Heart-ache: Sanford probably will accept stimulus money
posted at 3:00 pm on February 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
Maybe not all of it, but some. Like the man says, having made a principled stand against the bill and lost, what’s to be gained now by rejecting the cash? Aside from setting a momentously righteous example about spending and instantly being inducted into the fiscal conservative Hall of Fame, I mean.
A tu quoque via FNC this morning:
He suggested he’s open to taking the money, saying Democrats aren’t turning down tax cuts even though many oppose them.
“There are a lot of Democrats that voted against tax cuts and yet they don’t go back to their states and their congressional districts and tell their folks, ‘Look you can’t take the tax cut because if so it’ll undo what I believe’,” he said.
Fair enough, but thanks to James Clyburn and the House Democrats, there’s a third option beside taking the money and rejecting it: Per the Sanford Amendment, he could have turned down the cash in the expectation that the state legislature would override him. That way his constituents get their pork and he doesn’t have to get his hands greasy by touching it. Why not go that route? He’s barred by term limits from seeking re-election as governor in 2010. I can only assume he has his eye on higher office, either in the Senate (a challenge to Grahamnesty?) or the White House, and doesn’t want to have to be asked umpteen million times which other benefits he’d deny to Americans in the interest of “principle.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
“But mom… everyone else is doing it!”
Akzed on February 19, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Our Governor Perry accepted it as well.
So much for standing on principles when ‘free’ cash is dangled in front of you.
carbon_footprint on February 19, 2009 at 3:03 PM
That just narrows the field for 2012
BuckNutty on February 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
If a Gov. can reject Federal Money, why can’t it reject Federal laws on things like say Abortion?
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:05 PM
I cannot blam him for taking the money, unless there are some strings attached, if you look at as getting your constituents money back that should have never been taken in the first place. I find it principled to say I will take the money as a state level offical, but if I was at the federal level, I would have voted to never take the money in the first place and/or vote for tax cuts (e.g., payroll tax holiday)
WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM
What the hell? This begs the question of why bother to say anything about it since any future campaign will feature 800 ads about how he was against it before he was for it. This is foolish.
John_Locke on February 19, 2009 at 3:06 PM
one problem here is, by not accepting it your state taxpayers/voters are still liable for the debt from it. Although it denying it would make a better case for secession going fwd.
plus every state has some infrastructure needs to be addressed with some of this.
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
What doesn’t that lady understand about Sanford’s position? He makes it quite clear.
The Govs are in a bind over this. Sanford’s problem was that he talked the biggest game on it.
Also, he has HW Bush hand gestures.
joey24007 on February 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
His constituents are paying money into this package. Why wouldn’t he take it? It would be a slap in the face of his constituents.
Notorious GOP on February 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I really wish I could say I’m surprised. Governor GoodHair has long had an entitlement mindset.
Vic on February 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Hot air.
getalife on February 19, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Meh…………
Seven Percent Solution on February 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM
she may have accepted some but she is slashing the hell out of the budget too.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1655
upinak on February 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Principles? Honor?
I have this urge to take my stimulus check, if there is such a check, and write void across it in large letters. Then across the bottom: “I don’t want your blood money.” I gave the last one away, but this is getting silly.
Then I want to just mail it back to them. I imagine there isn’t a clause for refusing the money so it would create a mess of some sort. Just think of the disturbance that would cause if the media grabbed it.
I just want to be able to look at myself at the end of the day and know that I’m a decent man that wouldn’t take what another man has earned. What is honor anyway?
blankminde on February 19, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Sanford could deny it, call for secession and become the new Jefferson Davis to Obama’s Lincoln???
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:10 PM
The big question: What will Sarah do?
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I think he should have gone the route of letting the legislature take the money. He is going to be eating this crow for a long time to come.
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I love the “Dire Straits” in the headline.
Money for nothing, checks for free.
BigD on February 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Grahamnesty isn’t up until 2016.
Wethal on February 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Our “so-Called” Conservatives are just as stupid as are the American people sucking the teet of the Messiah! Sucking the teet till all are beholden to MyBabiesDaddy Obama and the same as his cult. Has everyone gone insane? Stop now, take no money, do not fold to the radical left just because everyone else is… The wussy Republicans suck and are almost no different then radical Liberals. America is dead!
Mark Garnett on February 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM
blankminde, I don’t think you are getting a stimulus check. You’re just going to get about $8 to $13 dollars more per paycheck for a couple of months. Or something like that.
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:12 PM
If all of the other governors were jumping off of their crumbling bridges, would you?
By the way, what happens when the entire $1.3 trillion is spent and the roads and bridges still suck?
Trust me. I live in Chicago. They spend 9 months of the year fixing the roads and they’re always awful. Keeps the money flowing to the unions.
MaxPower on February 19, 2009 at 3:12 PM
… but I digress
MaxPower on February 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Why would you accept money that’s not stimulative? Oh wait, when your state has over 20% unemployment. GOP governance.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
whatever it is, a half-truth spinjob will be posted here, either in the afternoon are at night.
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Grahamnesty isn’t up until 2016.
Wethal on February 19, 2009
???
artist on February 19, 2009 at 3:13 PM
That’s a neat trick if you can do it, since senators’ terms are six years.
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM
how is that even possible?
he’s up in 2010 I think
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM
I believe they can, at least on certain things (like minimum drinking age) but the Feds tie those laws to Federal money for freeways and other infrastructure so no state wants to refuse it.
I sincerely wish one state out there would get their house in order, make sure that they could cover their expenses themselves, then tell the Feds to take their money and shove it on every law but those the Constitution says are in the arena of the Federal government.
JadeNYU on February 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
All of the Governor’s face this problem, well all conservative ones.
People act like this is the first time the federal government has provided money to the states … the states receive transportation funds all of the time. I’m sure that most of the conservative governors want the money that goes to these things. I believe Sanford and Palin, among others have warned about the unfunded mandates that will be established by this bill. Fortunately for Governor Palin, the state of Alaska under her leadership has “forward funded” many of these things including education … this bill punishes states that have made wise decisions in this area.
When Hotair.com distorted Palin’s position on the stimulus, they of course left out that she was interested in “decoupling” the transportation funds that would be given to her state from timelines because of the harsh conditions in Alaska that make for the construction of roads difficult.
Sanford’s problem is that he has talked the biggest game on this issue and is now probably coming around to Palin’s position … that funds that make sense for their state will be accepted, in terms of roads and such. Also, Palin is interested in transportation funds for her pipeline project, which will give the U.S. much more back than the money Alaska will be receiving from this.
Of course because of the “Sanford Amendment” all conservative governors face the problem that the state legislature can request all of the money.
joey24007 on February 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
Sarah Palin did this:
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1655
Slashed the budget again by 445.5 million.
Alaska is only recieving .05% of the Stimulus. I wonder which area/State is getting the biggest chunk.
upinak on February 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM
That was my assumption from what I was hearing about the weekly money rather than a lump sum. If there is no math going on behind the scenes and that is indeed my money then good. They never should have had it in the first place.
I don’t think that’s the case though. If it was money you earned then there would be no stimulus for the poor and this wouldn’t be happening. I just wish there was some way to ball up that $8 a week and ram it down their corrupt throats.
blankminde on February 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I know many are touting Sanford for 2012. He is a fine man and a good conservative, but sometimes you have to stand on principle. However, I will not be the final judge. I think he has Presidential ambitions. The primary voters will decide his fate.
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Your a moron… and a liar…
New York – Dem – BANKRUPT
New Jersey – Dem – BANKRUPT
Penn. – Dem – Going Broke
CA. – RINO – BANKRUPT
MN. – BROKE & DEM
MI. – BROKE & DEM
Should I go on you liar… Liberal leftist run States are in HORRIBLE shape compared to Consevative States…
Mark Garnett on February 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Er, according to Time magazine, pro-choice legislation is just the figment of imagination of social cons.
terryannonline on February 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM
It is perfectly acceptable for the governors to accept this money. Their constituents contributed to it, and in all likelihood at least on of their congressional representatives voted for it.
I love AP’s feigned “heartache”, though. I’ll bet he can’t find South Carolina on a map.
BigD on February 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
The dilemma is a classic version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma in game theory.
“Two suspects are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal. If one testifies (defects) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?”
Sanford knows other states will take (his share) of the money so it makes sense to “rat” and take his share.
The “best outcome” would be for ALL states to refuse, but that won’t happen.
aquaviva on February 19, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Wethal on February 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM
It’s hard. Remember McCain was criticized during the campaign for accepting Social Security money even while he called for reforming the program. I defended him by basically saying hey, I think Social Security should be completely ended, but you bet if I paid into a system I’m going to get all the money back I can.
kc8ukw on February 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Being principled is one thing. Being stupid is another. How can you justify to the taxpayer you are not taking billions of dollars because of principle?
If he could have gotten about 1/2 of the governors to say no, then maybe we can talk. But not under these circumstances.
In the early 90s Chelan County in the State of Washington took a principled stand against the State’s Growth Mis(management) Plan. Kudos to them. Well, when push came to shove and the governor at the time- Mike “the Bandit” Lowry- threatened to withhold road funds and all other accoutrements from the State, the three commissioners buckled. Actually, one Republican lost his election and the new Republican caved.
You can’t blame them too much.
swatter on February 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM
There’s a lot of stuff over the last month that I wish was only a figment of my imagination.
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM
He should take the money they handout, but use it for investment. Not the consumption it’s meant for.
the_nile on February 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
FIFY
portlandon on February 19, 2009 at 3:19 PM
While this looks bad to us, one must think about it logically. The people of his state, along with the rest of us, are going to have a major income tax rate increase next year to pay for this boondoggle (trust me). Given that their money goes to DC, it would add insult to injury if none of the money at least came back to their state. What is worse, getting the big tax bill, or getting the big tax bill, and having all of the spending be done in CA and NY – because I guarantee you, if anyone turns down the money, it will just be redirected to other states that will grab it.
Vashta.Nerada on February 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Do you think if he refused the funds Washington would exempt South Carolina from having the privalige of paying for the PORKFEST.
Didn’t think so
heshtesh on February 19, 2009 at 3:20 PM
blankminde, the $8 to $13 is a tax break for people who work and pay the payroll tax. There is a chunk of other stimulative money for unemployment benefits, WIC, foodstamps and such for people who do not work. Since those people do not pay payroll taxes, they aren’t getting the $400 tax break.
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:21 PM
I am guessing the states cannot do that. I would bet that
stringschains are attached to the money.WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 3:22 PM
At this point it’s too late to do anything but accept the money. The money has been and will be confiscated from his constituents in the form of federal income taxes, so why not at least let them get some of their wages back? As much as the Democrats are banking on Republican governors’ use of these funds being seen as bipartisan acceptance of this horrific bill, the Democrats are going to own it all by themselves. No Republicans voted for the damn thing.
Sign of the Dollar on February 19, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Alaska is f*cked as the price of oil stays low, Palin knows it and her budget is about to face a big shortfall like all the others. Cut your nose to spite your face Palin, your population may be suffering from growing poverty but at least you’re positioned for 2012.
DeathToMediaHacks on February 19, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Not too bright, are you?
Vashta.Nerada on February 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM
So are Sanford Apologists equally as terrible as Palin apologists? It’s been awful cold out here not being in the big tent and all….
portlandon on February 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM
What would be great is if he could take the money and then find a way to distribute it to SC citizens in the form of tax refunds.
John E. on February 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Give it a rest dude. She’s got a rainy day fund. Alaska is in much better shape then the blue states, I’m sure.
Spirit of 1776 on February 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM
And shame on the Democrats for not letting them, the people of Alaska, obtain more oil and natural gas from their state. That, even with lowered prices, would help them fund their government.
WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 3:26 PM
What should be done is a state should conduct an online poll of the voters over a period of 7 days and take steps to ensure that people can only vote once to determine whether a state should accept money from the stimulus and/or for what projects.
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM
LOL.. wow you are a complete idiot. She is slaching the budget for 2010 not now. Dude freaking READ!
upinak on February 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM
I like Sanford. I don’t really have a problem with this, but nor do I have a problem with Palin’s position.
What would be unpardonable, however, is to condone Sanford and condemn Ron Paul for returning tax dollars to his constituency. Whatever the view people hold, I hope they are consistent.
Spirit of 1776 on February 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Taking the money and then magically finding a way to cut all the attached strings to turn it into tax rebates wouldn’t make any sense because huge tax increases are going to be what pays for this in the not so long run. And inflation. And a slower reccession recovery.
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on February 19, 2009 at 3:23 PM
In the teeth of a three trillion tax hike from the feds, the only obvious solution is to raise state taxes.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Alaska is #1 for money right now… we save it and don’t spend it. Palin is good at that… never had an issue with her on slashing anything moneywise.
upinak on February 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I’d rather Sanford run for Senate rather than Prez.
CP on February 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM
It’d be sweet if Sanford could seize the funds for the destinated South Carolina projects, take it and give it to the taxpayers of SC forced to pay for this idiosy.
like I said, showdown of Federal vs. State Power. a POTUS from Illinois and a statesman from South Carolina. The POTUS trying to stick it to the people of South Carolina….as much as they like to claim Obama as the new lincoln, this is Sanfords chance to be the new Jefferson Davis. Standing up for State’s rights, and like the first war it will be over money and power/control, not slavery as they like to gloss it over as.
Who would be Sherman and who would be the new General Lee?
Sherman = Colin Powell
Gen. Lee = Gen. Paetraus
“The South Shall Rise Again!!!!”
/haha, that was fun exercise of thought, excuse me.
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I know, but facts are irrelevant to some.
Spirit of 1776 on February 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM
check HuffPo, thats what this idiot has been getting that from.
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM
The unfortunately reality that Governors have to deal with, we have to deal with to:
- I hate Social Security and would like to see it gone. I have paid into it, so I will take the money when it is my turn to receive it.
- I pay HIGH property taxes, therefore my gets go to public schools. I would rather have all schools be private.
- I have comprehensive health insurance, so my family errors on the side of caution and over uses the family doctor. I would rather have a high deductible ($10,000) insurance and HSA.
Don’t take down Stanford, Et Al. as long as the continue to fight for a smaller Federal Govt.
WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I don’t live in South Carolina, but I pay South Carolina state taxes. Since I am going to have to pay higher federal taxes, I don’t want to pay higher state taxes. If any states turn it down, it will go to other states and everyone will still be stuck with higher taxes. I am beginning to like Mark Sanford for president in 2012. I like Sarah, but I don’t think she can win.
jeannie on February 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM
The tax hike will come either way. So giving your own state something back before the grabbing does lessen the burden a bit.
the_nile on February 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM
He won’t last long in the 2012 primaries. After this flops and tanks our economy below anything Jimmey Carter ever imagined, only an anti-Porkulous hardliner will get the nomination.
t.ferg on February 19, 2009 at 3:35 PM
First, that reporter is a dolt. Second, Sanford didn’t say he was going to accept the funds; he said that he and his legislature would have to look at the details and that at least some of Obama’s ‘give-aways had so many strings attached that he was confident they would NOT take them. And Sanford clearly delineated between his role as a policymaker (where he did everything possible to stop Porkulus from passing) and as an executive responsible for 5 million people, most of whom will be paying to fund Porkulus for many generations. Nothing in this interview makes me question his principles or gives me heart-ache. We need more like him.
LASue on February 19, 2009 at 3:35 PM
That doesn’t work with me at all. Your reasoning.
If some guy against all my protestations grabbed all the money out of my pocket and threw it in the street with a bunch of other folks money, we’d all be trying to get some of ours back.
The bills past. The only downside in taking your states cut is the engineered outrage of hypocrisy on the left. They look for and seize those moments.
hawkdriver on February 19, 2009 at 3:35 PM
she’s got a better shot than Sanford, by far(he’s boring), if and only if all the insane and unhinged demonizing and lying about her calms down and some form of the truth gets out.
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM
So which GOP govs are still refusing bailout $$$?
Perry and Palin?
JetBoy on February 19, 2009 at 3:36 PM
He would be doing a dis-service to his constituents by not salvaging what he can from the atrocity.
If South Carolina doesn’t take the money, it will go to a nutjob state.
Posters who are opposed to this on “principles” need to re-think their position. How many of those “pricipled” posters are refusing Medicare, I wonder?
notagool on February 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I do not agree. The money from the stimulus is mostly bloat for programs that need to be reduced. It if were just for bridges/roads or tax cuts/rebates, that would be a somewhat different matter.
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:40 PM
That may lose him some votes, yes, but we perhaps American’s will have woken up by then, and will ask him what RIGHTS he secured by his principled stand.
States Rights primarily.
Montana on February 19, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Only if a state can make sure that it’s citizens do not have to pay for it.
jukin on February 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM
I predict the majority of the base will never forget that Sarah stood up to Obama by calling for him to veto the stimulus package and thereby giving Obama the entire ownership of the plan.
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Couln’t we all agree (Mitt fans, Palin fans, Sanford fans, Jindal fans, etc) that any person running for president with an R party affliliation is going to be beaten up over all sorts of things come 2012? Principled stands, spending binges, budget cuts, teen-age pregnancy, exorcisms… doesn’t matter. Being a republican means getting fed to the media wood chipper.
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM
if you are ever in SC, check out that State Capital building behind Sanford in video, neat place and lots of history
jp on February 19, 2009 at 3:47 PM
I don’t blame him for taking the money once he fought and lost. If the money will be spent anyway, then the token gesture of denying it won’t have any real consequence other than to make his constituents do without when everybody else gets theirs. In other words, at some point he has something like a fiduciary duty to fight for his portion of a pie that he overall objects to being created in the first place.
How would we like it if congressmen refused to send people from their districts to wars that they voted against. You have to have the argument up front and then once the chips fall where they may, you have to move forward as a country.
All that said, I hate the stimulus.
PersonalLiberty on February 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM
You forgot exhaling carbon dioxide.
WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Don,t believe ever thing.Mark Sanford is my Gov. and he just said less than a hour ago that he has NOT desided to take the stimulus money or any part of it and is leaning not to take the money.
thmcbb on February 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Heartache hell.
More like. . . As expected!
King of the Britons on February 19, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Meh, it’s a poison pill. That money has strings attached. I hope he’s content to take the fall for the unintended consequences of letting the feds run his state from Washington.
spmat on February 19, 2009 at 3:52 PM
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Love how Allahpundit had to post this about his favorite Sanford. You can literally see him kicking and screaming. Of course, he has to mitigate it by saying Sanford made a “prinicpled stand”,post an old video of him opposing the stimulus and state that “I can only assume he has his eye on higher office”….LMAO
Think he would’ve done the same if this had been Palin?
While Sanford does a pathetic “Kerryesqe” 360 turn on the Porkulus (in the past he has done similar publicity stunts such as bringing live hogs to the SC state house all while overseeing a growing state budget in SC)…. Palin has publically called out the Porkulus Bill and proposed REAL cuts (445 Million) to the budget.
Norwegian on February 19, 2009 at 3:55 PM
And when it comes to getting put into the wood chipper, I have faith that Palin will demand that she go head first instead of the wimpy feet first position.
myrenovations on February 19, 2009 at 3:56 PM
In other great financial news, the Dow is down another 73 points. Yay.
Bishop on February 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM
You do mean a 180, right?
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 4:00 PM
IIRC, Friedman opposed Social Security but he never said he would not or that you should not take the money. It’s there, use it or lose it. Rejecting stimulus money isn’t going to keep one SC’er from having to contribute to paying it back and they’ll suffer the pain that the legislation fosters no matter what.
I do see that he, like Jindal will be looking at the strings attached in deciding what to take. Good for him. It would be nice if the Republican governors made a concerted effort to coordinate their opposition to the ever more expansive FEd Government and start asserting States Rights in the areas of taxation and mandates. Maybe they could start by making rumblings about changing the Senate back to appointment by the state legislatures.
Dusty on February 19, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Understood. Completely logical. Sanfords name is thrown around here at HA as a Palin solution. I don’t need to rehash former threads here re: Palin, but If Sanford is taking bail-out money, we don’t need to hear him used as some sort of patron saint to fiscal conservatism. Right now, it belongs to Jindal.
portlandon on February 19, 2009 at 4:02 PM
I consider it a salvage operation at this point.
It makes perfect sense that the Governor would try to recover some of the money that Obama/Pelosi/Reid are taking from South Carolinian taxpayers.
chalons on February 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM
Well, according to poster “thmcbb” (3:51 PM); he has now stated that he is against it again. Since he will probably accept the funds again anyway, he will have completed a “540″ by the time this is all settled…LOL
Norwegian on February 19, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I had such high hopes for this guy. Now, I don’t know.
cjs1943 on February 19, 2009 at 4:08 PM
It’s more than just money. There are a lot of conditions you have to meet to use it, authority and sovereignty you have to give over to get that piece of the crap sandwich. You aren’t getting that money for free. You’re paying for it with lost control over its use and all the rider clauses that will come later, once the feds have bureaucratic control over your budget and infrastructure.
With this stimulus, the Democrats are nationalizing the states in exactly the same way as they’re nationalizing the banks, the car companies and everything else that accepts a “helping hand” from Ellsworth.
spmat on February 19, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Per Sec. 1607 of the stimulus, governors are required to (1) accept the money no later than 45 days after passage of the act and (2) use the money to create jobs and promote growth.
Now, I know Gov. Sanford didn’t want the money but due to this section, he’s basically forced to take it (if he doesn’t, Clyburn will use the next section in the Act to take it in his stead). So why not take the money (begrudgingly) and use part (1) above to decide just how much of it you’re going to take and part (2) to put it to use the best way you see fit? He can still use the money to show how a Conservative/Libertarian would promote growth as opposed to what will go on in most liberal-leaning states (read: envision tossing money into a hole).
LastRick on February 19, 2009 at 4:10 PM
The new Sanford theme song?
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 4:11 PM
You know when you can really judge a person: what they do when they have a gun to their head-do they yield to intimidation or expediency or do they adhere to principle and refuse to give in to the captor despite undue influence.
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM
LOL, perfect!
Norwegian on February 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »