Friday, June 26, 2009
Mark Sanford's Not-So-Fiscally-Conservative Affair
There was nary a voice louder than Mark Sanford's when it came to not accepting federal stimulus money during the stimulus showdown. Sure, Sarah Palin claimed she wasn't accepting the money but she also claimed during the campaign that she "had a great appreciation for the press" and when it came what she reads, said she reads "um, everything." So, no I didn't take her too seriously (nor did I ever).
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour protested portions of the stimulus, especially the increase in unemployment aid (which he felt would force an increase in the unemployment tax down the road to businesses). And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal also threw his hat in the ring, got on his soapbox and argued for more tax cuts (which aren't stimulative).
Among that group even Sanford stood out. While South Carolina was facing an increasing unemployment rate of 10% and schools that were so decrepit a 14 year old girl begged Obama for money for hers. It's one thing when kids are begging for money for the sake of having money, or money to go to college but to stop their school's gym roof from leaking? Mercy.
Sanford further characterized the stimulus in these stark terms:
“Since we don’t have any of this money that’s now being dispensed from Washington, DC; since we’re going out and printing money and we’re issuing debt to solve a problem that was created by too much debt; since that’s taking place, and since those costs will be borne by the next generation, in fact it is sort of fiscal child abuse to do what we’re doing.”
Fiscal child abuse? That's a new one for me. Deficit spending always pushes the burden into the future. It's not new, it's the definition of running a deficit. Governments are uniquely better equipped to run a deficit (as opposed to a person or business) because of their indefinite ability to raise revenues (i.e., taxes).
Obviously, Sanford was dogmatic about the effect of spending government in an unwarranted and inappropriate manner. Hence my surprise at hearing how Sanford spent almost $10,000 of taxpayer's money to see his Argentine girlfriend. Sure, he did a little business while he was there (the appropriate kind) but does that make it any less likely that he centered the trip around seeing her? No, not really. And everybody knows that.
So what I really want to know is: would he have reimbursed South Carolina taxpayers if he hadn't have been caught? Doubt it. It's not really the business of cheating that is the problem; it's the business of cheating and taxpayers investing in it. South Carolina is broke enough, Mr. Sanford. The kids can tell you that much.
update: Huffington Post details further "frugal" Sanford nonsense. Specifically, his use of state aircraft for personal vacations and other unethical shenanigans.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment