Jim Wetzel gives the Aiken Standard Advice

The following letter by Jim Wetzel appeared in the Aiken Standard today. Jim rightfully chides the paper  for its failure to report the Governor's statement of his reasons for not accepting all of the "stimulus." I doubt the Standard will actually give it's readers the opportunity to read the Governor's statement so I have included a link.

Letter to the Editor

For a “news” paper that hasn’t seen fit to report on Governor Mark Sanford’s statement of his reasons for not accepting all of the stimulus package money the Aiken Standard seems quick in rejecting his stand, suggesting a position not arrived at through knowledge or the exercise of reason.

In Governor Sanford’s letter of March 10, 2009 to the members of the legislature he outlined: that his team had carefully examined the stimulus bill and its long term implications on the people of South Carolina; that the $1.2 billion stimulus is short term, would be added to the state budget over the next two years and would raise the annualized state budget by 10%; 75 % of that money is mandated by federal statute for directed uses that cannot be redirected by the state; the state currently is burdened with $20 billion in unfunded political promises; the stimulus added annualized state budget and directed uses of the funds will only compound the state’s long-term budget liabilities; but 25% of that money (approximately $700 million) is for discretionary spending by the state governor; and using that money to pay down the very sizable state debt and contingent liabilities would not penalize the people of South Carolina, would avoid budget shortcomings and ensure the state’s long term economic strength.  Having lived and struggled with a spendthrift legislature this is merit display of concern by our governor for our state and its citizens.

We are in a live-for-today, get-what-you-can and world of irresponsibility where government money is nobody’s money, to be grabbed and used whenever opportunity permits.  But government money is always taxpayer’s money (in this case ours, our children’s and our grandchildren’s).  It is commendable that there is still a person in public office, specifically Mark Stanford, who really cares about the future prosperity of our state and nation, and who would be so diligent and thoughtful as to carefully state his reasons.  I suggest that you read his letter; report it as “news” to your readers and take that opportunity to rethink your position.

Jim Wetzel