I watched the anti Governor Stanford political advertisement on television accusing the Governor of refusing to take President Obama’s stimulus offer being a move to bolster his chances for landing the Republican presidential nomination which was way off base.

The Governor is right on refusing to take this government stimulus offer and his only motivation is based on commonsense.

This stimulus is not taxpayer’s money as the advertisement suggests. If it were, the Federal Government would be showing a surplus, not a deficit of $1.7 trillion, with more on the way. Also it would be offered in the form of rebates to the States or as grants.

What is being offered is a massive debt to the State and nobody in their right mind would or should accept more debt. The only people that are advocating more debt for South Carolina are the same people who are deigning the fact that massive debt and overarching federal intervention, in the housing market, along Government spending brought about this mess we are in currently.

I guess the Governor, is the only one in the State who knows that South Carolina already has a credit card with $871 million of debt on it and accepting $700 million in federal“stimulus” debt would be committing the State too financial suicide and destabilize the States economy in the years to come. Our State’s revenue in January 2009 was estimated to be $80 million lower than 2008. This will also be added to our credit card debt, so we don’t need to take on any more.

By accepting the “stimulus” debt the Governor would be adding fuel to the State agencies which have already proved derelict in their accountability. A good example of this is the Employment Security Commission (ESC), which became insolvent in 2008 and would not produce the acceptable accountability of their spending. They are projecting they will need $700 million more, by the end of 2009, in order to continue to make benefit payments. Don’t forget, the auto makers accepted government debt and still, they are going bankrupt.

Agency Commissioners are appointed by the States General Assembly and are not accountable to any one elected official. The ESC is one for sure, should be a Governor’s Cabinet position.

There is no difference, when it comes to money and personnel management, between being a Governor and a CEO in a private company. At the end of the year the books have to balance or changes have to be made.

People working for the government also have to understand they don’t produce a sellable product that produces a profit. They are getting paid with income and other taxes which they also pay. They basically are getting paid with their own tax money and if the State revenue goes down, due to major unemployment and lack of sales, and income by the collection of taxes, what they the, Government employees, pay in their own income taxes, will not support all the State jobs.  

The Governor get must get cabinet control of the agencies, which have major monetary spending responsibilities, consolidate agencies management, eliminate some, and the overhead in others, cut services and or manpower in other departments.

Also there is something very wrong when the S.C. Supreme Court can direct a sitting Governor to except so-called “Federal money” when he feels it’s not a good thing to do for the State. He is the “Head of State”, we elected him and he should not be encumbered by a court unless he broke a law.

A Supreme Court, Federal or State usually takes cases the have been appealed after a lower court ruling. I did not hear of any lower court ruling on the “Federal stimulus” or any law that was broken by the Governor. I would like to know how this grievance from a 19yr old kid made it to the Supreme Court and what law was broken by the Governor that would warrant this Court to make the final decision. If the courts can do this then why do we need a Governor at all?