It turns out that the “Sanford candidate” for governor, Rep. Nikki Haley, doesn’t have the clean status on the federal budget stabilization dollars as she would like you to think.
In a conversation with conservative blogger Moe Lane, she said she was opposed to the $700 million in stimulus money from the beginning, and backed Gov. Mark Sanford’s very poor plan to spend that money on paying off bondholders, instead of shoring up funding problems in education and law enforcement.
On March 9, she was one of 108 members of the House to vote for Amendment 73 of H. 3560, the budget bill. Amt. 73 was sponsored by Reps. Dan Cooper, Kenny Bingham, James Smith and Bakari Sellers. The idea behind it was to put the stimulus dollars up front and get it out of the way, and it’s impossible that she didn’t know what she was voting for, since it read, “(SR: ARRA Fund Authorization) It is the intent of the General Assembly to accept all available funds from the State Budget Stabilization Fund contained within the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Office of State Budget is directed to increase agency federal fund authorizations for funds from the State Budget Stabilization Fund allocated by the General Assembly.”
You would have thought she would have voted in the negative, along with Reps. Nathan Ballentine, Eric Bedingfield, Dan Hamilton, Joey Millwood, Wendy Nanney, Garry Smith, Jim Stewart and Thad Viers. Not so much.
Then, she voted against the stimulus when it came back to the House via Sanford’s veto, saying of it, “As we saw with the override of the Governor’s veto regarding stimulus funds, there are still too many in the legislature committed to spending every taxpayer dollar they can find.” So, what — it’s OK on March 9, but reckless spending on May 20?
Normally, we don’t pay attention to what Will Folks writes, because it would be just as enjoyable to put one’s hand on a hot stove. While standing in a pile of fire ants. In 120-degree heat. But, every once in a while he writes something that has absolutely no basis in reality, and needs to have his immature, sophomoric ass called out for it (Remember Harrell for Governor? We do).
This time, he’s making something out of less than nothing by saying that U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson has some sort of vendetta against Gov. Mark Sanford because his brother ran against Sen. Shane Massey last year. One of the most absurd things is the allegation that Sanford raised $30,000 for Massey. Where is this money? Where did it come from? Naturally, he just throws the figure out there and doesn’t say. Nor does he say who gave him this arbitrary number. [Looks like people finally got under the petulant child's skin.]
But, perhaps the most asinine assertion is that the race was “close and incredibly contentious.” Really? Massey beat Greg Anderson by nine points, and was 0.85 percentage points away from hitting double digits. Damn — that’s really close. Anderson never had a chance in that race. In fact, he already had issues early on. There appeared to be some bad feelings among black Democrats in the district, and Aiken resident and then-S.C. Young Democrats president Travis Johnson jumped in at the last second to challenge Anderson in the primary. There were also rumors that a local black radio personality was fired for speaking against Anderson during the primary race.
The whole basis of the steaming pile S.C.’s resident eight-year-old blogger posted was that Judge Anderson should have recused himself from the case because of his “obvious proximity to Sanford.” Jeebus save us. So, a judge’s brother loses an election to a Republican, and that constitutes “obvious proximity” to the Governor? With that logic, it’s no surprise he once had a job with one of the worst governors in the history of the state.
Here at WR central, we like to wait until the end of the business day to see what happens. Usually, news will break around 5 p.m., and it happened again Wednesday with Gov. Mark Sanford’s high-priced (but free!) attorneys making a motion to move the suit of Chapin High senior Casey Edwards and USC law student Justin Williams from state to federal court.
It is, frankly, interesting that a man so wrapped up in opposing the federal government is nonetheless running to the federal courts to make certain that South Carolina does not have the money it needs to fill in funding gaps in K-12 and higher education, the Department of Corrections and the Department of Juvenile Justice. It is also interesting that he got himself named as a party to the suit for this expressed action, then launched ad hominem attacks at the attorneys for the students.
Dick Harpootlian, one of the attorneys representing the students and one of Columbia’s best with the spoken word, said to WIS, “The Supreme Court allowed Governor Sanford to intervene after the deadline with the condition that he not deny them jurisdiction. He then denied them jurisdiction. This is conduct unbecoming of the Governor or any other elected official. Why is he running the Federal Court from state court when he has made a career out of condemning federal interference in state affairs?”
Either way, U.S. District Court Judge Joe Anderson will hear arguments in all three stimulus cases on Monday. But, if anyone thinks that a ruling in district court will stop this, they’re dreaming. Expect Gov. No and his band of merry barristers to push this as far as it will go.
The stories making news on this getaway afternoon, are, not surprisingly, coming out of the courtroom. We’ve got opportunistic attorney generals and lobbyists taking a break from payday lending, and nothing resolved, quite yet.
McMaster v. The Vast Series of Tubes
A federal judge put a temporary kibosh on Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster’s war against liste de Craig’s, which means it’s time to drop the slips of the paper back into the hat and select a new crisis.
S.C. students, et. al. v. Gov. No
The last time Chapin High School senior Casey Edwards saw her case go to court, the judge threw it out because it had not reached appropriate ripeness. Now, she has been joined by USC Law student Justin Williams as they attempt to sue Gov. Mark Sanford into accepting the federal budget stabilization dollars. Dwight Drake, taking a break from being the punch to Tommy Moore’s jab for the payday lending industry, will again be the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.
S.C. Association of School Administrators v. Gov. No
According to a late-afternoon tweet and subsequent correction (O’CONNOR! ::fist waving::), SCASA is suing to make Sanford accept the budget stabilization money, as well. Supt. of Ed. Jim Rex is also named in the suit.
All of this litigation (which we lay at the feet of the Sanford and McMaster), not to mention the Governor’s smooth move earlier this week, just goes to prove again that, no matter for all the griping about lawsuits in South Carolina, nobody is willing to do what it takes to resolve conflicts outside the courtroom. Over here, we believe that this is because, excuse us, way too fucking many people in state politics are attorneys or have law degrees. We never trusted those types when we were in school, preferring instead to cavort with the degenerates in the PR and journalism programs.
It should be a general rule of thumb that just because you can bring a lawsuit, doesn’t mean that you should.
“…which means the people of Alabama sued themselves. They said, ‘I’m taking your ass to court! And I’m gonna squeeze your nuts, Bubba! You’ll never have a proper dental plan again!’”
– Comedian Lewis Black
Certainly, the Yellowhammer State is happy that in recent years, it is not the only state to take itself to court. With Gov. Mark Sanford filing suit in a last-ditch effort to keep $350 million out of schools and prisons, South Carolina enters a period more suitable for a Lewis Carroll story than proper lawmaking.
When Sanford ran for governor, his logo included the word “leadership.” Unfortunately, for the past six years, he has shown anything but. When you cannot work with your own party, which maintains significant majorities, to come to an equitable compromise, it does not show leadership. It shows a slavish devotion to an extremist ideology. While that is fine in a researcher at the Cato Institute or the University of Chicago economics department, it ends up as bad governance when such actions are taken by an elected official.
Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, hardly considered a liberal (except by those with two tickets to the crazy train) expertly called out the Governor on his policy making, or lack thereof.
“I disagree with Congress’ stimulus plan, but I know that it’s fiscally irresponsible to let South Carolina tax dollars go to other states while we struggle to fund education and public safety at appropriate levels,” McConnell said in a statement. “We have received clarification from the U.S. Department of Education that if we do not formally apply for the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program by July 1, our stimulus funds will be allocated to other states. Gov. Sanford’s move may ensure that our tax dollars will be caught up in legal proceedings for what could be up to two years. He may have finally found a way to send our tax dollars to New Jersey, New Hampshire and Michigan. Gov. Sanford’s lawsuit is an irresponsible move that tramples on the S.C. Constitution and the future prosperity of our taxpayers.
“South Carolinians need to know that Gov. Sanford has already politically left this state, sometimes physically, but always mentally. This is just another press stunt to put him on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and in front of Fox News cameras. Gov. Sanford’s presidential aspirations and hunger for power are so strong that he is willing to put South Carolina’s future at risk. This lawsuit is a gift that keeps on giving -– giving the Governor out-of-state headlines and giving South Carolinians uncertainty and discord.”
Sanford, because of the nature of our legal system, has to sue Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster. In another through-the-looking glass moment, McMaster, who went fishing for Sanford’s money and support by backing his stance, now has to represent the other side of the argument.
“It’s unfortunate that this drama must now play out in the courts,” McMaster said in a statement. “Like most South Carolinians, I was hopeful that the Governor and legislature would be able to resolve their differences on the budget. We have received the Governor’s lawsuit and are currently researching the law in preparation for making an appropriate response.”
Of course, Sanford is lucky enough to be able to call on high-priced attorneys to defend his asinine conduct, pro bono. The multinational law firm of Kilpatrick Stockton will be taking the case, with partner John Foster acting as the Governor’s counsel.
That’s nice for Sanford. Of course, because the state is suing itself, the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for the defense. As if South Carolinians hadn’t already paid enough for the Sanford administration.
Responsibility got another look in state government on Wednesday as the House voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of the state budget. Reaping what he has sewn during his term, Sanford saw that he had few people willing to take his back to sustain the veto.
Speaker of the House Bobby Harrell, while again stating the that the majority of House members opposed the federal stimulus legislation, reiterated that what was done needed to be done.
“Since Gov. Sanford has already signed letters requesting other stimulus funds -– such as the $50 million for energy upgrades to buildings he requested months ago -– it makes sense to also tap this education and law enforcement money,” Harrell said in a statement. “By rejecting only the education and law enforcement portions of the stimulus money coming to South Carolina, Gov. Sanford put thousands of teachers’ jobs in jeopardy, threatened the closing of four prisons and the release of 3,400 convicted felons. The House took the responsible step of overriding this dangerous move. And because of our actions today our students will have teachers in their classrooms, police will remain on the streets and prisoners will stay behind bars. With South Carolinians responsible for the repayment of this money, we owed it to our students, teachers, police officers and citizens to make this responsible decision.”
Once again marking the disconnect between Sanford and members of his own party, as Rep. Bruce Bannister said in a House Republican Caucus news release that the Governor had given the House “false, impossible choices,” noting that the budget battle was coming down between “blind ideology and responsible government.”
Already, word is getting around that Sanford may not sit back and watch the overrides take effect, as he has done in the past. There is still the possibility that he could take the entire issue to court. Rep. Bill Herbkersman pointed out the foolishness of this action, as the state would be serving papers on itself.
“The choice the Governor has given our state is to re-write the budget, which would take months and cost tens of thousands of additional taxpayer dollars, or go to court to settle this,” Herbkersman said in a statement. “Now, it looks like this might wind up in court, which will waste tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars anyway as the state sues the state.”
First word out of the Governor’s Office was a tweet linking to Jake Tapper’s ABC political blog.
UPDATE: Well, that didn’t take long. Late Wednesday Sanford filed suit in federal court to prevent South Carolina’s acceptance of the federal budget stabilization funds.
Gov. Mark Sanford picked the perfect day to have another one of his ill-conceived polemics against the federal budget stabilization funds, this time at the State House: a Monday, when the General Assembly is not in session.
In true South Carolina fashion, the Governor is fighting a lost cause. The budget will pass with the much-needed $350 million over two years that make sure more teachers stay in the classroom and prisoners stay behind bars. If he thinks that slagging on the General Assembly once again is going to get his policy goals implemented, then he is even more out of touch than was once believed.
Most likely, what will happen is that the House and the Senate will get together and iron out the details and send the budget to Sanford, who will then veto it, citing a bad analogy to a blue-chip corporation, Thomas Friedman, Ayn Rand or hitting all three for the trifecta. Then, the General Assembly will override the veto. Sunrise, sunset.
Yet again, Sanford is not governing, he is performing. And the group he is doing his dance for is getting smaller by the day. Fortunately, he will not be around for too much longer, and we will not have to deal with Gov. No.
In the budget debate going on this session, there are a number of people who are spreading false spin on the budget that was reported favorably out of the Senate Finance Committee. One of the lines of attack was that the official budget would not fund immigration enforcement.
Sen. Larry Martin, who was a leader on tighter immigration enforcement last year, was none too happy about the accusations that were an attempt to “blindside” him and the Senate last Friday.
“As I’m driving back to Pickens, I get a call from the liaison at LLR telling me there’s a letter that will be in my email account very shortly, if it’s not there already, at five o’clock, explaining the agency’s position on the immigration funding issue, verified, suggesting to me nothing changed in that, but it was a four-page letter,” he said. “Obviously, when he told me it was a four-page letter, I got a little bit concerned, senator from Clarendon. Why does it take a four-page letter to explain that to me, basically to confirm what I had already said and what had already been discussed? Well, then, as I am about to get on my lawnmower, to mow my grass, I didn’t think anything of it.”
Martin was in the process of the domestic chore of mowing his lawn when Tim Smith of the Greenville News gave him a call. Smith had already received the email. Smith told Martin that, according to the email, the Senate Finance budget did not fund immigration enforcement. Martin made an attempt to set him straight, but the misleading spin already had an effect on that weekend’s story.
Martin, recalling the event on the Senate floor on Tuesday, reiterated his bona fides from the immigration bill last year.
“I wanted to make sure it was funded,” Martin said of immigration enforcement. “That was my total objective. It should have been obvious to anybody. But, now, the blogs are coming out, portraying me as the water boy for the Finance Committee, but, I can’t imagine, Mr. Chairman, me being accused of that. But, I’m trying to somehow carry water for the Finance Committee on this issue, and it’s our intention, ol’ senator from Pickens, senator from Cherokee, it’s their intention not to fund the immigration bill enforcement. That’s the email that’s going around the state right now.”
The senator from Pickens recalled that as of last Thursday, there was reassurance from LLR that the Senate Finance budget fully funded immigration enforcement, and that the information put out in the email last weekend was misleading.
Sen. Hugh Leatherman, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, made remarks on the floor that he believed Gov. Mark Sanford’s chief of staff Scott English gave the go-ahead on the email attack on the official Senate budget.
The S.C. Senate started work on the budget this week, but most of the work will be concluded next week.
At the end of Thursday’s session, President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell said that Sen. Hugh Leatherman advised him to tell the members that they should come to session on Tuesday fed, with all amendments already on the desk. The session that day will go all the way until the Senate is finished with second reading of the bill. The same circumstance caused the House to go into the wee hours of the morning when it attempted the same.
On Wednesday, though, when the upper chamber first took up the bill, senators went back and forth on the Senate Finance budget and the alternative budget, which was put together by allies of Gov. Mark Sanford.
“This 2009 budget process will continue to be great political drama for those of us within the capital complex, the media, the political blogs, the Internet,” Leatherman said. “This drama pits the legislative branch against the executive branch, the Federal government versus the state government versus local government. In contrast, the difference between monetary economics and Keynesian economics. That’s what we’re looking at. The spending’s even pit the RINOs, Republicans in name only, versus the LIARs, libertarians impersonating a Republican.”
The most contentious issue is whether to include the $350 million of budget stabilization funds from the Federal government. The budget before the Senate contains those funds. However, it is structured in such a way that the budget could be passed and implemented in the event that the Federal money is tied up in litigation.
There is also the sobering fact that basically every part of state government is getting a close shave. In his opening remarks, Leatherman said he chose not to have subcommittee chairmen come to the podium and discuss their parts of the budget, because it would be a cavalcade of senators discussing cut after cut after cut to vital state programs.
“If the State of South Carolina were a ship, we would be saying, crying, sending out the message, ‘Mayday, mayday, we’re going down,’” he said.
On the other side were Sens. Tom Davis and Greg Ryberg, who were still advocating for their alternative budget. Davis seemed to take umbrage with people who linked the alternative budget with “the Governor’s allies,” but righteous indignation is lost on the majority of us who know better.
In their column in The State, the senators explained their budget could cover education and law enforcement without the Federal dollars. McConnell, going over the alternative budget on Wednesday, said in as many words that the effort was long on promises but short on specifics.
If Wednesday’s session was a firecracker, then Thursday’s was a dud, with multiple senators bringing amendments that violate Rule 24, which specifies that no budget amendment can alter permanent state law. The rule was put in place so that such acts of legislation would be voted on as bills and considered in that manner.
And so, the slow burn continues through the weekend, with observers and senators alike advised to dig in and get ready for the battle on Tuesday.
The clowns come out at night. On television.
