Do the funds have to be used only for new programs? Can they be used for old ones? Is it part and part? Are there some areas only new programs can be funded and other areas where old ones can?

Who can really tell us? I cannot make reasonable decisions without access to this information.

Sanford has good concepts in many areas, but he is a poor communicator, which I have told him. Unfortunately, he has done nothing to improve upon that. Nor has he done as Carroll Campbell and worked the legislature to his advantage, whatever the means. I believe Sanford said in one article that paying either $350 or #700 million of debt down would save us somewhere around $170 million in interest over 2 years. That is an excellent return on money, and an ongoing savings to the citizens. But that point has never been elevated.

Great ideas poorly or not communicated are as effective as no ideas at all, something mark needs to learn, and to surround himself with those who can communicate for him to the public.

At the same time, I think there are some underlying problems here:

1. On the one hand, you tout Mark Sanford’s position on the stimulus and so on. But on the other, you have pointed out the concerns over the out-of-state consultant. I think it’s telling that there was so much focus on Sanford’s national political aspirations. And you acknowledge that, for Mark Sanford, it’s usually about “making a point.” The deal, I think, is that normal people want actual leadership, concern for real-life situations, and effort to govern. “Making a point” for ideological purposes, basing SC-related policy on consultation from out-of-state advisors just isn’t where it’s at.

2. Not sure about the “holding them hostage” strategy. On the one hand, sure, it makes sense: Sanford could have told the legislature they’d get the money only after making policy changes. But law-making isn’t a simple process, and how does Sanford determine whether they law-makers have come up with the “right” plan? Which version of school choice would be acceptable to Sanford? Does he force the General Assembly to simply approve a particular version he proposes? Isn’t that turning state government on its head (we learn as kids that bills come out of the legislature, they go to the executive, so on and so forth)?

This doesn’t even get into my personal disagreement with such ideas as the so-called “Education Opportunity Act” and TABOR-style spending limits.

3. I think your idea here is really flawed: “Frankly, in one of the worst economic years ever, you’d think a good politician would’ve been able to find a way to convince people that keeping that money out of government’s hands was not only bearable politically, but quite responsible given what individual taxpayers, families and small businesses are currently having to deal with.”

Was there any legitimate evidence that turning down the stimulus funds would directly benefit any South Carolina taxpayers? Oh, in maybe some indirect, ideologically rationalized way. But I think normal South Carolinians saw the situation differently — that, indeed, the money would, at worst, go to some other state….or, at least, that it wasn’t going to be returned to SC taxpayers in the form of any kind of financial bonus.

4. Finally, I think Mark Sanford faced a problem in that, really, not everybody is so anti-government, anti-bureaucrat. People like to talk about “small government” and low taxes and cutting waste, etc. But at the end of the day, I think lots and lots of everyday folks have respect for the kind of people you insult and chastise — the so-called “educrats” and democratically elected school district and other local government leaders. Arch right-wing types talk about pro-government/bureaucrat propaganda, but there is propaganda on your side, too (FITSNEWS, SCRG, etc.)….and despite that propaganda, I think many, many people figure that if their local elected leaders and hired officials say this stimulus money can do some real good, then maybe, just maybe, those leaders know more about the budgets and responsibilities they oversee than Mark Sanford and his political consultants know.