on the job. We can't afford to have any more layoffs or to lose this money to other states. It's time for Governor Sanford to do the right thing for South Carolinians," said Fowler.

State Democrats, Unemployed Workers: Sanford's Actions Hurt Real People

Columbia, SC- During a news conference in Columbia today, South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler, SC Senate Democratic Leader John Land, Rep. Leon Howard and a number of unemployed workers spoke out against Gov. Mark Sanford's rejection of funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

"We're here today to remind Governor Mark Sanford that his political posturing is hurting real people here in South Carolina. We want to tell everyone that although Mark Sanford is against the stimulus, other South Carolinians don't share his views," said South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Carol Fowler. "It's unbelievable. Governor Sanford doesn't want to use this money to keep South Carolina teachers, firefighters, and police officers on the job."

She said Sanford's philosophy does not work and he'd rather show the country he holds tight to his Republican principles than to help his state. Fowler quoted Rock Hill Mayor Doug Echols in saying that Sanford "appears to be out of touch with reality on this."

"It doesn't seem to matter to the governor that thousands of South Carolinians are in danger of losing homes because they're losing jobs. His big housing worry is whether he'll get the full $3.5 million when he sells his beach house - so he can build his dream home on the family plantation," said Fowler.

Land and Howard also discussed how Sanford's refusal of portions of the stimulus affects South Carolinians.

Land said he can't understand Sanford's stimulus decision, which will only benefits other states.

"Other states are saying 'please turn (it) down, I want the money'," he said. "The Republican governor in Florida and the Republican governor in California say 'yeah turn it down. Send it to us. We'll put our people to work. We'll make jobs for them.'"

"It's a shame when our governor is playing politics with our constituents," said Howard. "He knows the General Assembly will accept this money because we have no other choice. Our constituents need it."

The Dist. 76 Representative urged Sanford to stop using scare tactics with SC's working families.
"People are under enough stress (and) pressure as it relates to economics," said Howard. "This state has the second highest unemployment in the country."

Fellow South Carolinians,

While Governor Sanford refuses to accept federal stimulus funds from President Obama's Recovery Act that can be used to save teaching jobs and build new schools, South Carolina's unemployment rate has risen to the 2nd highest in the nation at 10.5%.
Stand up for South Carolina's schools today. Sign the petition to make "high quality education" our standard for public education instead of "minimally adequate education."
Sign the petition right now at www.GoodbyeMinimallyAdequate.com

Thank you,
Senator John Matthews
Representative James Smith
Representative Bakari Sellers
Representative Anton Gunn

Prime rib for California, a salad for South Carolina

By André Bauer
Lt. Governor of South Carolina

As a fiscal conservative I am not a fan of the current “economic stimulus” bill, however, it is hard to ignore the awful possibility that South Carolina taxpayers could wind up stuck in the salad bar after paying full price for a prime rib buffet.

For openers let me be clear: I support our Governor’s attempt to use additional stimulus money to repay debt. It’s a wise and good use of funds that positions us well for the future.

Clearly, Governor Sanford believes he is doing the right thing, and I don’t for a minute doubt his intentions. This is someone who time and time again has fought for the taxpayers.

But here is where I disagree. If the Administration turns down the Governor’s request, I cannot in good conscience allow South Carolina taxpayers to fund benefits for the other 49 states.

The issue is that my constituents in Seneca are as needy as residents of Sacramento. The same goes for the citizens of Aiken vs. the taxpayers of Austin, or the jobless in Chapin as opposed to the unemployed in Chicago. Whether you live in Beaufort or Biloxi, Spartanburg or Spokane, New Ellenton or New York, Dillon or Denver, the issue is that people are in need and if stimulus is purchased with your dollars, the stimulus ought to be available to you. Why send the money and jobs elsewhere? That is the key point. Citizens in South Carolina, their children and grandchildren, have already been stuck with the bill. Why then punish us now -- when the need is the greatest?

The place we find ourselves is not a reflection of how Mark Sanford believes he is right to exclude more appealing options. The reality is that this developing spat is rooted in the fact that Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd sparked a housing crisis by pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to make sub-prime loans -- no matter how hard Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham opposed them.

The basic issue is that some people want something for nothing, and politicians respond to constituent demands for pork barrel projects -- that's the heartfelt view of Mark Sanford, who has and will continue to say no. And he is right. But the trouble is that for so many of us, it is easier to dress that up and say that elected officials should fight so that the people who elect them have jobs and are able to feed and educate their children.

So, which is the more principled choice: Say no, pay for prime rib and eat lettuce; or, address the fact that real people are hurting in a state where more than 10% are unemployed, 40% of the kids are on Medicaid, and everyone is watching as their life savings are slashed in half?

The truth is that we are in an economic war, and all resources should be focused on beating this new "enemy" which is killing our jobs and our savings and our futures. Like all wars, when you find yourself in one, fight for your life first and argue principles later. Like they say, there are no atheists in foxholes, and no time for academic political debate there either.

Is this war? Opinion leaders are beginning to conclude that America is indeed in the equivalent of a war footing when it comes to dealing with this economic crisis. Warren Buffett was the first to say it earlier this week. Then yesterday, the New York Times' Tom Friedman declared, "Economically, this is the big one. This is August 1914. This is the morning after Pearl Harbor. This is 9/12." And the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein added, "What we are facing is the economic equivalent of a war."

All three pundits posed the same question: If we're at war, then why aren't people acting like it? Why isn't the Obama administration, instead of trying to score hits on Rush Limbaugh, doing everything it can to develop a clear and transparent plan to fix the banking crisis? Why are folks on Wall Street engaged in short-selling -- i.e., betting against the economy?

And why is the press covering all of this like a political campaign or expecting that, on Day 52, Obama should have already been able to turn the economy around? Associate Editor David Ignatius of the Washington Post also makes this point: "The culture of immobilism starts on Capitol Hill. These people are still working a four-day week, taking Fridays off so they can run home and tell constituents how diligent they are. They may talk about a crisis, but they don't act like it's real."

It’s real people. It’s very real to 227,986 South Carolinians without a job and having to learn the ins and outs and humiliations of the unemployment lines.

Let’s face it: Washington has failed miserably. As leaders, we must make the best of bad policy. We’ve never experienced anything like this in our lifetimes. It is time to make the tough decision. The principle of winning the war wins the argument.

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]

SC Dems: "Sanford's Philosophy Hurts More Than Helps"

Columbia, SC –In another apparently successful attempt to make the national news, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has said that he wants to use stimulus funds to pay off the state's debt-something he knows he cannot really do.

SC is expected to receive $8 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). These funds will be used to create or retain jobs, improve education, and complete infrastructure projects.

Sanford has some say over only $700 million of these vitally needed funds, and chose today to try to heighten the drama over his anti-stimulus posturing, said Carol Fowler, chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party.

"So far the only leadership Sanford has shown is his ability to draw lights, cameras and microphones to stimulate national interest in his presidential ambitions. There is never any action. This is a time that we really need competent leadership from our governor, not partisan ideology. South Carolina is in a state of economic turmoil. Our unemployment rate was at a whopping 10. 4 percent in January and we're steadily losing more jobs," said Fowler. "The least Mark Sanford could have done is step up for South Carolina's working families who are depending on national help because the Republicans running SC haven't gotten the job done."

The SCDP chair said she believes Sanford's decision is based on strict Republican Party ideologies and not the actual needs of the state. "He would rather that money go to New Jersey or Michigan than have it come here, " she said.

"Mark Sanford is one of those so-called mavericks whose cloak of ideological purity hides an inability to display real leadership – an ability to react to changing situations and reach out to others through compromise. No great political task has ever been accomplished without such statesmen. We can only hope that legislative leaders of both parties will get the job done without Sanford's support," Fowler said.

"The stimulus will help to improve the quality of life in South Carolina. We stand to gain and retain thousands of jobs under the stimulus bill. I applaud President Obama's efforts to bring us out of this economic crisis. I also applaud Congressmen Spratt and Clyburn for their determination to make sure South Carolina received our share of these funds, even as Republicans like Senator DeMint and Congressman Wilson were fighting against help for their constituents."

More Stimulus Scams

With so much news about economic stimulus packages and the country’s economic recovery plans, consumers are hoping some of this stimulus money will funnel down to them. This is the perfect opening for con artists to try to scam the vulnerable. The South Carolina Department of Consumer Affairs (SCDCA) has received numerous reports of scams using the stimulus package – each with a different twist – to steal personal information and/or money.

One of the more brazen twists uses President Barrack Obama’s image to persuade consumers. SCDCA has received a number of forwarded emails from alert consumers who are suspicious of the offer. The mail, featuring a photograph of President Obama, promises a free stimulus check in varying amounts of from $613.27 to several thousand dollars. Consumers are directed to another link where they must “participate in the program” in order to receive the check.

Participation requires completion of several “reward offers” such as magazine subscriptions that the consumer must purchase or a credit card which can only be activated with a purchase. Although the offers themselves may or may not be real products, the consumer will have to spend money on things they possibly didn’t need, plus they will not receive a stimulus check just for participating in the program.

The Department has also received calls from consumers concerning other e-mails they have received. The e-mail claims to be from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and asks them for sensitive information such as a bank account number or Social Security number in order to process their portion of the stimulus package. Consumers should remember that the IRS or any other government agency will never contact you regarding rebates or refunds via e-mail. Additionally, the IRS will never ask you for personal information.

Another twist on this scam arrives by US mail and contains an actual check, again in varying amounts. Of course the check is fake, but it looks very real. The accompanying literature instructs consumers to call a toll free number for further instructions. Callers are then instructed to deposit the check but to wire a certain amount back to either enter into foreclosure rescue, or if you’re not in foreclosure, to purchase a foreclosure “kit” with instructions on how to use the stimulus money to buy foreclosed properties in your area. This scam is for the needy as well as the greedy, but it is a scam nonetheless.

Homeowners qualifying for mortgage assistance or restructuring under the housing portion of the Economic Recovery Plan may be telephone by their lender just to expedite matters, but they should verify that the caller does indeed represent that lender. Consumers are urged to contact the Department if they are suspicious of anything they receive that purports to represent stimulus money.

For more information, contact the Public Information Division at 803.734.4190, toll free in SC at 1.800.922.1594, or online at www.scconsumer.gov.

Unemployment Benefit Stimulus Supplement to Begin

The South Carolina Employment Security Commission announced a new federal supplement of $25.00 for eligible claimants.

The Federal Additional Compensation (FAC) program, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, was recently approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009.

This $25.00 supplement is 100 percent federally-funded. Governor Mark Sanford has already authorized these payments.

The FAC benefits are payable to individuals who are otherwise entitled under state law to receive regular unemployment insurance. According to Allen Larson, Deputy Executive Director for Unemployment Insurance at SCESC, the benefits will be effective for the week ending February 28, 2009.

However, claimants will not see the increase in their benefits check for about two weeks.

“Like other states across the nation, the S.C. Employment Security Commission is dealing with almost daily changes in the federal requirements from the U.S. Department of Labor to implement these additional payments," Larson stated. "We are working as quickly as possible to make the necessary computer programming changes required to get the additional compensation out to eligible claimants."