Courting Disaster in South Carolina

Published: March 29, 2009

Now that Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has polished his credentials with the Republican right by recklessly rejecting $700 million in federal education stimulus money, we keep hoping he will change his mind and put the needs of his recession-ravaged state ahead of his political ambitions.

It will be up to more responsible political leaders to act if Mr. Sanford sticks by his disastrous choice, which would drive an already depressed state economy deeper into a hole and place even more South Carolinians at risk of losing their homes.

In the State Legislature, it was encouraging to see influential Republicans’ distancing themselves from what State Senator Hugh Leatherman, the Finance Committee chairman, rightly describes as an irresponsible policy. In a letter sent to Mr. Sanford last week, Mr. Leatherman pleaded with him to change his mind, writing that rejecting the funds would “create absolute chaos in governmental agencies that perform core missions for the people, and will hurt tens of thousands of South Carolina families at a time when uncertainty and fear over the economy already pervade almost every household.”

The federal stimulus money is meant to shield schools from layoffs and reignite a national reform effort that still has a long way to go in places like South Carolina. Without the federal money, state lawmakers say, tuition at state-supported universities could increase dramatically and thousands of teachers could be laid off.

With South Carolina’s unemployment rate already one of the highest in the nation, state lawmakers seem poised to invoke a provision of the federal stimulus law that allows them to override the governor’s decision. They worry, however, that a legal challenge might tie up the issue in the courts beyond the beginning of the state’s next fiscal year.

It would be best, therefore, for Mr. Sanford to find a face-saving way to reverse himself. If he does not, voters should remember that their governor placed politics ahead of schoolchildren and the schools that are struggling to save them.

Carcieri Plans to Cut Taxes: Uses Obama's Stimulus Bill to Bridge Shortfall

I read in the Newport Daily News and Providence Journal that Governor Carcieri, who criticized Obama's stimulus bill, intends to use the "Bush policy" of cutting all taxes to corporations, the wealthy, while facing an $866 million deficit.

Carcieri's plan is to follow Bush's "trickle down" policy, which seems to have gotten us into the trouble we're in with the entire country. Caricieri would

• Cut the corporate tax rate to drop, from 9 percent to 7.5 percent, increasingly each year, until it is eliminated completely


• The top personal tax rate will drop by nearly 1/2 from 9.9 percent to 5.5 percent.


• Reduce the inheritance tax by Increasing the amount to be deducted from inheritances to $1 million before facing a tax

How will Carcieri make up the shortfall with an already $866 million deficit and nearly no taxes available in the future? Initially he will:

• Cut $55 million in funding to cities and towns


• Refuse to repay money to the rainy day fund


• Tap , temporarily, to replace (for 2 years) $31 million to cities and towns, from the Obama stimulus fund, that Carcieri criticized heavily (But this will still leave a funding deficit to cities and towns of $24 million per year, and it will only last 2 years, causing further problems, stated below)

This will cause cities and towns to lose money for their operating expenses and for schools. Carcieri belives his "black box" ideology will magically create jobs.

Even so, the cities and towns, without funding, would almost have to increase taxes, institute a city income tax, or increase already high property taxes significantly. They could not do any of these things, but there would be no money then for police, refuse pickup, fire departments, and other city services, as well as no money for schools. All of these would, of course deteriorate quickly.

City services and school quality would decline OR real estate taxes would increase dramatically. Even IF corporations settled here.. and at 0 percent, I am sure they would... it is unlikely anyone could afford to LIVE here. Living over the border in Connecticut or Massachusetts would be desireable at that point, while working on any "black box" jobs created for corporate tax havens.

So perhaps our tiny state of Rhode Island COULD be the Republican "stimulus package" (read no, stimulus - eliminate taxes to coroporations and the wealthy, cut off funding to cities and towns and social services, and "hope for the best").

With no funding to cities and towns, as stated, and no funds to the state, I simply wonder how the state would decrease their already $866 million deficit. Creating jobs in the state with the 2nd highest unemployment rate in the country is desireable, but if everyone has to move to Massachusetts for city services, schools that are funded and any quality of life needs that any human being would want, what is Rhode Island?

It will be a haven for Corporations, the wealthy, and those who have made deals with them, and it will not house anyone under a $300,000 income, or more.

Carcieri's hypocrisy in using the Obama funds he criticized to make his plan "look presentable" for 2 years until it is too late, is quite sad.

Now.. expand this to the U.S. Where will everyone with under $300,000 salaries live? Mexico?

I look forward to the "Republican black box plan" taking effect in such a small state as ours. If it succeeds, certainly, the Republicans can "show everyone the way". But if it fails... while we here in Rhode Island will suffer (or become Massachusetts residents)...the country will have had its second test of the "Bush economic doctrine". The past 8 years were the first test. But if it takes us to remind you all of why we're in this trouble, it's the least we can do.

But if we DO suffer in order to test it once more for the rest of you... will you please use your stimulus package to help out a neighbor?

Bobby Jindal and Pat Paulsen: Separated at Birth?

Bobby Jindal's State of the Republican Party Address? Thanks, Pat Paulsen for seeing this 40 years before his time

Bobby Jindal and Pat Paulsen: Separated at Birth?

Bobby Jindal = Pat Paulsen for President , 2009 neo-con edition

.. at least Pat was clear it was a joke. (rent the Smothers brothers show for reference)

And it was so nice of Jindal's Lousiana to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" that only cost the U.S. taxpayer $150 billion. We're happy to help.. .just acknowledge it, Bobby. Or perhaps you'd prefer to pay it back now. (And why did they need the $150 billion anyway? Perhaps poor pre-planning for an evident oncoming disaster. Now who might have missed that one. Hmmmm... let..me.. think...

What Part of ‘Stimulus’ Don’t They Get?

Imagine yourself jobless and struggling to feed your family while the governor of your state threatens to reject tens of millions of dollars in federal aid earmarked for the unemployed. That is precisely what is happening in poverty-ridden states like Louisiana and Mississippi where Republican governors are threatening to turn away federal aid rather than expand access to unemployment insurance programs in ways that many other states did a long time ago.

What makes these bad decisions worse is that they are little more than political posturing by rising Republican stars, like Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. This behavior reinforces the disturbing conclusion that the Republican Party seems more interested in ideological warfare than in working on policies that get the country back on track.

Fortunately, as President Obama prepares for his first address to Congress on Tuesday evening, voters of both parties have noticed. About three-quarters of those polled in a recent New York Times/CBS News survey — including more than 60 percent of Republicans — said Mr. Obama has been trying to work with Republicans. And 63 percent said Republicans in Congress opposed the stimulus package primarily for political reasons, not because they thought it would be bad for the economy. It should be sobering news for Republicans that about 8 in 10 said the party should be working in a bipartisan way.

The Republican Party’s attacks on the unemployment insurance portion of the stimulus package are a perfect example. States that accept the stimulus money aimed at the unemployed are required to abide by new federal rules that extend unemployment protections to low-income workers and others who were often shorted or shut out of compensation. This law did not just materialize out of nowhere. It codified positive changes that have already taken place in at least half the states.

To qualify for the first one-third of federal aid, the states need to fix arcane eligibility requirements that exclude far too many low-income workers. To qualify for the rest of the aid, states have to choose from a menu of options that include extending benefits to part-time workers or those who leave their jobs for urgent family reasons, like domestic violence or gravely ill children.

Data from the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit group, show that 19 states qualify for some of the federal financing and that a dozen others would become eligible by making one or two policy changes. Unemployed workers are worst off in the Deep South, where relatively few people are eligible to receive payments. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas stand out.

The governors are blowing smoke when they suggest that the federal unemployment aid would lead directly to new state taxes. No one knows what the economic climate will be when the federal aid has been used up several years from now. But by dumping billions of dollars into shrinking state unemployment funds, which puts money into the hands of people who spend it immediately on food and shelter, the stimulus could help the states through the recession and into a time when unemployment trust funds can be replenished. In other words, the stimulus could make a tax increase less likely.

But even if new taxes are required at some point, the new federal standards would protect more unemployed workers than ever before and bring states like Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas into the 21st century.

Governors like Mr. Jindal should be worrying about how to end this recession while helping constituents feed and house their families — not about finding ways to revive tired election-year arguments about big spending versus small government.