AIKEN CORPORATION WORK SESSION – My last email mentioned a work session between the Council and the Aiken Corporation. Minutes of that session are now available and can be viewed at the City’s web site. That portion of the web site, however, is temporarily off-line for maintenance. I will post the link when it is available
WORK SESSION WITH RESIDENTS OF ORIOLE AND WREN PLACE – Council recently rejected on a 4-3 vote a proposal to rezone property on Silver Bluff Road from residential multi-family to General Business. The owner now has asked Council to consider a new offer for the property. In exchange for the City rezoning and permitting construction of a new commercial building on Silver Bluff Road, the owner would give most of the property to the City. The developer would keep a portion of land fronting Cardinal Drive for further use. The purpose of the work session is to receive input from the residents on their views of this proposal.
EQUINE COMMITTEE – The Equine Committee met for its annual meeting on Thursday, March 5, 2009. They discussed a number of topics, including accessory structures in the residential stable (RSS) and horse district (HD) zones. They are reviewing a potential revision to the Zoning Ordinance that would determine how much ‘hardscape’ could be installed on any given lot. They will meet again on March 31, and we anticipate additional information in April.
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL DOCTORS’ OFFICE BULDING – The Planning Department has received a revised application for a Planned Commercial Concept Plan for its Silver Bluff Property. They now propose a single 17,000 square foot building. This revised application is on the April 14, 2009 Planning Commission agenda.
CITIZEN PARK HOURS - In order to limit our expenses in a tight budget year, the City is turning off all lights at Citizens Park at the conclusion of each evening event. It will close the gates to the park and prohibit any use of the park after it closes. The gates will be opened about 8 A.M. the next day.
CONVEYING LOTS TO HABITAT – We will have second reading of an Ordinance to convey lots to Habitat. They hope to build three homes each year. The first will be built cooperatively by the Aiken Rotary Club and First Baptist Church.
AMENDMENTS TO LIMITED BUSINESS (LB) ZONE - The Planning Commission has recommended that the Zoning Ordinance be amended for Limited Business zone so that other retail sales or service, which are currently permitted by right, be allowed in the future by Special Exception through the Board of Zoning Appeals. They based this decision on the premise that some retail sales or services may not be appropriate in the LB. zone. Letters were sent to property owners and no responses have been received.
$1.5 MILLION LOAN FOR CROSLAND PARK - We will have first reading of an Ordinance for a $1.5 million loan for Crosland Park. The City plans on acquiring approximately twenty homes in Crosland Park and totally rehabbing those for future purchase by non-profit corporations and the CDIC. This would permit the City to get started on the Crosland Park project immediately and for certain improvements to be made that could not be made under the normal grant process. The intent is to make these homes as energy efficient as possible, completing all normal renovations that would occur in an older home, plus installing irrigation systems for new grass and shrubbery in the yards. Kim Abney, our Finance Director, and Ben Moore, our Staff Attorney, have developed a short term loan which should be paid back this fall for the $1.5 million. The loan note in our packet authorizes repayment within a five year period, however. I expect the discussion tonight will clarify the disparity.
There is also a Resolution in Support of Crosland Park and Approval to establish a $1.5 million Line of Credit.
APPROVAL OF ACCOMMODATIONS TAX COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS – The Accommodations Tax Committee recently met to review applications for the upcoming awards cycle. There were 15 applications this year requesting $483,187.40 in funds. The funds available this year will be $129,100 not including a $5,000 contingency. The Committee decided to fund 13 of the 15 events as follows:
1. Citizens Park Bid Fees $4,500
2. Antiques in the Heart of Aiken – Aiken Center for the Arts $12,750
3. Exhibition and Arts Center Marketing – Aiken Center for the Arts $12,750
4. Battle of Aiken – Sons of Confederate Veterans $26,250
5. Promotions of Downtown Aiken – Aiken Downtown Development Assoc. $7,500
6 Aiken’s Makin – Aiken Chamber of Commerce $7,500
7. 302 Polo USPA Silver Cup/USPA Aiken Ladies Invitational $7,500
8. Ford Trucks Equestrian Balloon Festival – Aiken Land Conservancy $1,000
9. Aiken Horse Show – Hitchcock Woods Foundation $7,500
10. Aiken Polo Club Promotions & Magazine – Aiken Polo Club $18,750
11. Aiken Spring Classic – Aiken Land Conservancy $7,500
12. Aiken Trials – Aiken Land Conservancy $7,500
13. Aiken Fall Steeplechase – Aiken Steeplechase Association $7,500
Not funded were Weeks Tennis Center and Aiken Marti Gras.
PERSONAL FROM DICK DEWAR – This past week, two of my colleagues announced their decision to fulfill their promise to constituents to abide by their promise to serve only two terms on the Council. Dick Smith and Jane Vaughters have made enormous contributions to the City of Aiken in their nearly eight years of service. Their efforts to manage the growth of our City incurred the wrath of many in our community, (sometimes over the top in their personal attacks), to label them as anti-growth. They have showed during their eight years that the City’s growth can be managed. A look at the new businesses during their terms is proof. It is now common that nearly every candidate for City Council will identify with the need to manage growth even when they are financially supported by developers, the Chamber of Commerce, and other businesses who do not want to pay for the infrastructure costs their projects cause. Dick and Jane led the way and I earnestly hope that like-minded citizens will join me on the Council to continue to manage the growth of our City. Dick represents the Woodside area (District 4) and Jane is a member at-large representing the entire city. With the current turmoil in Washington, I have spoken to many citizens who now feel energized to get involved. If government is to work effectively, everyone must do their part. If you believe in the type of government that Dick, Jane and I do, please consider running for City Council.
Council Member Lessie Price has announced her intent to run for re-election. She now has 20 years of service on City Council and represents District 2. Don Wells is the other at-large member of the Council and has announced his intent to run for his second term.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Hinterland Speaks!
Jack DeVine has done it again. He should be on the national circuit.The following appears in the Aiken Standard today.
Was fundamental change in our nation part of the plan?
3/18/2009 3:52 PM
By JACK DeVINE
Guest columnist
Last year's election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency was enthralling, magical, historical - it will be regaled for years to come.
But it was hardly a slam dunk. Obama won by 53 percent to 46 percent, a solid victory margin - but even so, nearly half of the electorate voted for the other guy. And the race was neck and neck until the economy imploded last fall - only then was it a lock for Obama.
My point is not to diminish Obama's victory, just to restore a bit of perspective. Because I don't see anything in the election of 2008 that gives Mr. Obama license to fundamentally transform our country into a socially, economically and philosophically different place than the land of our heritage - let alone to do so unilaterally and overnight.
The United States of America has been on the steady course set by our founders 230 years ago - not flawless, but a profoundly successful course. Is there a greater nation on earth?
Yes, Barack Obama ran under the campaign slogan "change," and we can credit him now for his supercharged efforts to deliver on his promise. But that campaign change theme was vague and undefined, an intentionally blank sheet. And it seems obvious that many, perhaps most, of those who voted for Obama did so because he is an immensely attractive candidate, bright, energetic, inspiring, and they trust him to lead us in fixing the things that need fixing, whatever they are. But did they intend to give him a green light to redesign our nation? I don't think so.
Since his inauguration, Obama has signed the $700-plus billion stimulus plan and a $400-plus billion omnibus spending bill. He has unveiled proposals to greatly expand nationalized health care and education, a plan for a carbon cap-and-trade scheme and other dicey changes in energy supply policy, a massive and unprecedented homeowners mortgage relief plan. He's issued orders revising our policy and practice in dealing with suspected terrorists. His budget proposal would pay for staggering costs by steady reduction in the years ahead in defense spending - a scary idea in this dangerous world, by adding further tax burden on those who already shoulder most of the load, and of course by borrowing or printing money.
Individually these have enormous implications and each deserves careful consideration. In composite, they are in fact transformative, in ways that we can't even comprehend and I suspect will not like very much. Certainly, they will saddle future generations with enormous debt. They will diminish our defensive capability and national security. They will make the federal government proportionally larger and more powerful than ever in our history. They will increase substantially the dependency of many Americans on government entitlements. They will "redistribute wealth" (much more than it is currently redistributed by our properly progressive tax structure), arguably rewarding failure and punishing success.
Each of these has its proponents. But interestingly, we've tried some similar tacks in the past (reduced defense spending and expanding welfare, as examples), found them ineffective and worked hard to get back on track. And other nations have gone down this road - the jury may still be out on the long term fate of Western Europe but many signs are bleak. When and why did we decide to be a France?
I am not shocked or surprised to find out that Barack Obama is very liberal, that he has vastly more faith than I (and most Americans) in government as the solution to every problem, and that he wants to make a clean break with the last administration. Yes, he promised change. But he also promised transparency and bipartisanship. We gave him a ticket to lead. We did not give him a ticket to ignore the views of half the electorate and to abandon much of our heritage.
This is way beyond "yes we can." We're dealing with the future of the nation we love and we'd better do it carefully, collectively and openly.
The writer is a businessman who makes his home in Aiken.
Was fundamental change in our nation part of the plan?
3/18/2009 3:52 PM
By JACK DeVINE
Guest columnist
Last year's election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency was enthralling, magical, historical - it will be regaled for years to come.
But it was hardly a slam dunk. Obama won by 53 percent to 46 percent, a solid victory margin - but even so, nearly half of the electorate voted for the other guy. And the race was neck and neck until the economy imploded last fall - only then was it a lock for Obama.
My point is not to diminish Obama's victory, just to restore a bit of perspective. Because I don't see anything in the election of 2008 that gives Mr. Obama license to fundamentally transform our country into a socially, economically and philosophically different place than the land of our heritage - let alone to do so unilaterally and overnight.
The United States of America has been on the steady course set by our founders 230 years ago - not flawless, but a profoundly successful course. Is there a greater nation on earth?
Yes, Barack Obama ran under the campaign slogan "change," and we can credit him now for his supercharged efforts to deliver on his promise. But that campaign change theme was vague and undefined, an intentionally blank sheet. And it seems obvious that many, perhaps most, of those who voted for Obama did so because he is an immensely attractive candidate, bright, energetic, inspiring, and they trust him to lead us in fixing the things that need fixing, whatever they are. But did they intend to give him a green light to redesign our nation? I don't think so.
Since his inauguration, Obama has signed the $700-plus billion stimulus plan and a $400-plus billion omnibus spending bill. He has unveiled proposals to greatly expand nationalized health care and education, a plan for a carbon cap-and-trade scheme and other dicey changes in energy supply policy, a massive and unprecedented homeowners mortgage relief plan. He's issued orders revising our policy and practice in dealing with suspected terrorists. His budget proposal would pay for staggering costs by steady reduction in the years ahead in defense spending - a scary idea in this dangerous world, by adding further tax burden on those who already shoulder most of the load, and of course by borrowing or printing money.
Individually these have enormous implications and each deserves careful consideration. In composite, they are in fact transformative, in ways that we can't even comprehend and I suspect will not like very much. Certainly, they will saddle future generations with enormous debt. They will diminish our defensive capability and national security. They will make the federal government proportionally larger and more powerful than ever in our history. They will increase substantially the dependency of many Americans on government entitlements. They will "redistribute wealth" (much more than it is currently redistributed by our properly progressive tax structure), arguably rewarding failure and punishing success.
Each of these has its proponents. But interestingly, we've tried some similar tacks in the past (reduced defense spending and expanding welfare, as examples), found them ineffective and worked hard to get back on track. And other nations have gone down this road - the jury may still be out on the long term fate of Western Europe but many signs are bleak. When and why did we decide to be a France?
I am not shocked or surprised to find out that Barack Obama is very liberal, that he has vastly more faith than I (and most Americans) in government as the solution to every problem, and that he wants to make a clean break with the last administration. Yes, he promised change. But he also promised transparency and bipartisanship. We gave him a ticket to lead. We did not give him a ticket to ignore the views of half the electorate and to abandon much of our heritage.
This is way beyond "yes we can." We're dealing with the future of the nation we love and we'd better do it carefully, collectively and openly.
The writer is a businessman who makes his home in Aiken.
Free Money
Carl Langley joins the ranks of those who criticize the Aiken Standard for its stand on the Stimulus.To their credit they do publish the criticisms even though they don't always print all of the news. See Jim Wetzel's letter of March 17.
March 18 Letters to the Editor
3/17/2009 2:42 PM
Don't take the bait of 'free money'
The Aiken Standard has now joined Rep. Jim Clyburn among the elite ranks of those condemning Gov. Mark Sanford for snubbing the offer of free stimulus money from Washington.
I realize how hard it is to resist the lure of free money, but Rep. Clyburn, like all liberal Democrats, thinks everything in life is free. I didn't expect that of the Aiken Standard.
For the record, our governor didn't turn down the free money outright. He just wanted to use the funds to help the state offset its debt and for other uses that will not nurture recurring expenditures.
For those less informed than the governor and I, let me remind folks that federal money is often freely given and just as often freely taken away. This leaves the ones foolish enough to fall for the lure fishing about to find ways to deal with the recurring costs. And that means from each budget year to the next and for as far as one can see into the future.
If the federal government would send down the money with an irrevocable guarantee that the cash flow would keep on coming is one thing. But to assure taxpayers they would not be saddled with future costs is a radically different matter.
During my eight years as mayor of New Ellenton I am proud to say I never rose to the bait, whether it be "free money" from state or federal levels. I know how those people operate (all bureaucrats will probably run shell games in the afterlife), and all that is needed is for you to take the bait. Once done you are hooked for keeps.
I have been at odds with the governor on various issues but on this one I am on his side and urging him to stay firm. My message is don't take the bait because the billion dollars you take this year won't be there next year and you will be forced to either raise taxes dramatically or cut costs dramatically. Either way the governor loses because the home folks have short attention spans, forgetting, of course, that Washington started it all.
I can't imagine the Aiken Standard chiding the governor, but I expect no less from Rep. Clyburn. He is fused for life to the public teat and apparently thinks everything (mainly money) is free. I wonder if he has ever held a real job and had to make a payroll. His biography lists him as a lawyer, which serves as a disqualifier immediately when it comes to handling other peoples' (taxpayers) money.
So let us go forth and battle bravely into the teeth of this recession and don't be foolish enough to fall for the old budget gimmick of here you see it and there you don't. You can go fiscally blind that way!
Carl Langley
Aiken
March 18 Letters to the Editor
3/17/2009 2:42 PM
Don't take the bait of 'free money'
The Aiken Standard has now joined Rep. Jim Clyburn among the elite ranks of those condemning Gov. Mark Sanford for snubbing the offer of free stimulus money from Washington.
I realize how hard it is to resist the lure of free money, but Rep. Clyburn, like all liberal Democrats, thinks everything in life is free. I didn't expect that of the Aiken Standard.
For the record, our governor didn't turn down the free money outright. He just wanted to use the funds to help the state offset its debt and for other uses that will not nurture recurring expenditures.
For those less informed than the governor and I, let me remind folks that federal money is often freely given and just as often freely taken away. This leaves the ones foolish enough to fall for the lure fishing about to find ways to deal with the recurring costs. And that means from each budget year to the next and for as far as one can see into the future.
If the federal government would send down the money with an irrevocable guarantee that the cash flow would keep on coming is one thing. But to assure taxpayers they would not be saddled with future costs is a radically different matter.
During my eight years as mayor of New Ellenton I am proud to say I never rose to the bait, whether it be "free money" from state or federal levels. I know how those people operate (all bureaucrats will probably run shell games in the afterlife), and all that is needed is for you to take the bait. Once done you are hooked for keeps.
I have been at odds with the governor on various issues but on this one I am on his side and urging him to stay firm. My message is don't take the bait because the billion dollars you take this year won't be there next year and you will be forced to either raise taxes dramatically or cut costs dramatically. Either way the governor loses because the home folks have short attention spans, forgetting, of course, that Washington started it all.
I can't imagine the Aiken Standard chiding the governor, but I expect no less from Rep. Clyburn. He is fused for life to the public teat and apparently thinks everything (mainly money) is free. I wonder if he has ever held a real job and had to make a payroll. His biography lists him as a lawyer, which serves as a disqualifier immediately when it comes to handling other peoples' (taxpayers) money.
So let us go forth and battle bravely into the teeth of this recession and don't be foolish enough to fall for the old budget gimmick of here you see it and there you don't. You can go fiscally blind that way!
Carl Langley
Aiken
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
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
Saturday, March 14, 2009
There they go again!
Aiken politics came a little early this year! The following article and the one that appeared yesterday regarding Jane Vaughters' plans and businesswoman Liz Stewart's intentions to run for an at large seat on City Council were initiated by the Aiken Standard. It appears that the same old crowd of developers aided by the paper is trying to jump start their chosen candidates campaign so as to discourage others from running. Deja Vu all over again.
From the Aiken Standard
3/14/2009 12:25 AM
Dick Smith won't seek re-election
By HALEY HUGHES
Staff writer
Aiken City Councilman Dick Smith announced Friday he will not seek re-election for his Fourth District seat, joining fellow Councilwoman Jane Vaughters in the decision to step down at the end of eight years of service.
Like Vaughters, who currently fills an at-large seat, Smith said he too believes in term limits. They were both elected in 2001.
"I think it's time to move on," he said. "It has been an honor to serve. Jane Vaughters and I have accomplished quite a bit."
The names of Dr. Bauer Vaughters and wife DeeDee, Jane Vaughters' son and daughter-in-law, have been floating around as possible candidates. Bauer Vaughters said neither he nor his wife will run for City Council at this time.
But the ballot for the City of Aiken's November municipal elections continues to take shape - another Council incumbent will seek re-election and a newcomer has announced he is running for an at-large seat.
Second District Councilwoman Lessie Price said Friday she will attempt to retain her seat on Council, one which she has held since the late 1980s. In fact, she was the first woman to run for and be elected to the governing body.
"We have seen tremendous growth. And I think, overall, it has been well planned. It has had a positive impact. We have dealt with housing, traffic and economic development and have tackled those as a body," she said of the areas she has focused on during her time on Council and will continue to focus on.
And though a formal announcement will come soon, Kent Cubbage told the Aiken Standard on Friday he is running for a City Council at-large seat.
"I decided to do this two years ago," Cubbage said. "I was inspired by the birth of my daughter. I figured I have to get involved because I want her to know the Aiken I love so dearly. I am more youthful than the other Council members and no one will outwork me or outwalk me. I will be the ears and voice of the whole City. I have the skills and experience to help lead the City."
He worked for an environmental consulting firm when he first moved to Aiken during which he said he learned the ins and outs of zoning, green space and adaptive property reuse issues. He is also a graduate of Leadership Aiken County, a 15-year Aiken resident and currently works as the biology program coordinator at Aiken Technical College.
"My motto is 'vision we need now,'" Cubbage said. "The City is at kind of a lull. When we come out of the current economic situation, I think growth will reach a peak again. And we could lose the Aiken we've come to cherish if we don't have the vision we need now. A vision both in favor of the citizens and businesses. Fostering and promoting entrepreneurship will get us through this economic situation. Small business is what is going to get us through this."
Cubbage will run as a Republican.
The City's other at-large seat is currently filled by Councilman Don Wells. Wells said Thursday he will run again.
Aiken Planning Commissioner and business woman Liz Stewart has also declared her intentions to run for an at-large seat.
From the Aiken Standard
3/14/2009 12:25 AM
Dick Smith won't seek re-election
By HALEY HUGHES
Staff writer
Aiken City Councilman Dick Smith announced Friday he will not seek re-election for his Fourth District seat, joining fellow Councilwoman Jane Vaughters in the decision to step down at the end of eight years of service.
Like Vaughters, who currently fills an at-large seat, Smith said he too believes in term limits. They were both elected in 2001.
"I think it's time to move on," he said. "It has been an honor to serve. Jane Vaughters and I have accomplished quite a bit."
The names of Dr. Bauer Vaughters and wife DeeDee, Jane Vaughters' son and daughter-in-law, have been floating around as possible candidates. Bauer Vaughters said neither he nor his wife will run for City Council at this time.
But the ballot for the City of Aiken's November municipal elections continues to take shape - another Council incumbent will seek re-election and a newcomer has announced he is running for an at-large seat.
Second District Councilwoman Lessie Price said Friday she will attempt to retain her seat on Council, one which she has held since the late 1980s. In fact, she was the first woman to run for and be elected to the governing body.
"We have seen tremendous growth. And I think, overall, it has been well planned. It has had a positive impact. We have dealt with housing, traffic and economic development and have tackled those as a body," she said of the areas she has focused on during her time on Council and will continue to focus on.
And though a formal announcement will come soon, Kent Cubbage told the Aiken Standard on Friday he is running for a City Council at-large seat.
"I decided to do this two years ago," Cubbage said. "I was inspired by the birth of my daughter. I figured I have to get involved because I want her to know the Aiken I love so dearly. I am more youthful than the other Council members and no one will outwork me or outwalk me. I will be the ears and voice of the whole City. I have the skills and experience to help lead the City."
He worked for an environmental consulting firm when he first moved to Aiken during which he said he learned the ins and outs of zoning, green space and adaptive property reuse issues. He is also a graduate of Leadership Aiken County, a 15-year Aiken resident and currently works as the biology program coordinator at Aiken Technical College.
"My motto is 'vision we need now,'" Cubbage said. "The City is at kind of a lull. When we come out of the current economic situation, I think growth will reach a peak again. And we could lose the Aiken we've come to cherish if we don't have the vision we need now. A vision both in favor of the citizens and businesses. Fostering and promoting entrepreneurship will get us through this economic situation. Small business is what is going to get us through this."
Cubbage will run as a Republican.
The City's other at-large seat is currently filled by Councilman Don Wells. Wells said Thursday he will run again.
Aiken Planning Commissioner and business woman Liz Stewart has also declared her intentions to run for an at-large seat.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Sanford to Reject some Stimulus Funds
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Posted on Tue, Mar. 10, 2009
South Carolina's Sanford to become first governor to reject funds
James Rosen | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: March 11, 2009 07:48:41 AM
WASHINGTON — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is expected Wednesday to become the first governor to formally reject some of the federal stimulus money earmarked by Congress for his state.
The move will cement Sanford's growing reputation as a political powerhouse among Republican party stalwarts nationwide — though how much of the estimated $8 billion in stimulus funds destined for South Carolina will be affected is unclear. The law allows state legislative leaders to accept funds the governor rejects.
"Our objections to the so-called stimulus bill have been well-chronicled for the way it spends money that we don't have and for the way this printing of money could ultimately devalue the American dollar," Sanford said on Tuesday, even as he acknowledged that he'll accept some.
"Those of us opposed to this package lost the debate on these merits, and I now think it is important we look for creative ways to apply and use these monies in accordance with the long-term interests of our state," he said.
Still, Sanford's formal rejection will enhance his standing as a Republican willing to challenge President Barack Obama, a position Sanford first took Dec. 1, when he traveled to Philadelphia to challenge the then president-elect directly at a meeting with the nation's governors.
Since then, a handful of other governors — all Republicans, all talked about as possible 2012 presidential candidates — have joined Sanford in saying they'd reject at least some of their states' stimulus shares.
Sanford's outspoken aversion to using deficit spending to spark an economic recovery has garnered him national TV interviews, op-ed columns in the Wall Street Journal and articles about him in other prominent publications.
All the attention, plus Sanford's increased travel to address Republicans in Washington, Texas and beyond, have sparked talk that he's eyeing a 2012 presidential campaign.
"I don't have a clue whether he wants to run, but he obviously is one of our better-known Republican governors, having run the Republican Governors Association and been around the country and on TV a lot," said Charlie Black, a prominent Republican consultant who was a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain's losing White House bid last year.
"He's very popular," Black said. "His brand of conservatism emphasizing fiscal conservatism is very popular with our grassroots."
Sanford urged 1,000 activists, gathered in late February at the Ronald Reagan Banquet in a Washington hotel, to be prepared to lose, and to feel happy about it.
"Would you be willing to support a cause or a candidate that is likely to lose?" Sanford asked conventioneers at the Conservative Political Action Committee's annual gathering.
As the diners leapt to their feet and applauded, Sanford declared:
"The name of the game is staying true to the principles that got you into politics in the first place _ and letting the chips fall where they may."
Nicole Quinn, of Lancaster, Pa., who waited in a long line to hear Texas Rep. Ron Paul speak at the CPAC convention, said Sanford first came to her attention when he kept his term-limits promise and left Congress in 2000 after serving six years in the House of Representatives.
Now, Sanford's vocal opposition to Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan is prompting Quinn and others to hope he seeks the White House in 2012.
"I supported Ron Paul for president in 2008," Quinn said. "However, if Sanford runs in 2012, I would support him because he would do more than any other candidate to restore the Republican message. Unlike Ron Paul, Mark Sanford has the potential to win over mainstream voters. Whether or not he could beat Barack Obama, he would restore Republican credibility."
Sanford, 48, was elected to Congress in 1994 in a midterm election that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in half a century.
While most of his colleagues abandoned their term-limit pledges, dropped plans to jettison the Department of Education and became less averse to federal spending, Sanford slept on a cot in his office, opposed most appropriations bills _ and left after six years.
In 2002, Sanford became the first South Carolina governor to rise to the state's highest office without first serving in the state's legislature.
If Sanford's firebrand fiscal austerity wins him activist followers, it also has sparked political clashes.
Republican legislators who control the South Carolina General Assembly have joined Democrats in overturning hundreds of Sanford's line-item vetoes, rebuffing his bid to slash the budget in one of the nation's poorest states.
State House Speaker Bobby Harrell, state Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, state Senate Finance Committee chairman Hugh Leatherman and other Republican legislative leaders have worked with U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip, to ensure that the state doesn't get left off the stimulus gravy train.
Clyburn, a Columbia Democrat and the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, crafted several provisions in the stimulus bill aimed at bypassing Sanford and other governors who oppose it.
The move will cement Sanford's growing reputation as a political powerhouse among Republican party stalwarts nationwide — though how much of the estimated $8 billion in stimulus funds destined for South Carolina will be affected is unclear. The law allows state legislative leaders to accept funds the governor rejects.
"Our objections to the so-called stimulus bill have been well-chronicled for the way it spends money that we don't have and for the way this printing of money could ultimately devalue the American dollar," Sanford said on Tuesday, even as he acknowledged that he'll accept some.
"Those of us opposed to this package lost the debate on these merits, and I now think it is important we look for creative ways to apply and use these monies in accordance with the long-term interests of our state," he said.
Still, Sanford's formal rejection will enhance his standing as a Republican willing to challenge President Barack Obama, a position Sanford first took Dec. 1, when he traveled to Philadelphia to challenge the then president-elect directly at a meeting with the nation's governors.
Since then, a handful of other governors — all Republicans, all talked about as possible 2012 presidential candidates — have joined Sanford in saying they'd reject at least some of their states' stimulus shares.
Sanford's outspoken aversion to using deficit spending to spark an economic recovery has garnered him national TV interviews, op-ed columns in the Wall Street Journal and articles about him in other prominent publications.
All the attention, plus Sanford's increased travel to address Republicans in Washington, Texas and beyond, have sparked talk that he's eyeing a 2012 presidential campaign.
"I don't have a clue whether he wants to run, but he obviously is one of our better-known Republican governors, having run the Republican Governors Association and been around the country and on TV a lot," said Charlie Black, a prominent Republican consultant who was a senior adviser to Sen. John McCain's losing White House bid last year.
"He's very popular," Black said. "His brand of conservatism emphasizing fiscal conservatism is very popular with our grassroots."
Sanford urged 1,000 activists, gathered in late February at the Ronald Reagan Banquet in a Washington hotel, to be prepared to lose, and to feel happy about it.
"Would you be willing to support a cause or a candidate that is likely to lose?" Sanford asked conventioneers at the Conservative Political Action Committee's annual gathering.
As the diners leapt to their feet and applauded, Sanford declared:
"The name of the game is staying true to the principles that got you into politics in the first place _ and letting the chips fall where they may."
Nicole Quinn, of Lancaster, Pa., who waited in a long line to hear Texas Rep. Ron Paul speak at the CPAC convention, said Sanford first came to her attention when he kept his term-limits promise and left Congress in 2000 after serving six years in the House of Representatives.
Now, Sanford's vocal opposition to Obama's $787 billion stimulus plan is prompting Quinn and others to hope he seeks the White House in 2012.
"I supported Ron Paul for president in 2008," Quinn said. "However, if Sanford runs in 2012, I would support him because he would do more than any other candidate to restore the Republican message. Unlike Ron Paul, Mark Sanford has the potential to win over mainstream voters. Whether or not he could beat Barack Obama, he would restore Republican credibility."
Sanford, 48, was elected to Congress in 1994 in a midterm election that gave Republicans control of the House for the first time in half a century.
While most of his colleagues abandoned their term-limit pledges, dropped plans to jettison the Department of Education and became less averse to federal spending, Sanford slept on a cot in his office, opposed most appropriations bills _ and left after six years.
In 2002, Sanford became the first South Carolina governor to rise to the state's highest office without first serving in the state's legislature.
If Sanford's firebrand fiscal austerity wins him activist followers, it also has sparked political clashes.
Republican legislators who control the South Carolina General Assembly have joined Democrats in overturning hundreds of Sanford's line-item vetoes, rebuffing his bid to slash the budget in one of the nation's poorest states.
State House Speaker Bobby Harrell, state Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell, state Senate Finance Committee chairman Hugh Leatherman and other Republican legislative leaders have worked with U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the House majority whip, to ensure that the state doesn't get left off the stimulus gravy train.
Clyburn, a Columbia Democrat and the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, crafted several provisions in the stimulus bill aimed at bypassing Sanford and other governors who oppose it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)