Sanford: “They’re Not Going To Get That Money”
If S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford has his way, $700 million in controversial federal bureaucratic bailout funds will not go to fund recurring agency expenses in South Carolina.
In other words, it won’t be spent on what state lawmakers and government employees have been vigorously pressuring the governor to spend it on over the past few days.
Asked at a press conference today what state agencies awaiting word on the money should do, Sanford said that if his administration has anything to do with it, “they’re not going to get that money.”
Sanford says his controversial decision late last night to sign a federal certification form enabling South Carolina to receive bailout money was simply “preservation of option” designed to keep the money from flowing to other states.
Earlier today, a pair of state lawmakers – one supportive of the governor’s position and the other opposed – agreed that it was up to Sanford to determine how this particular slice of the bailout cash was spent.
All told, the federal government is dumping over $8 billion on South Carolina over the next two years – which is more than the state’s entire general fund allocation in a given year.
South Carolina’s total annual budget is roughly $20.4 billion.
WEB EXTRAS:
Comments
By Pat Hendrix on April 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
If these people in danger of losing their jobs had half the smarts, determination and ethic of Mark Sanford, they would do what he did and marry some really rich broad.
Ah, self-made millionaire indeed.
By R.D. Neck on April 3rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Why did I vote for this dolt?
By Frustrated and Mad on April 3rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
First he was against it, then he decided no I will sign it, then he will sign it but he is not for it, then if he gets it they can’t have it….
I am exhausted with this fool!
The only smart thing about all this crap he is pulling is that he seems one step ahead of the media. Everytime public anger turns against him he or Sawyer say something that make it sound like he changed his mind, the news runs with it and then they come out after the fact and say “Well we didn’t mean it that way.” However, the news ran and most people don’t hear the caveat at the end that he didn’t really change his mind.
He has absolutely not one shred of respect left and no one trusts him. I would imagine Jenny Sanford is sitting at home right now shaking her head and wondering what a fool her husband looks like to our state and our nation.
I did not vote for this idiot (hard to tell I am sure) but is anyone else embarrassed by the fact this is the leader of our state.
By Gillon on April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
You lead by example. The SC House of Representatives and the SC Senate both are taking unpaid furloughs next week. State Supt of Education Jim Rex and the presidents of USC and Clemson have already or will take furloughs as well. Unpaid furloughs are not an option with most state workers and some teachers. Is Mark Sanford
too good to do the same and do his part? I suppose sacrifice and fiscal responsibility apply to other South Carolinians, but not to our self-serving, money-obsessed governor.
By anonymous on April 3rd, 2009 at 8:07 pm
HOT OFF THE PRESS
April 3, 2009
Copy of letter from Sanford to OMB Director
http://www.carolinalive.com/news/Letter%20to%20Peter%20Orszag%204.3.09.pdf
By Mab on April 3rd, 2009 at 8:33 pm
The Guv has supporters far and wide — beyond the mob tactics being used against his principled stand here in his home state.
He’s got the Libertarian support, about which Newt Gingrich is warning of a mutiny at the polls in 2012, and Ann Coulter who agrees Obama’s fiscal nightmare is, in effect, an economic dictatorship.
He can hold his own against Booby, the leprechaun and Jakie, who are just festering mob mentality here amongst the needy, coddled masses.
By anonymous on April 3rd, 2009 at 8:35 pm
THESE ARE THE MONIES THAT SANFRAUD DOES NOT WANT…..
The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF) program is a new one-time appropriation of $53.6 billion under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
These funds will help stabilize state and local government budgets in order to minimize and avoid reductions in education and other essential public services. The program will help ensure that local educational agencies (LEAs) and public institutions of higher education (IHEs) have the resources to avert cuts and retain teachers and professors. The program may also help support the modernization, renovation, and repair of school and college facilities. In addition, the law provides governors with significant resources to support education (including school modernization renovation, and repair), public safety, and other government services. The Department will award the remaining $5 billion competitively under the “Race to the Top” and “Investing in What Works and Innovation” programs.
Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability. To prevent fraud and abuse, support the most effective uses of ARRA funds, and accurately measure and track results, recipients must publicly report on how funds are used. Due to the unprecedented scope and importance of this investment, ARRA funds are subject to additional and more rigorous reporting requirements than normally apply to grant recipients.
Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the “funding cliff.” ARRA represents a historic infusion of funds that is expected to be temporary. Depending on the program, these funds are available for only two to three years. These funds should be invested in ways that do not result in unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding expires.
Funds to Support Public Safety and Other Government Services
States must use 18.2 percent of the SFSF funds for education, public safety, and other government services. This may include assistance for early learning, elementary and secondary education, and IHEs. In addition, states may use these funds for modernization, renovation, or repair of public school and public or private college facilities.
FULL REPORT
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html
By BIN News Editorial Staff on April 3rd, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Hey, HOT OFF THE PRESS, if that’s a real copy then S.C. should impeach sanfraud for being too incompetent to sign his own name correctly. A drunk chicken could have done a better signature. Who elected that voucher clown?
By Mike Honcho on April 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 pm
BIN News – troll says what?
You are clearly so smart, I’m sure you could get elected to the Governor’s Office twice.
You should put your money where your mouth is…
Oh, then you’d have to admit which consultant/legislator you work for.
His signature? Impeach him? Really?
By walter david on April 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 pm
Mab:
I think he screwed the pooch on this one. I drank his koolaid back in the 90’s. I even bought into his concept of getting rid of Social Security during his presentation at the Cavallaro in Charleston back then.
He’s lost alot of us now. If he could just be more pragmatic, he might have a chance in 2012. He will be appealing in the Republican primary, but he won’t stand a chance in the general election.
By forced to contribute on April 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 pm
IMPEACH THE FOOL! I am sick of his self-serving political interests being more important than the children, teachers, police and average citizen of this state. He needs to go. He is an idiot, as we all knew but CNN’s interview during the election campaign PROVED. If any SC voter has a lick of sense, they won’t let him give away millions that we SC taxpayers will HAVE to pay back anyway. Our schools and people deserve it more than Nevada, California, and Maine. Why should we pay for their teachers and cops? Because Mark wants a bid at the Whitehouse. Mark, get real, you are a joke…..
By anonymous on April 4th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Sanfraud, in his letter, specifically refused to accept the monies from the “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund”
Sanfraud has repeatedly stated that by accepting 700 million dollars via the “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” that this would create a “budget hole” of over 700 million dollars in two years because it would create programs that the sate would have to pay for forever and ever AMEN. Sanfraud is WRONG and his statements are fraudulent.
“State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” specifically states:
“Invest one-time ARRA funds thoughtfully to minimize the “funding cliff.” ARRA represents a historic infusion of funds that is expected to be temporary. Depending on the program, these funds are available for only two to three years. These funds should be invested in ways that do not result in unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding expires.”
This is what Sanfraud is really afraid of:
“State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” specifically states:
“Ensure transparency, reporting and accountability. To prevent fraud and abuse, support the most effective uses of ARRA funds, and accurately measure and track results, recipients must publicly report on how funds are used.”
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html
By anonymous on April 4th, 2009 at 8:07 am
SANFRAUD STATES IN HIS LETTER:
“Let me be equally clear though that this letter in no way represents an application for State Fiscal Stabilization Funds …As you may be aware, our administration continues to have reservations about accepting these funds. If those reservations are satisfied by policy makers within the General Assembly of South Carolina, then at some later date my administration will apply for those funs.”
This is an absolute abuse of power and this letter sounds more like bribery and extortion than anything else.
Sanfraud writes more like a hoodlum than a governor.
http://media.charleston.net/2009/pdf/sanfordcertletter_040309.pdf
By lou on April 4th, 2009 at 8:21 am
He isn’t gathering points to be President .
By Marvin on April 4th, 2009 at 10:04 am
Gillon, I’m so moved that our fine legislators are taking a whole week without pay. Such examples they are of sacrifice! Please, dude. The f—ers went through at least one round of big cuts before they gave in and cut the competitive grants program. They’re the reason we’re in this mess. Geez, they blew a billion dollars in surplus money! They funded pork for years, took care of their friends and families back home, and killed businesses with taxes. Not that they’ll let us see how they are spending all that money. Come one! A week without pay? Are you kidding? They don’t deserve an effing dime of pay. They owe us their paychecks! Disappointed in you, Gillon. Can’t believe you slobbered over them for losing five days’ pay when taxpayers they have robbed for years are losing their jobs and homes.
By lou on April 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
He isn’t gathering points to be President .
OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi
By Gillon on April 4th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Marvin, You missed the whole point. Even if the legislature had not taken a furlough, the Governor should have if for no other reason than to set an example and to give weight to his case for fiscal conservatism. By not doing so, he is taking the position of “Do as I say, not as I do.” He had the opportunity to get out front on this, and for whatever reason–avarice, stupidity, arrogance, or all three–he did not. And when a governor cannot get anything done in two terms when both houses of the legislature are of his own political party, he obviously has more political character flaws than just this one small example demonstrates.
By Marvin on April 4th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Actually, Gillon, I didn’t miss your point. My point was how absurd the furlough thing is. I don’t need the governor to take a week off, nor should those asses in the legislature make a purely cermonial gesture that means nothing given that this whole mess is their fault. Forget whether you like Sanford or not. He has no power, and no governor ever will. Frankly, I think he did get out front on this by taking charge of the only thing he’s been able to, and that is whether or not to spend this money and put the state in a worse hole i two years.
As to “getting anything done,” let’s face it, Gillon — what needs to get done are tax reform, getting government the hell OUT of the economic development business, a substantive overhaul of the budget and restructuring that leads to REAL separation of power so the legislature doesn’t control every single part of state government. Now, those are the things Sanford wanted to get done. The reason he didn’t is because they don’t want him to. No governor could have gotten that done in this legislature, period. With the exception of a few senators and eight House members, they have all caved when the pressure has hit them where it hurt. They pretty much all have their price, don’t they?
Sanford could have gotten a few weak compromises out of those guys, and then they all could have stood up and slapped each other on the back for the press and touted their “change and reform” together. But nothing would have changed, and it never will until the people have finally had enough and demand that the cowardly idiots give up the power they should never, ever have had in a democracy.
By anonymous on April 5th, 2009 at 9:53 am
Q & A from a recent Sanfraud interview.
Q: Did you pay down any debt in your executive budget (proposal)?
A: No, but we had $200 million less than the House budget had to deal with. If we had had the economic-stabilization money at that time, you can be sure we would have been trying to pay down debt. But we didn’t have what they had. …
Q: But the portion (of the state budget) that goes to school districts, that goes to state agencies to pay personnel costs, is going down?
A: But that goes to the very heart of what this debate is about, which is: Are we going to reform some other things and make some cuts that are long overdue in other parts of state government?
What a con-artist.
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/739031.html
Trackbacks