MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

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.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Sanford is a market-fundamentalist lunatic, yesterday's man.

  • ||

    Stop posting as me, fuckers!

  • ||

    Quit cryin' Eddie. Pussy.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    We all know it was you, Naga. Just fess up.

  • ||

    I think the real Lefiti doesn't exist anymore.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    I know it was you, Naga. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!

  • ||

    Guess what libertarian morons? That state continues to grow and grow! Soon we will be like France!

    Queefbaits.

  • ||

    Ah damnit my attempt at a Lefiti spoof mis-fired.

  • ||

    I think the real Lefiti doesn't exist anymore.

    He just evaporated because no one loved him.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    What message do I send unto you Libertarians? Defiance! (hurls gauntlet at Reason posters) . . . add unto that contempt and slight regard.

  • ||

    RC Dean, it only works if the troll is extremely easy to spoof correctly. Lefiti/Concerned Observer is.

  • ||

    Naga, maybe you shouldn't dress like a bumblebee, bitch.

  • ||

    Naga Sadow as Lefiti,

    You left out "womby vaultages".

  • ||

    I know it was you, Naga. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!

    Does that mean Fredo was the Wildcard?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Pro Lib,

    I never did find out what that part meant. Scorn, defiance, contempt, . . . I can follow that. But womby vaultages? Totally lost.

  • ||

    Joe is also nearly impossible to spoof, as has been pointed out before.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Naga,

    French people apparently hide in womby vaultages when France gets invaded.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Does that mean Fredo was the Wildcard?

    Is somebody going to shoot Charlie in the head? Is that what you're saying?

  • ||

    I minored in Womby Vaultages at UF.

  • ||

    Ah. That explains it. I'm a double major myself. Economics and BS.

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    You straightened my brother out?

  • ||

    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...

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    I forgot, Long Beach Naval Shipyard.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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"]

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Not to mention Fort Hamilton in the sparsely populated burgh of Brooklyn.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    And Great Lakes Naval Station in North Chicago...

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    MacDill AFB near lovely downtown Tampa.

  • ||

    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.?

  • ||

    Sanford's been pretty consistently libertarianesque.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    OK for equal time and fairness I look forward to your profile of a libertarian-leaning DemocRAT Party governor.Good luck!

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online