Remember when South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford wanted to use $700 million in federal “stimulus” monies to pay down the state’s debt?
And, remember how he was villified by Democrats nationally and a host of state officials, saying he was gonna put teachers and prisoners on the street because the money … sob! … won’t be there … wail! … to pay salaries …. moan! … and keep criminals in jail .;.. boo hoooooooo! ?
Remember?
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday the White House is considering applying some money from the $700 billion financial bailout bill to deficit reduction, and that Cabinet agencies have been asked to submit two budget plans for next year, one that freezes spending at existing levels and one that trims spending by 5 percent. Congress has long history of taking those requests and piling on money for programs it favors. The only way Obama can prevent Congress from imposing its will – a tactic he has been reluctant to do during his presidency – would be to threaten vetoes.
Rewind five months:
Sanford initially tried to require that any stimulus money pay down the state debt, a stance rejected by the Obama administration.
And what did Democrats think of Sanford’s idea?
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is being attacked by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) because he wishes to use the 700 Million dollars his state has received from the Stimulus package to pay down the states debt rather then develop Government agencies to spend the money that has been allocated for programs that will be funded for two years.
The Democratic National Committee has released a new television ad entitled “Playing Politics” that calls on South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford to stop playing politics with federal job creation and economic recovery funds.
And, of course, leading the Democrats charge was South Carolina’s own Representative Jim Clyburn:
Clyburn charged during Wednesday’s call with reporters that Sanford’s move amounts to “political posturing.”
“If he were looking out for the state he would be looking out for the people of the state,” said Clyburn. “He’s got a political agenda that runs contrary to the needs of his constituents.”
Clyburn wants South Carolina’s legislature to try to gain access to the funds by passing a concurrent resolution. The measure would be passed on a simple majority vote and could not be vetoed by the governor.
Congressman Clyburn, President Obama called from Europe. He said to tell you to “Sit! Roll over! Sit up! Speak!” And then go piss on the legs of those folks who don’t want to spend $700 BILLION to pay down debt. OH…. DON’T FORGET … if they disagree, do like you did last time and call them RACISTS!
I’ll start this post by admitting what most already know – I support Dutch Fork High School Civics/History teacher Kelly Payne in her campaign for State Superintendent of Education. I’m not alone and my endorsement is pretty meaningless, but this isn’t so for all of those who prefer Ms. Payne in this race.
For instance, a 69-year old Mt. Pleasant, SC resident has endorsed Kelly Payne
So?
I have never met James Livingston, but this I know – when he speaks, I will listen.
James Livingston is Major General James E. Livingston, USMC (Ret.). But it’s neither his rank nor his branch of service that gets my attention – though both have my great respect and gratitude. What is beyond remarkable about MG Livingston is a simple blue ribbon with five white stars he wore on his uniform.
It is the ribbon worn by recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor.
I have worked with the military of all services for all of my career and was fortunate to know many outstanding men and women of great character.
One of those was a MOH recipient – an Army Colonel who was awarded the medal for actions as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam. When he came into the room, generals became school kids. The respect was palatable even if words were not spoken. That small blue ribbon is a powerful testimony.
And what, exactly, does this have to do with Kelly Payne?
Endorsements of political candidates are normally a choosing of sides in which the endorser tries to cash in on his/her personal currency on the behalf of a chosen beneficiary.
I do not – will not – believe this is the case with MG Livingston.
As a 28 year old Company Commander, then Captain Livingston, though injured three times, exhibited almost superhuman courage in leading an assault on an enemy position in Dai Do, South Vietnam. In addition to courage, Captain Livingston’s judgment and leadership- in the heat of battle – were flawless.
Captain Livingston served two more tours in Vietnam and went on to a characteristically outstanding career that included developing the Marine Desert Warfare Training program.
My point here is that this man – a great man – knows courage, judgment and leadership far better than any of the rest of us can EVER know. MG Livingston recognizes talent and leadership potential. Not only is he acutely aware of what it takes to lead people and operate organizations, he appreciates the critical necessity of preparing people for whatever may lay ahead. MG Livingston knows how to train people and why only the best are needed to train (educate) the best. He didn’t win the Medal of Honor for sitting in the Pentagon theorizing about military operations.
Ms. Payne is qualified for the position and hers is experience on the front lines of education rather than from the far more distant professorial ivory towers of others seeking the job.
Major General James Livingston (Ret.) has endorsed Kelly Payne for Superintendent of Education.
When this man speaks, people should listen.
Crazy man is crazy
We’re of the opinion that The Garnet Spy is stone-cold bat**** ****ing crazy. Really, we disagree with people, and absolutely despise others, but it takes a whole different class of person to rise to the level of becoming padded-room eligible.
The man actually thinks his Google and Twitter accounts were hacked because his political beliefs.
So, I post several controversial posts about politics in South Carolina and, coincidentally, almost immediately my Twitter account starts sending out spam Direct Messages and my Gmail account has been disabled.
According to Google, “In most cases, accounts are disabled because of a perceived violation of either the Google Terms of Service or product-specific Terms of Service.“
Nothing I’ve done with Gmail violates any terms of service, but I have gotten some “failure to deliver” messages for emails I never sent to people I don’t know.
Ain’t that the oddest thing?
Good lord. If our crap got hacked, we wouldn’t think it had anything to do with the blog, and we have people actually investigating us (Hi McLovin’!). Dude, YOU’RE NOT THAT IMPORTANT.
I want thank Wes for giving my blog some extra viewers. I’m sure his gets more readers than the 6 I get: Me, one of my two sons, someone in Lactose, Wisconsin and my three alter egos – Winston (a ne’er-do-well aristocrat), Satch (a deaf blues musician) and Cuddles (a stuffed wildebeest).
And… I KNOW I’m not that important, but, Wes – MADE YA LOOK!
PCSightings.com
So, I post several controversial posts about politics in South Carolina and, coincidentally, almost immediately my Twitter account starts sending out spam Direct Messages and my Gmail account has been disabled.
According to Google, “In most cases, accounts are disabled because of a perceived violation of either the Google Terms of Service or product-specific Terms of Service.“
Nothing I’ve done with Gmail violates any terms of service, but I have gotten some “failure to deliver” messages for emails I never sent to people I don’t know.
Ain’t that the oddest thing?
The funding of political campaigns is a strange thing. At one time, it’s both boring and fascinating. Look into any candidate or incumbent’s financial benefactors and you’ll go cross-eyed making sense of it.
Take, for instance, South Carolina 5th District Congressman John Spratt. According to Federal Election Commission records, Spratt received $317,164 in contributions this year through September 30. Of that, $272,750 or 86% came from political action committees. But – and this is where I get confused – only 4% of Spratt’s PAC contributions, $11,400, came from PACs in South Carolina and just three at that.
- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough Federal Political Committee – $6,500
- SCANA Corporation Federal Political Action Committee – $2,500
- COMPORIUM Political Action Committee – $2,400
Only Comporium, a communications company, are listed as being located in Congressman Spratt’s district. The Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough law firm and SCANA are both in Columbia. The other 96 PAC contributors were from Alabama (2), Arkansas (1), Arizona (1). California (6), Colorado (1), Washington, DC (32), Florida (3), Georgia (2), Illinois (5), Massachusetts (1), Maryland (4), Michigan (2), Minnesota (1), Missouri (1), North Carolina (4), North Dakota (1), New York (1), Ohio (3), Pennsylvania (3), Tennessee (1), Texas (6), Utah (1), and Virginia (12). Some of these groups gave multiple times.
Forty eight different contributors from the Washington area (D.C, Maryland and Virginia) and only three from South Carolina.
Of the 57 individual contributors, only 5 were from South Carolina, three of which are from Spratt’s district. Individuals were from seven states and the District of Columbia. Fourteen from the District, 1 each from Florida and Georgia, 5 from Maryland, 22 from North Carolina, 3 from New York and 6 from Virginia. Again, most of the contributors – 25 of the 57 or 44% – are from the greater Washington area. But what of those 22 from North Carolina?
All but one are employed by the same company, Southeast Radiation Oncology Group in Charlotte. One of those individual contributors is one of the three that lives in Spratt’s district.
So, of $317,164 in contributions, only $14,650 (4.6%) came from South Carolina and just $4,150 (1.3%) from his district. Half of the funds – $158,900 – came from inside (or on the edge of) the Washington beltway.
None of these contributors did anything wrong. That’s not the point of me wasting your time with this mind-numbing arithmetic recitation. These kind of geographical disparities are not unique to Rep. Spratt or to Democrats and are not new.
It’s just that if politicians are gonna be beholdin’ to anyone, it should be her/his constituency. With these kind of numbers, ya gotta wonder where loyalties lie.
For those of you checking my math – a wise move, indeed – you’ll notice $4,149 not accounted for. That’s because $46 came from the Democratic Party Congressional Campaign Committee for “in-kind fundraising services” and $4,103 from unspecified “other.”
