Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 4, 4:32*pm, HK wrote:
SC high court orders Gov. Sanford to take money And you are another Maryland Horse's Ass. Been to any of the Klan meetings up there in the headquarters of the KKK? |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? :) |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Heading South | ASA | |||
The South Shall Rise Again! | ASA | |||
Went South | ASA | |||
South of the BVI | ASA | |||
s.s south western | Tall Ships |