SC high court orders Gov. Sanford to take money

By JIM DAVENPORT – 44 minutes ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina's Supreme Court ordered Gov. Mark
Sanford on Thursday to take $700 million in federal stimulus money aimed
primarily at struggling schools.

The decision brings a likely end to months of wrangling between the
nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor and legislators who accused
him of playing politics with people's lives.

The Republican governor had refused to take the money designated for the
state over the next two years, even after legislators passed a budget
requiring him to do so. He became the first governor to defend in court
his desire to reject money from Washington.

Educators had predicted hundreds of teachers would lose jobs and
colleges would see steep tuition increases without the money, though
sharp budget cuts will still take a toll.

The state Supreme Court's ruling came a day after arguments in two
lawsuits filed by students and school administrators. Sanford had tried
to get those cases merged in federal court with his lawsuit, which he
filed moments after legislators overrode his budget veto. But he lost
that battle Monday when a federal judge refused to take those cases.

Sanford anticipated Thursday's ruling. On Monday, the governor said he
would not appeal the Supreme Court's decision and, if he lost, would
drop his federal case.

Sanford has refused to request the $700 million — the portion of the
$2.8 billion bound for the state that he says he controls — unless
legislators agreed to offset state debt by an equal amount. The White
House twice rejected that idea, noting the money must be used to help
education and avoid job losses.

South Carolina, which had the nation's third-highest jobless rate in
April — hitting a state record high of 11.5 percent — cut more than $1
billion from its $7 billion spending plan for 2008-09 as tax revenues
slumped in the recession.

The stimulus fight has raised the national profile of Sanford, the
chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and prompted talk of a
2012 GOP presidential bid.

Sanford's refusal has raise the ire of U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3
House Democrat, who accused the governor of being a foe of public
education. Amid budget cuts and uncertainty over the federal money,
districts had told hundreds of teachers they don't have a job in the
upcoming school year.

State education officials estimated schools would eliminate 2,600
education jobs, including 1,500 teachers, without the stimulus money.

Clyburn, D-S.C., inserted an amendment in the federal law with Sanford's
anti-bailout stance in mind, saying legislators could go around a
governor's refusal. But the legality of that was later questioned.

But on Monday, U.S. District Judge Anderson cited Clyburn's amendment in
saying it was clear Congress intended to allow legislators to get around
governors who didn't want the money.

On Jun 4, 4:32*pm, HK wrote:
SC high court orders Gov. Sanford to take money

By JIM DAVENPORT – 44 minutes ago

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina's Supreme Court ordered Gov. Mark
Sanford on Thursday to take $700 million in federal stimulus money aimed
primarily at struggling schools.

The decision brings a likely end to months of wrangling between the
nation's most vocal anti-bailout governor and legislators who accused
him of playing politics with people's lives.

The Republican governor had refused to take the money designated for the
state over the next two years, even after legislators passed a budget
requiring him to do so. He became the first governor to defend in court
his desire to reject money from Washington.

Educators had predicted hundreds of teachers would lose jobs and
colleges would see steep tuition increases without the money, though
sharp budget cuts will still take a toll.

The state Supreme Court's ruling came a day after arguments in two
lawsuits filed by students and school administrators. Sanford had tried
to get those cases merged in federal court with his lawsuit, which he
filed moments after legislators overrode his budget veto. But he lost
that battle Monday when a federal judge refused to take those cases.

Sanford anticipated Thursday's ruling. On Monday, the governor said he
would not appeal the Supreme Court's decision and, if he lost, would
drop his federal case.

Sanford has refused to request the $700 million — the portion of the
$2.8 billion bound for the state that he says he controls — unless
legislators agreed to offset state debt by an equal amount. The White
House twice rejected that idea, noting the money must be used to help
education and avoid job losses.

South Carolina, which had the nation's third-highest jobless rate in
April — hitting a state record high of 11.5 percent — cut more than $1
billion from its $7 billion spending plan for 2008-09 as tax revenues
slumped in the recession.

The stimulus fight has raised the national profile of Sanford, the
chairman of the Republican Governors Association, and prompted talk of a
2012 GOP presidential bid.

Sanford's refusal has raise the ire of U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the No. 3
House Democrat, who accused the governor of being a foe of public
education. Amid budget cuts and uncertainty over the federal money,
districts had told hundreds of teachers they don't have a job in the
upcoming school year.

State education officials estimated schools would eliminate 2,600
education jobs, including 1,500 teachers, without the stimulus money.

Clyburn, D-S.C., inserted an amendment in the federal law with Sanford's
anti-bailout stance in mind, saying legislators could go around a
governor's refusal. But the legality of that was later questioned.

But on Monday, U.S. District Judge Anderson cited Clyburn's amendment in
saying it was clear Congress intended to allow legislators to get around
governors who didn't want the money.


Sanford wanted to use the money to pay down debt incured from BUILDING
SCHOOLS. He's not anti education, he's just a fiscal conservative.
He wanted to ease the state's debt instead of taking on more debt.

It was nothing more than a political fight (Hartpootlian, who filed
one of the lawsuits, was, or is the head of the SC Demoncratic party),
and with SC's weak governor style of state goverment, he's had a tough
go of it over the last couple of years. The state legislators fill
the budget with pork, bankrupting the state, Sanford vetos the pork,
and they override him. It's just more government that won't live
within their means.

On 4-Jun-2009, Gene wrote:

I'm damn glad NC took the money. State employees have already been
told that we wouldn't have gotten a pay check last month if it weren't
for the stimulus package (even though those of us, still with a job,
were subject to pay cuts and forced furloughs).

****ing borrowed money down the drain on state "employees" is not economic
stimulus. It's simply exacerbating (for those in Maryland, that is not a
sexual term) the problem that already existed.

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:09:25 GMT, "Steve"
wrote:


On 4-Jun-2009, Gene wrote:

I'm damn glad NC took the money. State employees have already been
told that we wouldn't have gotten a pay check last month if it weren't
for the stimulus package (even though those of us, still with a job,
were subject to pay cuts and forced furloughs).

****ing borrowed money down the drain on state "employees" is not economic
stimulus. It's simply exacerbating (for those in Maryland, that is not a
sexual term) the problem that already existed.

It's certainly stimulus if those folks would otherwise be out of work
and out of money to spend.

On 4-Jun-2009, jps wrote:

****ing borrowed money down the drain on state "employees" is not
economic
stimulus. It's simply exacerbating (for those in Maryland, that is not a
sexual term) the problem that already existed.

It's certainly stimulus if those folks would otherwise be out of work
and out of money to spend....

...........on Asian cars and shoddy Chinese junk. That's reverse stimulus.

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:18:21 GMT, "Steve"
wrote:


On 4-Jun-2009, jps wrote:

****ing borrowed money down the drain on state "employees" is not
economic
stimulus. It's simply exacerbating (for those in Maryland, that is not a
sexual term) the problem that already existed.

It's certainly stimulus if those folks would otherwise be out of work
and out of money to spend....

..........on Asian cars and shoddy Chinese junk. That's reverse stimulus.

When folks are out of work they tend to spend every penny on food and
other necessities. All of which keep other folks working.

The greatest return on stimulus is food stamps. That would be a fact.

On 4-Jun-2009, Gene wrote:

****ing borrowed money down the drain on state "employees" is not
economic
stimulus. It's simply exacerbating (for those in Maryland, that is not a
sexual term) the problem that already existed.

NC does not run a deficit budget. I suppose we could have closed the
state for a couple of months..... but that's kinda the problem. State
government knew things were really bad, but when the (lack of) tax
receipts came in, in April, they found out they were really in deep
doo-doo....

NC like most other states have tripled their spending over the past 20
years? For what? Make work jobs for buffoons. Cut the activities and the
expenses are gone. The elimination of waste is easy, but then, the empire
would shrink.


We have the lowest union membership in the US. In spite of that, we've
lost tobacco, furniture, textiles and other industries as income.

People sending 80% of their expendable income overseas allowed that to
happen.


In
this dream like trance of "post-industrial" existence, nobody can
afford to buy the "services" that are supposed to be the cash cow.

Services are not cash cows, they are 3rd world commerce activities. A
production base of core industries establishes multi level activities and
income. That created the large middle class - with those industries gone, so
goes the middle class. Economic viability does not come about from banking
scams, medical scams, investment scams, real estate scams nor millions
working at minimal wages at Walmart. Money borrowed from other countries to
sustain unneeded government make work jobs merely makes the problem worse.

Most "service providers" are among the increasing ranks of unemployed.
(and get ready for another round of mortgage defaults from those
otherwise "prime folks" that have recently lost their jobs)

Bad planning.


Even the new promising technologies, pharmaceuticals and
silicon-valley ware have laid off.

You buy all those things from overseas, also. No new, competent company
would, for the past 20 to 25 years stay in the U.S.

I have a friend that owns a resort.
Easter weekend he normally rents more than 90 units.... this year? He
rented a whole 4. Tourism has flopped and taken with it the monies
from gasoline, innkeeper, sales, and other taxes.

Trickle down works during a demise, also. All activities involving
discretionary income will be downsized or close. Marina's already are down
30 to 40%, and the worst is yet to come. ****ing money into government make
work jobs can't fix that, either.


When one (even a state) has both bills to pay and an insufficient
income, one MUST borrow to cover the essentials.

PLENTY is available for essentials - it the BS you are constantly getting
raped to pay for.

It sucks. It is often
the precursor to an unrecoverable downward spiral. It is a last
resort. It is necessary.

It's a final, futile last gasp before default, like 3rd world countries in
central America. It can't be reversed, but, activities to keep a carcass
warm should not occur to accelerate the demise, on state levels, and
certainly the insanity that's occurring at the federal level.

On 4-Jun-2009, Gene wrote:

You are 100% right, there..... at no point in history has "Buy
American" been more important...

and never before such a vacant concept. "Americans" don't care.

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:26:31 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:18:21 GMT, "Steve"
wrote:


On 4-Jun-2009, jps wrote:

****ing borrowed money down the drain on state "employees" is not
economic
stimulus. It's simply exacerbating (for those in Maryland, that is not a
sexual term) the problem that already existed.

It's certainly stimulus if those folks would otherwise be out of work
and out of money to spend....

..........on Asian cars and shoddy Chinese junk. That's reverse stimulus.

You are 100% right, there..... at no point in history has "Buy
American" been more important...

Not to be a jerk, but what kind of outboards do you have? :)

Wizard of Woodstock wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:26:31 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:18:21 GMT, "Steve"
wrote:

On 4-Jun-2009, jps wrote:

****ing borrowed money down the drain on state "employees" is not
economic
stimulus. It's simply exacerbating (for those in Maryland, that is not a
sexual term) the problem that already existed.
It's certainly stimulus if those folks would otherwise be out of work
and out of money to spend....
..........on Asian cars and shoddy Chinese junk. That's reverse stimulus.
You are 100% right, there..... at no point in history has "Buy
American" been more important...

Not to be a jerk, but what kind of outboards do you have? :)


He has four cycle outboards. BTW, you do know that eTecs are made in
China, too, right?