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: « Previous 1 2
Sarah has never said whether or not she will accept funds.
ousoonerfan15 on February 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM
If the leeway is there, and with that passage you cited it seems to be, reduce the taxes in SC by an amount equal to SC share of the stimulus. Tell the people of SC its your money and you know better than I (Sanford) do what your needs are.
WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM
ousoonerfan15 on February 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Sanford’s constituents and their children will be paying for it forever so it would be criminal to refuse it.
moflicky on February 19, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Which is the correct and mature stand. People like Sanford who first says he won’t accept Stimulus money, then backtracks and says he will, are just exposed as panderers and flip-floppers.
Norwegian on February 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I’m sure sarah will reject any stimulus money; after encouraging the President to veto the bill last week, she would have absolutely zero credibility if she accepted anything.
benny shakar on February 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Sanford is such a douche. And he looks like a monkey.
Constant Parrhesia on February 19, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Heh…you said Sanford when you meant to say Obama…to funny.
genso on February 19, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Funny that someone who already has established that he have zero credibility (Atroturfer Bunny Shaker) tries to paint other people that way.
Norwegian on February 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Here’s the relevant section so there’s no confusion, what I wrote originally was my recap of it:
It does NOT say in PMSEC 1607 (a) that all of the funds have to be used — which is why Sanford may be hinting he won’t take all the money — and it does not tell the Governors explicitly how to use the money, only that it promote growth and create jobs. Alright, Sanford, you say the stimulus was bad, show us the GOP alternative and solidify yourself at the top of the GOP 2012 list.
LastRick on February 19, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Admins, please get this troll out of here so we can have a real discussion. About as off-topic and inflammatory as it gets.
LastRick on February 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I could be wrong about this, but I do not think that any gov can refuse the money. Have you ever tried to give money back to the government? It is now like being in the Mob. None of us are safe.
Graham just won re-election in Nov. We have six more years of him.
BetseyRoss on February 19, 2009 at 4:34 PM
What I would like to see, as a SC resident, is Sanford to take the money and have some tax free shopping days to offset the surplus. Maybe waive the fees of car registrations for a year too.
cadams on February 19, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Horse manure. She should still take that which the state feels doesn’t have onerous strings attached. If she does, her credibility will be much improved.
Dusty on February 19, 2009 at 4:36 PM
This isn’t complicated and he should have answered with more confidence (normally Sanford is good at articulating economic issues). She attacked with the same lame “gotcha” that small-minded leftists (like deathtomediahacks) attempt with conservatives on many other issues in regards to “receiving” the goodies from programs you oppose.
It’s really simple people. The bill will be put into action, just like social security or any other welfare program many oppose.
These very programs cripple Americans from prospering and they are forced to participate.
I’m a fiscal libertarian for the most part, and if I was Sanford, I would take every dollar I could for my state, that the government has ALREADY decided to dole out by printing, borrowing, or taxing (past/future). My constituents will only be getting back THEIR OWN MONEY, the few that actually work, that is.
At the very least, some conservatives may have some say-so in how the money is used (hopefully some baseline infrastructure projects or how about border security?). That’s at least a small benefit to a economy-crippling bill.
nottakingsides on February 19, 2009 at 4:38 PM
If Sanford wants to take the money, I think he should, He should call for an immediate cut in taxes SC equal to the share SC is to receive.
If he thinks it looks bad taking all the money, take a share equivalent to SC share of income tax payments relative to the country as a whoie. If the amount alloted to SC in the stimulus bill is less than this proportional amount, complain the SC taxpayers are subsidizing CA, IL (my state), and others. If SC share is more than the proporational amount, take the principal stand and say SC will take no more than this amount.
Good like explaining this in our sound bite culture.
WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Whoops!
Good
likeluck explaining this in our sound bite culture.WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 4:48 PM
WashJeff on February 19, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Thank you Allah for posting this story. I know it was very painful for you. Isn’t it funny how half the posts in this thread are still about Palin….
davek70 on February 19, 2009 at 4:53 PM
So Sanford can decide what constitutes use of funds to create jobs and promote economic growth. Why not accept the funds and then use it to cut the state corpoate income tax to zero? Then use some of it to run TV ads in California and New York and Chicago to urge companies to move to South Carolina. He’ll have companies flocking to the state and creating lots of jobs!
rockmom on February 19, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Palin! Palin Palin Palin Palin Palin.
Palin?
/Palin
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Just another example of how devistating this type of legislation is. The periferal problem issues are endless.
saiga on February 19, 2009 at 5:00 PM
Speaking of Palin, where is the outrage on her failing to pay taxes?
Hypocrisy?
getalife on February 19, 2009 at 5:00 PM
In another thread, where it has been definitively stated that her employer messed up her W-2, she initiated the checking into the potential issue, and she intends to pay it.
This is, of course, exactly like Tom Daschle and Tim Geithner…
…if you completely ignore all the facts and just state whatever talking points Axelrod is feeding you.
Yes, your posts are typically dripping with it.
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM
getalife of February 19, 2009 at 5:00 PM
technopeasant on February 19, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Okay, so she should resign?
getalife on February 19, 2009 at 5:10 PM
One of the huge problems, among many, of the stimulus package is that it included federal spending, like infrastructure, that would have been sent to the states regardless. Everything that is in the bill is tainted by the pork. Four governor’s came out strong against the bill in its current form Jindal, Palin, Perry and Sanford. But, I think they all realize there are some good things like infrastructure projects that will be helpful.
oh and getalife Gov. Palin has not failed to pay her taxes, there was no tax issue until she asked herself about the policy of taxing per diem. She plans on paying now that she knows about it. She might even just beat that April 15th deadline.
manajordan on February 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM
Thats funny Benny, if anybody knows what LESS THAN ZERO is, its you.
portlandon on February 19, 2009 at 5:12 PM
It’s called Sarcasm.
TimeTraveler on February 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Your reading comprehension scores must be off the chart.
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Dude, she asked for an IRS review to make sure that she’d covered her bases. The IRS told her that some elements in her operations could be considered income, so she paid the taxes.
She’s not up for appointment as the head of the IRS. She was just being responsible.
Aim first next time. Your foot will thank you.
spmat on February 19, 2009 at 5:14 PM
Of course, Jindal too or it would be hypocrisy.
getalife on February 19, 2009 at 5:15 PM
He is right to take the money. To refuse to do it is simply stupid. I mean, it’s his constituency’s money. He could try and see how to use them wisely. I’m not an economist, so I’m not sure…
Let’s say, keep the money and cut some taxes by the equal amount. Is that stupid? Anybody?
radiofreevillage on February 19, 2009 at 5:15 PM
You’ve been spotted.
Snowed In on February 19, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I think the Govs. that are worried about it know that when it comes payback time they will be in deep doodoo. Now if they put that money in a small interest bearing account and just spend the interest, but I’m sure the strings attached will not allow that or any fiscal spending that goes against
the Demorats idea of responsibility. SPEND,SPRND,SPEND, why not it’s only the taxpayer’s money and they don’t care and we are all cowards. SIGH!!!!!!
concernedsenior on February 19, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Seriously you guys, think about it…
If palin took stimulus money after saying the President should veto the bill, it would be as ridiculous as if she had fully supported the Gravina Island bridge, but pretended she was against the project when it became politically convenient in the lower 48, claimed she said “thanks but no thanks” to federal funds for the bridge when in reality she spent the money on other projects… and then presented herself as a fiscal maverick. That is to say, an absurdity.
Oh, wait…
benny shakar on February 19, 2009 at 5:47 PM
No.
the_nile on February 19, 2009 at 5:48 PM
The problem is that the democrats is onto Keynes with a vengeance , they only count burn rate. It’s supposed to stimulate the economy ,not the return of an investment.
the_nile on February 19, 2009 at 5:56 PM
This is exactly why Mark Sanford should be President. It’s the difference between taking a principled position and simply grandstanding. The reality is that the people of South Carolina are going to be paying for the cost of the stimulus and since they’re absorbing the cost they might as well get the money as well. The Democrats want to punish anyone speaking the truth by making it so that to appear true to principle on TV they’d have to do something unbelievably stupid and clearly politically motivated. We need to move away from that kind of garbage, this is one of those do the right thing and have faith that in the long run the right thing will generate the best results.
galenrox on February 19, 2009 at 6:13 PM
I wonder why R govs don’t accept the money and then give a $ for $ tax cut to their taxpayers?
edshepp on February 19, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Huh? Would you call it a “principled position” when you:
1. Catergorically state you will not accept Stimulus Money
2. Then state that you will afterall take the money
This is what Sanford did, and it sounds more like flip-flopping to me in the true John Kerry definition of the word.
Norwegian on February 19, 2009 at 6:40 PM
Burn him at the stake!!!!!
Too strong?
Hog Wild on February 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Let him take the damn money. His constituents are going to have to pay for it anyway, and unless opponents of the “stimulus” get an opt out, it’s all fair that they get at least some of it back.
NorthernCross on February 19, 2009 at 6:47 PM
According to Palin’s press release yesterday she plans on taking 73 million of stimulus funds to relieve Alaska’s Medicaid liabilities. That’s not an infrastructure project folks.
lowandslow on February 19, 2009 at 7:16 PM
Do you by chance have a link to the press release?
unwashed minion on February 19, 2009 at 7:24 PM
Dude, don’t even play games. I said it almost two months ago that each one of these governors would HAVE to take the stimulus, including Sanford.
You know full well, that are posting a half truth. Thank God for the anonymity of the internet huh?
Your intellectual dishonesty is shining through. Your obsession with your hatred for Palin is clearly all you can think about.
kcarpenter on February 19, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Palin Press release
lowandslow on February 19, 2009 at 7:32 PM
I cannot believe the Palin supporters are letting your Sanheads off the hook for this.
The trash talking and the hero worship of Mark Sanford was used to bash Palin over and over again.
It appears now, Sanford has come to his senses and is now mimicking Palin. She stated over and over again that this thing was awful, but if it passed, she would use the money to best serve the people of Alaska. She was not going to extend the social programs any more than she had to and not create programs that her state would have to pay for in the years and years ahead.
She took about $75 million out of the money the state pays for medicare out of her budget and replaced it with about $75 million worth of federal dollars.
Palin has gone even further than this, after putting a moratorium on hiring, she proceeded to cut her budget by about 7% for FY2009 and FY2010 back in December. Just yesterday, she cut an additional $382.3 million from FY2009 and FY2010.
Better yet, she and those darn legislators she continuously fights with, managed to put $5 billion dollars into different bank accounts in the last two years. Their bank accounts are now well over $8 billion.
Still the economy is tough and she knows she will have to spend frugally because this bad economy could last for years.
This is exactly what I expect Sanford to do. Instead of growing the government handouts, he should be filling the holes he has in his budget.
Yes, Mr. Conservative Sanford has holes. Lots of them. His state is millions in debt and unemployment is way higher than the national average. I think his state has a 9.8% unemployment rate.
This was nothing more than a political stunt by Sanford. He foolishly ran out in front of every single camera he could find, wrote articles for newspapers and bashed away.
Now he is eating crow. Sometimes putting your state first instead of your own political career is a good thing.
Don’t get me wrong, Sanford is a good guy and a true conservative, but he screwed this one up.
kcarpenter on February 19, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Ah, the wrath of the palin fanboy!
You couldn’t be more wrong, my friend — like most Democrats (and comedians) I adore sarah palin.
benny shakar on February 19, 2009 at 8:09 PM
The problem with your statement here is that you conveniently leave out a couple steps b/w 1 and 2 (since being honest defeats your point). Step 1) Sanford doesn’t want the money; step 1b) Congress writes into the Act YOU’LL TAKE IT whether you like it or not; step 1c) If you don’t, your state legislature can take it in your place; step 2) You take it, because your constituents are the ones whose taxes make up the stimulus and you think you can do something better with it than the clueless politicians in DC. Even taking the money, he doesn’t want it but knows Congress has made it a law for him to take it. Now, where that constitutes a Kerry-esque flip-flop (ie. for the war/against the war), I don’t see it. By law, he HAS to take the money.
LastRick on February 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Good grief, she didn’t cut anything. Deferring payments on liabilities, not making tax credit payments because you don’t owe them, not paying investor fees because your investments took a dump, substituting stimulus funds for liabilities of the state, etc. aren’t cuts. You rail on Sanford and hold Palin up as some kind of fiscal leader when the fact of the matter is she hasn’t proposed anything that will actually reduce the size and cost of her government while still running a huge deficit.
lowandslow on February 19, 2009 at 8:27 PM
the real fiscal leader is Matt Blunt!
Tell us about Matt Blunt lowanddumb … tell us the tales of his fiscal conservatism
joey24007 on February 19, 2009 at 10:47 PM
Fixed it for you benny boop.
portlandon on February 19, 2009 at 11:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2