South Carolina Stimulus Battle Heats Up ... Again

Heres and idea how many people live in the USA over 400 million something like that give each of them a million dollars tax free and do want to see the economy grow then. People will start spending the economy will grow and it is alot cheaper than the billions they are spending now on stupid pork idea's that having been going on in congress for many years. What an idea a million each I should have been president.

EJ.

Brown is looking at the long term impact if given the money. Although its sad to see his state with 11% unemployment,I believe he has done the right thing.

Do you all ever think about individuals with no jobs, lost their homes and can not provide for their family now. Governor Sanford is not doing the right thing. He needs to forget the debt and think about the lives of others. I see students who lives are torn apart because parents lost their jobs. They come to school with whatever they can wear and lack of needed materials. You definitely need to wakeup if you think this is the right thing.

joseph - What they are refusing is money which sets up new programs and in the out years it would be up to the state to come up with the funding for these unfunded mandates.

The end of the article makes no sense.

"South Carolina has an unemployment rate of 11.2 percent, which is among the highest in the nation. Without the additional stimulus funding, South Carolina may face across the board budget cuts of seven percent - resulting in heavy layoffs."

How will spending the majority of the $700m on education stop the State from having to cut it's jobs?

Those republican governors who are refusing the stimulus money are a bunch of hipocrytes ,how come they don't have the guts to refuse all the money ? They only refusing about 10% of the money.

'we' just need to stop funding stupid stuff like the military, police & fire depts etc..

just do like Bush did in Iraq, sub-contract everything out to whomever has the best political connections and, hope for the best, ..

It makes sense to let large areas of America starve and rot.... then the rest of us won't have to pay for them.

In the ideal world envisioned by modern-day nincompoops, each and every state would willingly accept all of this money, which of course would come from the people of each and every other state. There would thus be a huge shuffling of money, after which the states that had behaved irresponsibly would end up being subsidized by the taxpayers of the states that had behaved responsbily.

Hey--what's not to like about that? We are all freeloaders now, aren't we? If I feel the need for something, then it is someone else's obligation to pay for it. Anybody got a problem with that?

"Why do so many people assume that federal money comes with no strings attached?"

I think the days of people assuming that are pretty much over (see, e.g., Indiana's decision not to buy bonds from any entity that took federal money).

The stupes that amuse me the most are the ones who fault Sanford for not taking the money. In their view, it's money that simply falls from trees--it doesn't have to be taken from anyone else first.

Does some poll say that people in S.C. wish he would take the money? Of course--what do they care? A near-majority of them pay no income tax at all, and to them it really does fall from the trees.

Why do so many people assume that federal money comes with no strings attached? The federal government is purposely usurping the power of the states. Sanford gets it. He's ultimately doing what's best for the future of his state. Compare him to the governors of California, New York, New Jersey, and Michigan. Those governors have DESTROYED their state's economies by doing the opposite of Sanford.

Governor Sanford is making a responsible decision and looking out for the future of the state. More power to him!

Governor Sanford is doing the right thing - I wish more politicians would have as strong a backbone and ethics. South Carolina will do better without a bailout, as will everyone else.

Fiscal prudence survives in some states:

"State to No Longer Invest in Federal Bailout Recipients
By Eric Berman
5/20/2009

"Indiana will no longer invest in bonds issued by banks and automakers who receive federal bailout money.

"Bondholders are supposed to be at the head of the line for repayment if a company goes bankrupt. But State Treasurer Richard Mourdock says the government rewrote the rulebook for the Chrysler bankruptcy, leaving investors with 29 cents on the dollar. Mourdock says that cost state investment funds $5.6 million."

Who blames him?

Except for the borrowing part, these are all excellent first steps, all to be highly commended:

"Schwarzenegger has called for cuts that would hit every corner of the state. He announced plans to lay off 5,000 of the state's 235,000 workers and has proposed slashing education by up to $5 billion, selling state properties, borrowing $2 billion from local governments and potentially reducing eligibility for healthcare programs....

"Worst-case scenarios also call for the release from state prisons of up to 19,000 illegal immigrants, who would face deportation, and the transfer of up to 23,000 other prisoners to county jails."

David Martin, former head of the GAO and Comptroller of the Currency, writing in the Financial Times on May 13:

"The US government has had a triple A credit rating since 1917, but it is unclear how long this will continue to be the case. In my view, either one of two developments could be enough to cause us to lose our top rating.

"First, while comprehensive healthcare reform is needed, it must not further harm our nation’s financial condition. Doing so would send a signal that fiscal prudence is being ignored in the drive to meet societal wants, further mortgaging the country’s future.

"Second, failure by the federal government to create a process that would enable tough spending, tax and budget control choices to be made after we turn the corner on the economy would send a signal that our political system is not up to the task of addressing the large, known and growing structural imbalances confronting us."

I would be less surprised if the other side was involved in this type of posturing.

"How refreshing to see a politician" Mike. What you didn't see in this "report" was that NC was just behind SC in unemployment by 2/10's of a percent, that states like NC which has the highest tax rate in the south is also having difficulties and is lapping up stimulus funds like crazed alcoholics.

Sanford was against the Bush approach to bailouts, is very vocal about Obamas plans and has stated from day one that spending money you don't have is lunacy as it will have consequences later on.

We as taxpayers have lost billions in unaccounted funds will lose money in the GM deal and will watch as Government does indeed become "big brother".

Up in Alaska they are having the same problem with Palin. By doing this she was under cutting the New Alaska Democrat Senator Begich. Perhap she meant to do this.

As a South Carolinian I agree with Governor Sanford. Mr. Obama, take your money and_________.(fill in the blank)

How refreshing to see a politician make an economic decision motivated by it's long-term consequences rather than a political decision motivated by short-term consequences which are typically driven solely by a desire to get re-elected. Sanford simply does not want to kick the can down the road anymore when the problem will inevitably be worse. He is making difficult choices, but this is the essence of leadership. As a resident of CA, I would gladly trade Arnold for Sanford.