Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
SC Gov. Mark Sanford to Feds: Drop Dead!
Gov. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) has a message to D.C. lawmakers, his fellow governors, and the American people that's worth listening to. The short version: The feds shouldn't bail out his state or anybody else's.
In 2008 bailouts became the first resort [in a strapped economy]. Over the past year the federal government has committed itself to $2.3 trillion (including the tax rebate "stimulus" checks of last February) to "improve" the economy. I don't see how another $150 billion now will make a difference in a global slowdown. We've already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the difference.
However, there is something Congress can do: free states from federal mandates. South Carolina will spend about $425 million next year meeting federal unfunded mandates. The increase in the minimum wage alone will cost the state $2.6 million and meeting Homeland Security's REAL ID requirements will cost $8.9 million.
Read the whole thing in the Wall Street Journal (for free).
Watch the July 2008 CNN interview that might has cost the governor a VP slot on a McCain ticket (Sanford does such a piss-poor job articulating McCain's positives it is almost unbelievable):
When you make all the mandatory exemptions for real-life, actually elected politicians, Sanford is one of the most attractive pols around—a fiscal tightwad who is not unwilling to actually address and cut mega-spending issues.
Here's excerpts from a 2000 reason interview with then-Rep. Sanford, who was among those rare few who actually kept their self-imposed term-limit pledges.
Republican Mark Sanford ran for Congress in 1994 because he wanted to do something about the deficit, the debt, and Social Security. The GOP establishment wasn't happy—he was a developer, not a longtime pol who'd attended all the right dinners and functions—and they did their best to defeat him in the primary. They sent the likes of Tom DeLay, Dick Cheney, and Jack Kemp to South Carolina's 1st District to campaign against him. "I was like, ‘Why are you people here? I don't know who you are,'" recalls Sanford.
Once in office, Sanford was among the early advocates of privatizing at least part of Social Security. He also wants to free Americans to trade with Cuba. And he's famously cheap -a valuable and rare character trait in a politician. Domestically, this led him to oppose pork barrel spending, even in his own district. Internationally, it led him to pay a Cuban family $35 a night to put him up during a 1999 visit rather than stay at a hotel. On a personal level, it leads him to sleep on a futon on his D.C. office floor, rather than rent an apartment. At least he won't have to break a lease when he leaves town....
Reason: You once said that being a congressman wasn't that hard, that it should take six months to grasp the basics. Do you still believe this?
Sanford: In the 9 a.m. Republican conference meeting today, a certain unnamed Californian stands up and says, "This is real simple. It's shirts versus skins. We're shirts, they're skins." It's all the very elementary stuff on trading marbles. Any kid who has a set of marbles in the back yard or Pokémon cards or baseball cards and learns how to trade them knows everything you need to know about Congress.
Reason: Why does the trading always seem to go one way then? People seem to trade more for more, which leads to the growth of government every year. Why don't you ever make a new program contingent on killing an old one?
Sanford: That is the structural problem of democracy: diffuse costs and concentrated benefits. I'll have 100 visits in a week in the office. Ninety-nine of those visits people will say, "Mark, we really appreciate what you are doing on the deficit and debt and trying to reduce government spending. Keep it up. But we are here to talk to you about this one program and why it is very important." Who's going to take a trip to Washington to save 2 cents on the price of sugar because of the sugar subsidy?...
Reason: What's the biggest surprise you've had in Congress?
Sanford: The local will always trump national. Tip O'Neill said that all politics are local. He was exactly right. Whatever is in the best interest of one's chances of getting reelected is what drives the institution. It's selfishness in that "I-have-got-to-stay-up-here-to-do-good, fight-other-fights" way.
These people become your friends and you don't want to disappoint them. Even though I've only been here six years, some of my best friends in life are other members of Congress and I am going to miss them when I go. And if I had been here on the 20-year program, I would be that much more hesitant about disappointing them. Because nobody likes to disappoint anybody.
More with Sanford and other "congressional quitters," bless their souls, here.
|11.17.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Stop sock puppeting yourself Lefiti. That first post was yours
and you know it.
"These people become your friends and you don't want to disappoint
them. Even though I've only been here six years, some of my best
friends in life are other members of Congress and I am going to
miss them when I go. And if I had been here on the 20-year program,
I would be that much more hesitant about disappointing them.
Because nobody likes to disappoint anybody."
That is an excellent description of what happens to people when
they join an organization. They eventually become more wedded to
the organization than to their ideals.
|11.17.08 @ 2:29PM|#
Naga should only have to fess up, if Lefiti is honest and admits that he is only angry because he didn't think the write that first. I gaurentee you Lefiti agrees with the statement.
Naga Sadow|11.17.08 @ 2:30PM|#
Epi,
While it would live up to my current reputation of being a
"Wildcard, bitches!", I would have put a little more self loathing
into it. Example: Why won't anyone pay attention to me? Why is
everyone joking around in a friendly manner except with me?
Lefiti Corelone|11.17.08 @ 2:31PM|#
I know it was you, Naga. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!
BDB|11.17.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Guess what libertarian morons? That state continues to grow and
grow! Soon we will be like France!
Queefbaits.
|11.17.08 @ 2:35PM|#
I think the real Lefiti doesn't exist anymore.
He just evaporated because no one loved him.
|11.17.08 @ 2:38PM|#
Interesting troll eradication strategy: post innumerable mocking
troll sock-puppet posts, until no one can tell when the troll
really posts. Their posts get lost in the static; they go
away.
R C like.
Naga Sadow as Lefiti|11.17.08 @ 2:38PM|#
What message do I send unto you Libertarians? Defiance! (hurls gauntlet at Reason posters) . . . add unto that contempt and slight regard.
BDB|11.17.08 @ 2:40PM|#
RC Dean, it only works if the troll is extremely easy to spoof correctly. Lefiti/Concerned Observer is.
|11.17.08 @ 2:44PM|#
I know it was you, Naga. You broke my heart. You broke my
heart!
Does that mean Fredo was the Wildcard?
Naga Sadow|11.17.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Episiarch,
Don't you mean a green suit? Also, shouldn't I be throwing a
volleyball at your face? Seriously though. I got the nickname
"Wildcard, biches!" at work now. They found out me and a friend
stole a forklift from our work to set a Thanksgiving dinner for my
friends extended family a few years back. Kinda flattering.
|11.17.08 @ 2:49PM|#
I like that RC. I especially like it because no one could do it to me, since no one could spell as badly as I do even if they tried.
Naga Sadow|11.17.08 @ 2:50PM|#
Pro Lib,
I never did find out what that part meant. Scorn, defiance,
contempt, . . . I can follow that. But womby vaultages? Totally
lost.
Naga Sadow|11.17.08 @ 2:59PM|#
BDB,
Joe is tough to spoof due to one major problem. He's a warrior! Joe
comes to Reason for one thing and one thing only: to do battle. As
I have stated several times on these boards, I can picture Joe with
a Rising Sun bandana on, diet Dr. Pepper in one hand, sweating as
he unceasingly types his responses.
|11.17.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Naga,
French people apparently hide in womby vaultages when France gets
invaded.
Naga Sadow|11.17.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Oh! Epiphany! Separate the words and they make sense! Pro Lib, your a genius. Or much better at noticing the obvious. Whichever you wanna take.
|11.17.08 @ 3:09PM|#
Does that mean Fredo was the Wildcard?
Is somebody going to shoot Charlie in the head? Is that what you're
saying?
|11.17.08 @ 3:15PM|#
So, a guy from South Carolina, which gets back more money from
the Feds than it gives (1.35) is bitching because a state that
actually gives more than it gets, California (.78)...(those are
2005 figures, but you get the idea).
I know there's a lot more to it and I'm not sure I think they
should a bailout, but it's pretty fucking rich of one of the
parasite states to say the Feds shouldn't bail them out. They do
every year...
I am not lefiti, either...but carry on. :P
|11.17.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Is somebody going to shoot Charlie in the head? Is that what
you're saying?
That, or he and Naga are much more dangerous than their
entertaining antics belie. With their GREEN MAN! and their guinea
charm.
|11.17.08 @ 3:26PM|#
"So, a guy from South Carolina, which gets back more money from
the Feds than it gives (1.35) is bitching because a state that
actually gives more than it gets, California (.78)...(those are
2005 figures, but you get the idea)."
I am so tired of this parasite state shit. First, small states are
almost gaurenteed to be "parasite states" because they don't
produce as much revenue as big states. Really, what exactly does
South Carolina get in the way of federal spending? A couple of
small Army posts, a Navy yard and I thin one Air Force Base. It is
really not a lot. It is just because South Carolina is a small
state it doesn't take much to overwelm its contribution. Where does
it say that the ideal state of things is that every state getting
back from the Federal Government exactly what it contributes. That
is a pretty artificial standard.
If you don't like Federal Spending, cut it. I am sure the good
governor will be right there with you. In the mean time, shut the
fuck up about how this or that state gets more federal dollars than
they pay because it really doesn't matter one way or another.
Naga Sadow|11.17.08 @ 3:28PM|#
Fredo has charm? Well I suppose. He was banging skanky cocktail waitresses two at time and keeping players from getting a drink which would be right up my alley. Classy.
|11.17.08 @ 3:37PM|#
John...STFU? Well that's a way to really get the discussion
going.
I don't live in one of the big states, in fact I live in one that's
smaller than SC and we still don't get back as much as we give
in...just saying. And it's a state with over 50% federal
land.
I don't like federal spending, at the levels they are now. But they
are still parasite states, especially when YOU tell me to
STFU...and when they opine about a state that helps support
whatever the fuck they got going.
Not sympathetic. Is it that whole "red states take more than they
give" thing that gets you all het up? I wasn't even going
there...but I could if it would make you blow a gasket...
|11.17.08 @ 3:41PM|#
"I know there's a lot more to it and I'm not sure I think they
should a bailout, but it's pretty fucking rich of one of the
parasite states to say the Feds shouldn't bail them out. They do
every year..."
Sorry to use profanity but that statement caused me to blow a
gasket. It is basically saying that because this or that state gets
more money from the Feds than they pay, no one from that state
should have a problem with California and New York backing up a
dump truck to the federal treasury to support their spending
addictions.
The fact is that states like California and New York have run
themselves into the ground through insane taxation, regulation and
spending and no one owes them anything. The fact that South
Carolina gets an Air Force base really has nothing to do with
it.
Lastly, military bases need to be in the middle of nowhere. Big
cities don't want them and they need a lot of space. So outside of
the high desert of California, every military base is going to be
in big empty states that don't have a big population that pays a
lot of taxes making them OMG parasite states. Fine, move the
military to Southern California and New York City. It will serve
them right.
|11.17.08 @ 4:08PM|#
We've already unloaded truckloads of sugar in a vain attempt
to sweeten a lake. Tossing in a Twinkie will not make the
difference.
Sweeeeeeet
|11.17.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Fine, move the military to Southern California and New York
City. It will serve them right.
Dunno 'bout NYC, but let's talk Southern Californian military
bases.
March Air Reserve Base Riverside.
Camp Pendleton Marine Base - north of Oceanside
Miramar Air Station - San DIego
San Diego Recruit Depot
Twentynine Palms Air Ground Combat Center
China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division
Coronado Naval Amphibious Base - San Diego
Coronado Naval Base - San Diego
El Centro Naval Air Facility - west of El Centro
Naval Surface Warfare Center Corona Divison - Corona
North Island Naval Air Station - San Diego
Port Hueneme Construction Battalion Center
Point Loma Naval Base - San Diego
Point Mugu Naval Air Station - southeast of Port Hueneme
San Diego Anti-Submarine Warfare Training Center
Naval Training Center, San Digo
San Diego Naval Station
Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station
Ventura County Naval Base - south of Oxnard
SOCAL has quite a few.
|11.17.08 @ 4:30PM|#
J Sub D,
A couple of those you list, 29 palms, china lake, are in the high
desert which I mentioned. That being said, what are you trying to
say California is some kind of parasite state? If the existence of
the bases you list is a reason not to bail their miserable asses
out, then I agree with you. Sadly, however, I don't think the
number of bases in your state should have anything to do with
whether or not the federal govenrment should bailout your
state.
Former AF Officer|11.17.08 @ 4:48PM|#
J sub D,
You also forgot the Los Angeles Air Force Base, which doesn't have
an airstrip and is basically two large city blocks, but is home to
the Space and Missile Systems Center, one of the AF's major
acquisition organizations, similar to Hanscom AFB (right outside of
Boston) and the biggest AF acquisition base, Wright-Patterson AFB,
(right outside of Dayton, OH). So, what's this about military bases
not being near major cities? [ok, Dayton isn't "major"]
|11.17.08 @ 4:49PM|#
I am so tired of this parasite state shit. First, small
states are almost gaurenteed to be "parasite states" because they
don't produce as much revenue as big states. Really, what exactly
does South Carolina get in the way of federal spending? A couple of
small Army posts, a Navy yard and I thin one Air Force Base. It is
really not a lot. It is just because South Carolina is a small
state it doesn't take much to overwelm its contribution. Where does
it say that the ideal state of things is that every state getting
back from the Federal Government exactly what it contributes. That
is a pretty artificial standard.
Wow, if joe had posted the exact same thing but replaced small
states with poor people you'd, rightly, be calling it socialism.
This is spreading the wealth on a larger scale. BTW, Delaware is a
smaller state than South Carolina and get 0.77 cents on the dollar
for taxes, it also has an Air Force base.
BTW, it's not just military bases and retirees. SC has a
significantly higher than average Federal share on Medicaid
spending.
What J sub D said is that your comment "So outside of the high
desert of California, every military base is going to be in big
empty states that don't have a big population that pays a lot of
taxes" is completely unhinged from reality (per usual). J sub
mentioned a ton of bases not in the high desert. Just because a
couple are in the high desert doesn't mean he's wrong, it means
that you're wrong.
|11.17.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Check out Sanford giving it to Charlie Rangel during his
Congressional testimony a few weeks ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GxY2WzaGjE
This is good stuff...we need this guy in teh White House in
2012.
|11.17.08 @ 4:55PM|#
John,
If the state of California took all of the extra federal tax
dollars it doles out and kept them in state, it would be running a
surplus (and still be giving a lot to the military and such). The
funny thing is, many of the tax cuts you advocate would do the
exact same thing you abhor, it would flatten the difference between
net paying states and leech states (or properly, rich states and
poor states).
For example, CA pays 50-50 towards medicare payments, the US
average is 57-43 and SC is 69-31. So, yes, the leaching nature of
other states does have an effect on CA's budget. Not to mention,
federal education programs.
|11.17.08 @ 5:00PM|#
So, a guy from South Carolina, which gets back more money
from the Feds than it gives (1.35) is bitching because a state that
actually gives more than it gets, California (.78)...(those are
2005 figures, but you get the idea)
I need some idea what is counted in those numbers.
I don't think spending on goods and services recieved should be
counted, as the feds presumably recieve value for their money (I
know, I know) and a business relationship is not necessarily
parasitical.
I don't know how or why you would count money that goes directly to
individuals in the form of Social Security checks, or entitlement
money paid on behalf of individuals, like Medicare. How does the
expenditure of that money make a state a parasite state? Its
expenditure in a given state is purely incidental to the residency
of who it is spent on/for.
|11.17.08 @ 5:05PM|#
I don't know how or why you would count money that goes
directly to individuals in the form of Social Security checks, or
entitlement money paid on behalf of individuals, like Medicare. How
does the expenditure of that money make a state a parasite
state?
Because there are significant number of people in the state getting
something for nothing. If you had a city full of nothing but
welfare recipients, one could fairly call that city a parasite
city. Same goes for entitlement spending. Or are you all of the
sudden not going to call entitlement spending welfare, RC, because
it's going to Republicans?
States like NY ($46K) and California ($41K) have higher per capita
GDPs than states like South Carolina ($29K) and Utah ($32K). So
they're more likely to get hit by higher tax brackets and less
likely to be welfare recipients.
curious|11.17.08 @ 5:17PM|#
When you make all the mandatory exemptions for real-life,
actually elected politicians, Sanford is one of the most attractive
pols around-a fiscal tightwad who is not unwilling to actually
address and cut mega-spending issues.
I remember similar crowing about Sarah Palin about a year ago on
both her MILFness and her constitutionality (similar to
wessonality).
Will you also abuse Gov Sandford when he runs for president.?
|11.17.08 @ 5:51PM|#
States like NY ($46K) and California ($41K) have higher per
capita GDPs than states like South Carolina ($29K) and Utah ($32K).
So they're more likely to get hit by higher tax brackets and less
likely to be welfare recipients.
Okay, but states with the higher per capita GDP's are probably more
likely to be beneficiaries of federal largesse for the rich, like
corporate subsidies and funding for higher education.
SIV|11.17.08 @ 6:38PM|#
OK for equal time and fairness I look forward to your profile of a libertarian-leaning DemocRAT Party governor.Good luck!
|11.17.08 @ 6:40PM|#
SC has two Air Force Bases - Charleston AFB and Shaw AFB, which
is upstate in Sumter. The navy base is closed but there is still a
Naval Weapons Station in the Charleston area.
A list of SC military bases, including nation & state
guard:
http://www.sciway.net/gov/mil_bases.html
|11.17.08 @ 7:45PM|#
You people completely miss the point. It is not that any of the
spending, sans the necessary military bases, is any good. It is
not. It is just because it happens does not mean that anyone from a
state that gets more money is somehow prevented from argueing
against spending and bailing out states. That is all I am
saying.
Mo I don't abhore ending states getting more money from the
government than they pay. i just don't care one way or another. The
idea is to have the right amount of spending, which is a lot less
than we have now. The point is not to ensure every state gets an
eqaul part of the pie.
I thought that was clear, but you are really fucking dense
sometimes.
|11.17.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Oh cut the crap, John. No one understood your point and you argued it poorly. I wasn't the only one that read it that way, so get off the cross and admit that you didn't state your point instead of blaming everyone else for interpreting what you wrote.
Kolohe|11.17.08 @ 11:15PM|#
Lastly, military bases need to be in the middle of
nowhere.
Navy bases need to be near the water, and generally in deep draft
harbors.
That's also where cities tend to be.
Now, we've tended to get out of the really big cities through
consolidation and brute dredging. But what makes the navy better
than the army is that you're generally in 'civilized' areas.
Kolohe|11.17.08 @ 11:22PM|#
I'll grant you, though, that navy bases tend to be in the worse part of town. Norfolk and the old Charleston base exemplified this. As does 32nd st in San Diego - however Point Loma is nice and North Island (Coronado) is *really* nice. Groton (New London) is neutral because the entire area is all about the same; same w/ Kings Bay in a more rural way. Puget Sound, otoh, the entire area is nice in a suburban way.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245