Stimulus war drags on

Sunday's editorial bemoans the governor's continued obstinance on what we believe to be a flawed opposition to taking $350 million in federal stimulus money.

The Sun News has long commended Gov. Mark Sanford for his fealty to fiscal conservatism, while decrying his preference for principles and theory over the practicalities of real-life governance. This week, as he and the state legislature head to federal court over the use of $350 million in federal stimulus money to shore up next year's shrunken budget, we continue to shake our heads.

Last week, the governor vetoed the $5.7 billion state budget on what he identified as two main objections. First, he said lawmakers taking the federal $350 million should have also found ways to pay down "an equal amount of state debt" - much as he says a family would apply part of a bonus check to paying off its own debt load. Second, the governor argued that in the present fiscal crisis the budget missed an opportunity to permanently restructure government and eliminate waste.

Both arguments, we believe, sound fine on paper but are fundamentally at odds with this year's reality. First, the S.C. legislature must pass balanced budgets, so there is none of the deficit spending that so many find troubling in the federal government. The debt that South Carolina owes is bonded debt, much like a family's home mortgage, and lawmakers should not be accused of saddling future generations with debt any more than should parents who buy a house on a 30-year mortgage.

Secondly, South Carolina's government has been restructured by the fiscal crisis - it is much smaller. Last year's state budget started at $7 billion, a figure that fell repeatedly through the year to keep the budget balanced as revenue projections were revised downward.

Finally, accepting the money this year does not automatically create a $350 million hole in the budget two years down the road when the money runs out, as Sanford claims. Likewise, rejecting the stimulus money will not solve any problems - it will simply set the state farther back this year by $350 million, without two years to plan for it.

Again, we applaud the governor's zeal against wasteful spending, and in this debate, neither his attention to detail in the budget nor the legislature's willingness to work with him on cost control should be overlooked. His overall rejection of the budget was accompanied by 47 line-item vetoes, and the legislature agreed on about a third of them. We should also note, in the governor's favor, that he allowed two critical local allocations he has stricken in the past: $1 million for planning the route of the proposed Interstate 73, and $10 million in match money for tourism marketing.

But his overall stance holds consistent with his years of general intransigence. His budget vetos, in essence, seem to equate all government spending with wasteful spending, and amid calls for restraint, he finds relatively little actual pork to criticize: He identifies $2.7 million in waste in a $5.7 billion budget - all ideas worthy of debate, but none worth condemning the entire enterprise of government.

The governor's veto message disdainfully lectured lawmakers that the budgetary shortfalls would never have existed had they been listening to him all along. If he instead exercised more effective leadership of a legislature controlled by his own party - working with legislators to pass reforms instead of alienating them - he might now be able to claim a greater legacy for the state than a prolonged veto contest.

The governor's suit is based on the premise that the legislature has no authority to force him to do anything. As South Carolina beseeches a federal judge for the resolution to this embarrassing saga, The Sun News wishes the legislature did not have to try.

Last week, the governor vetoed the $5.7 billion state budget on what he identified as two main objections. First, he said lawmakers taking the federal $350 million should have also found ways to pay down "an equal amount of state debt" - much as he says a family would apply part of a bonus check to paying off its own debt load. Second, the governor argued that in the present fiscal crisis the budget missed an opportunity to permanently restructure government and eliminate waste.

Both arguments, we believe, sound fine on paper but are fundamentally at odds with this year's reality. First, the S.C. legislature must pass balanced budgets, so there is none of the deficit spending that so many find troubling in the federal government. The debt that South Carolina owes is bonded debt, much like a family's home mortgage, and lawmakers should not be accused of saddling future generations with debt any more than should parents who buy a house on a 30-year mortgage.

Secondly, South Carolina's government has been restructured by the fiscal crisis - it is much smaller. Last year's state budget started at $7 billion, a figure that fell repeatedly through the year to keep the budget balanced as revenue projections were revised downward.

Finally, accepting the money this year does not automatically create a $350 million hole in the budget two years down the road when the money runs out, as Sanford claims. Likewise, rejecting the stimulus money will not solve any problems - it will simply set the state farther back this year by $350 million, without two years to plan for it.

Again, we applaud the governor's zeal against wasteful spending, and in this debate, neither his attention to detail in the budget nor the legislature's willingness to work with him on cost control should be overlooked. His overall rejection of the budget was accompanied by 47 line-item vetoes, and the legislature agreed on about a third of them. We should also note, in the governor's favor, that he allowed two critical local allocations he has stricken in the past: $1 million for planning the route of the proposed Interstate 73, and $10 million in match money for tourism marketing.

But his overall stance holds consistent with his years of general intransigence. His budget vetos, in essence, seem to equate all government spending with wasteful spending, and amid calls for restraint, he finds relatively little actual pork to criticize: He identifies $2.7 million in waste in a $5.7 billion budget - all ideas worthy of debate, but none worth condemning the entire enterprise of government.

The governor's veto message disdainfully lectured lawmakers that the budgetary shortfalls would never have existed had they been listening to him all along. If he instead exercised more effective leadership of a legislature controlled by his own party - working with legislators to pass reforms instead of alienating them - he might now be able to claim a greater legacy for the state than a prolonged veto contest.

The governor's suit is based on the premise that the legislature has no authority to force him to do anything. As South Carolina beseeches a federal judge for the resolution to this embarrassing saga, The Sun News wishes the legislature did not have to try.