|
Stimulus 
Thu Sep 17, 2009 at 23:46:00 PM EDT
|
|
South Carolina's 1st Congressional District's Henry Brown says he can't stand behind this "unprecedented path" of government spending, and calls President Obama's stimulus efforts a failure. Everyone agrees that the American economy is in bad shape. The President's "stimulus" package has failed to produce jobs while hundreds of billions of dollars from the package have gone unspent. Unemployment has risen dramatically, and each advance in the stock market is followed by a precipitous decline.That's why it is so important that the federal government gets its spending under control. President Obama recently announced his revised deficit forecast, which will put our nation an additional two trillion dollars in the hole over the next ten years. And that is based on spending plans he and the Democrat-led Congress have already enacted. They will only climb higher if the President is successful in his efforts to provide universal health care and tax carbon emissions. Not a single one of my Republican colleagues supported this unprecedented path of spending, one that created the largest budget deficit in American history. But Republicans believed then and now that we can and must do better to protect our children and our grandchildren from overwhelming future debt. Well, Henry. Isn't that a mouthful. The stimulus package has produced jobs, sir. Maybe if you'd read some of the newspapers around the state, you'd see that. Here's an example of what I found below. The Department of Energy (DOE) announced Tuesday that the Savannah River Site (SRS) will receive $1.615 billion in stimulus funds to accelerate decommissioning work and create as many as 3,000 jobs. Around the country, we have seen adverse effect in the positive, even allowing Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernake to state the recession is over. That's because Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has apparently seen enough economic data to say that the worst recession since the Great Depression seems done. His comments came on a day when markets saw several reports that further buttress the view that overall economic output is again expanding. But to Henry Brown, truth doesn't matter. Only ideology.
There is going to be a slow turnaround. But that's where we are because of the stimulus package. If it hadn't passed, we'd be in a full-out depression.
But Henry, I must ask why you don't include your support for TARP funds to bail out the banks in any of your letters? Instead of worrying about the deficit then, you simply allowed CEOs to pocket huge bonuses - using our money to enjoy the high life. I guess the debt on us from that pales in comparison to the donations you receive from your finance friends. Brown voted for the Fall 2008 Bank Bailout and Tarp program, without using his power in Congress to see that this Bush Administration effort included accountability, transparency and limits on bonuses. Billions of dollars in tax money has been paid out in bonuses by an economic sector where Henry Brown accepted more contributions than others during his career in Congress -- $470,805 from the Finance, Insurance & Real Estate industries, according to OpenSecrets.org. And what really gets me is the last comment you make in regards to looking out for our families. Henry, you've done no such thing. Under eight years of Bush control, you rubber stamped his policies, passed his agenda and ballooned the debt without paying for a single thing. That, sir, is what is effecting our country and families now. Not a single one of my Republican colleagues supported this unprecedented path of spending, one that created the largest budget deficit in American history. But Republicans believed then and now that we can and must do better to protect our children and our grandchildren from overwhelming future debt. What IS in bad shape is your party's unwillingness to stand behind something. As you boldly point out in acceptance, I urge you to reconsider following the partisan line in favor of standing with the American people. Stand with the state of South Carolina and forgo ideology. Use your so-called power to help out the citizens of the district you were elected from. We cannot pass along this crushing debt to our children and grandchildren.
Sir, you have already done so - and with nothing to show for it. The former president thanks you, too.
Friends, we do not need this type of representation. I urge you all to do whatever is needed to help put Brown out of office and put the "workhorse" out to pasture.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 13:11:42 PM EDT
|
It appears now that Governor Mark Sanford will not be impeached from office. His friends in the South Carolina state legislature refuse to fire him. They all sit and allow health services for the elderly, disabled, and poor to be cut. Yes, they turn away from misery, pain, and death right here before their eyes. Sanford’s selfish behavior taunts the good people of South Carolina. He cries for the cameras then laughs like a hyena in heat when the lights recede. A farmer, a teacher-of-the-year, a cheerleader, a shop owner, and a Sunday school teacher were gunned down in cold blood by a serial killer last week in South Carolina. It was a hot sweaty week of pure living hell. The good news is that the serial killer who terrorized the Gaffney, South Carolina area was shot and killed. A North Carolina couple will receive a $30,000 Crimestoppers reward for calling in the tip that led deputies to the killer. Michael and Terry Valentine phoned in the tip to authorities after their puppy barked and woke them early Monday morning. When they let the dog out, they noticed strange activity at the house next door and thought a burglary was taking place. Actually, it happened to be the Gaffney serial killer, Patrick Burris, who was responsible for at least five murders in the Gaffney, South Carolina area. Officers shot and killed Burris after he opened fire on them early Monday morning. Finally, a little over a week after it began, the terror was over. The killer was dead. The bad news is that folks in the Gaffney, South Carolina area who may be mentally traumatized by the murders will find it difficult to receive help. Due to a serious lack of leadership from Governor Mark Sanford, the state of South Carolina has cut services to the most vulnerable citizens in the state. Here are just a few of the services recently cut from the state budget. South Carolina Medicaid will limit coverage for psychological counseling, physician visits, and routine physicals. They will also stop enrolling people living with HIV as part of a $61 million round of budget cuts. In addition, budget cuts include an end hospice care for Medicaid-only patients; a decrease in the amount of assistance for prescription drug costs for low-income, elderly populations; and a reduction in home health nurse visits from 75 to 50 per year; and reducing assistance to hospitals and nursing homes. Families who move from welfare to work will now receive one year rather than two years of Medicaid coverage. Income requirements for Medicaid benefits have been raised in South Carolina and an estimated 3,700 elderly and disabled people are expected to lose Medicaid benefits. The state also restricted many services, including preventive services. The South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs will have to operate on $70 million less than the previous year. This is due to drastic cuts in the agency’s budget. This means that thousands of disabled citizens will be forced to move into state institutions as the funds to provide in-home care have been cut from the budget. It’s now been over a week since Governor Mark Sanford returned to South Carolina from his rendezvous in Buenos Aires. Michael Jackson has died and a memorial service held in Jackson’s honor. A maniac terrorized Gaffney, South Carolina, was tracked down and killed. Funeral services have been held for all of his victims and memorials have been published for them in all the local newspapers. July the Fourth has come and gone. Question is, where’s Mark Sanford? He’s still the governor of South Carolina even though he voluntarily quit his job when he vanished for five days. He’s the same person who does not want federal stimulus funds for the citizens of South Carolina. He’s the same person who wants to deny unemployment compensation to the unemployed. He’s the same person who wants funds taken from the poor, elderly, and disabled of this state. He’s the same person who wants to destroy public education. Yes, while we’ve mourned our losses, paid tribute to our heroes, and spent time with our loved ones, Mark Sanford remains governor of South Carolina. A man who champions the “free market” and wants government “run like a business” is still a Chief Executive Officer. Maybe this is the way Sanford thinks a business should run. He, after all, started his career at Goldman Sachs in New York after his wife, Jenny, got him a job there. In the “free market” Mark Sanford would have already been fired. South Carolina is not, Mark Sanford, a corporation. South Carolina is a state within the United States of America comprised of hard-working people with friends and families who love them. We are also folks who have no families or no friends. We’re not all big-shot corporate fat cats. We’re disabled, old, hungry, sick, unemployed, homeless, veterans, who love this state and this country. We were born with cerebral palsy, spina bifida, epilepsy, and diabetes. We’re blind and deaf. We’ve survived heart attacks, strokes, and cancer. We have Down’s syndrome and we have Muscular Dystrophy. We have Alzheimer’s. We don’t have a competent governor or a state government.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:57:28 AM EDT
|
|
Gov. Mark Sanford is still at it, implying that the other branches of government are corrupt, blaming everyone else for his lack of leadership, and whining for the national media. Gov. Sanford is dissing everything and everyone in South Carolina, every chance he gets. He cancelled a provocative advertising campaign for tourism to South Carolina (South Carolina is So Gay). He's not at all interested in spending his "political capital" to end the NAACP tourism boycott. I wonder how Gov. Sanford described South Carolina to the people he met when he went to Poland.
|
|
There's More...
:: (1
Comments, 271 words in story)
|
|
Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:34:36 AM EDT
|
( - promoted by Tim Kelly)
Gov. Mark Sanford misunderstood the ARRA and decided to break a state law. That's what South Carolina's stimulus saga was about. It wasn't about a power struggle between the Governor and the Legislature, and it wasn't about money. It was about Gov. Sanford's actions to break rules of grammar and rules of law. Gov. Sanford participated* in the State's legislative process regarding the stimulus funds, and the Legislature overrode his veto. That's when the Legislature's involvement ended and when the Governor's actions to break rules of grammar and rules of law began.
|
|
There's More...
:: (2
Comments, 487 words in story)
|
|
Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 16:32:43 PM EDT
|
|
The prolonged Sanford stimulus drama may finally be coming to an end. In a unanimous 5-0 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court today ordered Governor Mark Sanford to accept the $700 million in disputed stimulus money. The Court issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Governor to apply for the federal funds earmarked for S.C. schools and public safety. The Governor had argued that he had sole authority to apply for the funds. However, the Court ruled that the General Assembly has the authority to pass the state budget and force the Governor to take the money. "The duty to execute the Budget, as properly enacted by the General Assembly, is a ministerial duty of the Governor," the Court said in opinion. "He has no discretion concerning the appropriation of funds. The application for the SFS funds is a simple, definite duty arising under the conditions specified in the ARRA and leaves nothing to Governor Sanford’s discretion. It is a ministerial duty." SC Democratic leaders are understandably pleased with the Court's decision. “This is wonderful news," State Senate Democratic Leader John Land (D-Manning) said. "I’m grateful for the Court’s swift action. For too long we have had to deal with this needless fight simply because of our governor’s selfish political ambitions. We can now move forward with our state’s economic recovery.” Governor Sanford has said he would not appeal the state Supreme Court's verdict and would apply for the federal funds if so ordered. UPDATE: In response to today's verdict, the Governor says he will apply for the $700 million in federal stimulus funds on Monday.
|
|
Discuss
:: (5
Comments)
|
|
Wed Jun 03, 2009 at 09:29:40 AM EDT
|
|
All eyes will be on the SC Supreme Court beginning at 10 am this morning, as the court hears oral arguments in two lawsuits that are apt to decide once and for all whether the state gets $700 in federal stimulus funds. You can watch the proceedings live, thanks to SC ETV. View it on the ETV site or on The State. And I'm telling you, you don't want to miss the cool lawyer representing the SC Department of Education.
|
|
Discuss
:: (25
Comments)
|
|
Mon Jun 01, 2009 at 13:56:37 PM EDT
|
|
There’s breaking news this afternoon in the ongoing Sanford stimulus drama. Last week Governor Sanford requested that the Edwards and SCASA stimulus suits be removed from the SC Supreme Court and combined with a federal lawsuit he had already filed. However, today a federal judge ordered these two stimulus lawsuits returned to the South Carolina Supreme Court:
U.S. District Judge Joe Anderson sent the two state lawsuits that Gov. Mark Sanford wanted a federal court to decide back to the five-member S.C. Supreme Court. Anderson announced his ruling after a hearing in Columbia; his formal written order is expected later this afternoon.
Anderson retained jurisdiction in a third, related federal lawsuit filed by Sanford, though he likely won’t rule on it before a decision by the state’s top court.
According to The State, the SC Supreme Court could hear the Edwards suit as early as this week, possibly allowing for a ruling in the case before the July 1 deadline to apply for the disputed $700 million in federal stimulus funds earmarked for SC schools and public safety.
We’ll bring everyone more info as it comes in.
UPDATE: SC Dem leaders are beginning to weigh in on Judge Anderson's ruling. Seems State Senate Democratic Leader John C. Land, III (D-Manning) is pleased with the Judge's decision:
"I applaud Judge Anderson's ruling. This decision was critical for a quick resolution of the stimulus cases. South Carolina cannot afford to wait much longer for an answer on whether or not we should accept our own tax dollars. I'm optimistic that the South Carolina Supreme Court will do the right thing and require Governor Sanford to accept the money."
UPDATE: Gov. Mark Sanford said he will not appeal a Supreme Court decision should he lose the two cases sent back to state court by Judge Anderson.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Thu May 28, 2009 at 08:45:36 AM EDT
|
|
With apologies to Joseph N. Welch, it seems we're justified in asking if the "Governor" of South Carolina has finally lost any sense of propriety in his quest for personal power. Two days ago, Mark Sanford and his free attorney made a big show out of refusing to respond to a state lawsuit "...originally filed by former S.C. Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian and former video poker operative Dwight Drake." Less than 24 hours later - once it became apparent that the state Supreme Court would accept jurisdiction in the case and scheduled oral arguments - Sanford decided he better play ball anyway, and his attorneys asked to be made a party to the case. The Court consented - with the condition that "...the Governor will continue to meet the requirements of intervention and joinder, including the requirement that his joinder not deprive this Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action [emphasis added]. Just before the deadline of 5 p.m., Sanford broke that agreement and filed to remove the case to federal court. Sanford spokespup Joel Sawyer told The State, “Our goal is to combine all of these cases into one action so it can be handled as quickly as possible.” Yeah, right. For his part, Harpootlian isn't buying it, and took Sanford to task for his deception: "The Supreme Court allowed Governor Sanford to intervene after the deadline with the condition that he not deny them jurisdiction. He then denied them jurisdiction. This is conduct unbecoming of the Governor or any other elected official. Why is he running the Federal Court from state court when he has made a career out of condemning federal interference in state affairs?" Another legislator and attorney I spoke with was more adamant. "Basically, Sanford lied to the Supreme Court - I've never seen anything like it," said the legislator. "He's like a kid who lies, cheats and pitches a fit - anything to get his way. Regardless of what happens with this case, I think it's grounds for impeachment." Federal Judge Joe Anderson has scheduled a hearing Monday on the Edwards case and a separate state suit filed against Sanford and education superintendent Jim Rex to decide whether to send those cases back to the Supreme Court. "It's anybody's guess what Judge Anderson will do," said our legislative source. "But Sanford's done two things - he's moved us closer to the July 1 deadline to get the funds, and he's done serious damage to whatever hopes he has for running for President. You don't lie to a court and get away with it." Stay tuned.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Wed May 27, 2009 at 16:55:29 PM EDT
|
|
Mark Sanford successfully petitioned the state Supreme Court to join the Edwards suit he said he wouldn't respond to - then promptly filed an action to have it removed to federal court, continuing his scheme to run out the clock past a July 1 deadline to secure the federal funds. Oral arguments before the Supreme Court set for tomorrow have been cancelled. Interestingly enough, when the Court this morning granted Sanford's request to join the case, this footnote was attached to the order: We assume that the Governor will continue to meet the requirements of intervention and joinder, including the requirement that his joinder not deprive this Court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.
More as it comes in...
|
|
Discuss
:: (1
Comments)
|
|
Tue May 26, 2009 at 20:01:53 PM EDT
|
|
Mark Sanford's response to a lawsuit filed by SCASA is to have it removed to federal court, stating that "...the governor’s counsel reiterates the argument that federal court is the appropriate venue for any suit related to attempts to compel the governor to apply for stimulus funds." At the same time, responding to the second lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court, Sanford argues that the whole thing is about a purely state matter: “Our suit is fundamentally about the balance of power and separation of powers in our state, and whether or not the legislature is going to be allowed to erode the Executive Branch even further in South Carolina,” Gov. Sanford said. Say what? It's about the balance of power and separation of powers in our state, but we need to let the federal courts decide that? Come again? Sanford's hiring of big-time legal counsel apparently didn't include getting any professional public relations people on his side. The Ungov's press release on the matter includes this jewel: The governor will not be responding to another suit originally filed by former S.C. Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian and former video poker operative Dwight Drake. Yep, video poker has nothing to do with, well, anything, but let's throw that broadside in anyway, huh? What a putz. UPDATE: Via Twitter, John O'Connor of The State is now reporting that Sanford has changed his mind and wants to intervene in the Edwards suit.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Tue May 26, 2009 at 13:01:36 PM EDT
|
|
Education superintendent Jim Rex has filed his answer in a stimulus lawsuit filed by the SC Association of School Administrators. In his response filed today, Rex agreed with SCASA that the General Assembly’s budget for next year is a valid law that the governor is required to follow. Rex also said that his agency had completed the official application for the federal funds and that he had signed and delivered it to the governor for his signature. UPDATE: Rex asserts that the stimulus act does not provide the governor with additional powers he does not posess under the SC Constitution: The ARRA does not provide discretionary authority with the Governor of South Carolina where under State law such discretionary authority does not
exist.
Section 14005 of the ARRA, which addresses the State Application for the iscal Stabilization Funds, states, “The Governor of a State desiring to receive
the allocation under § 14001 shall submit an application at such time and in such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary may
reasonably require.”
Section 14005 of the ARRA does not create discretionary authority of the governor, it simply provides that the Governor shall provide the
administrative or ministerial function of applying for the funds, while acknowledging that the “State” has the authority to decide to draw down funds, in a manner established by state law.
In an optional filing, Rex also petitioned the South Carolina Supreme Court to accept the SCASA lawsuit under its “original jurisdiction,” meaning that it should bypass lower courts and go directly to the state’s highest court for a decision.
In the filing, Rex said the stimulus funds are essential for SC public schools: Without these funds, additional jobs will be lost among teachers and other school and district staff, adding to what is already the highest unemployment rate ever recorded in South Carolina.Beyond the immediate, short-term impact on the state’s struggling economy, long-term damage to the state’s efforts to reform and improve the education system will occur: class sizes will increase; course offerings will be reduced; innovative programs to close the achievement gap affecting poor, rural and minority students will be suspended or discontinued; the future educational and economic prospects for public school students will be diminished, all because of the inaction of and the willful disregard for the law of Defendant Governor.
In short, Defendant Governor’s refusal to act has both an immediate and a far-reaching impact on the public education system, the economic well-being of educators and staff and the educational attainment of students.
In a statement released today, Rex said “It’s important that we have a quick ruling because July 1 is the deadline for South Carolina to apply for the stabilization dollars. South Carolina taxpayers are going to have to pay back this $350 million regardless, so it should be spent here in South Carolina.”
We're attempting to get copies of the Ungov's answer both to the SCASA and the second lawsuit filed against Sanford by a Chapin High student.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Mon May 25, 2009 at 10:02:25 AM EDT
|
( - promoted by Jennifer Read)
Gov. Sanford is so lazy that he thinks that submitting the State's application for education funding is an onerous federal mandate. A.G. McMaster is so incompetent that he couldn't convict the dungeon rapist. Governor Mark Sanford's lawsuit names Attorney General Henry McMaster as the defendant. As the excellent Cindi Ross Scoppe has described, Gov. Sanford is wrong and his lawsuit should be thrown out. But I have zero confidence in A.G. McMaster's ability to represent our state in this lawsuit.
|
|
Discuss
:: (2
Comments)
|
|
Sun May 24, 2009 at 08:38:33 AM EDT
|
( - promoted by Tim Kelly)
I wrote South Carolina Governor Mark Sanfraud, excuse me, Sanford about his illogical stance on the stimulus money. His response is long-winded, mind you, but I am going to share it here along with my rebuttals.
Thank you for contacting our office regarding the federal stimulus package. We appreciate your taking the time to let us know your thoughts.
Whether it's been attack ads launched from the Democratic National Committee or the so-called "Chaos Budget" produced by Hugh Leatherman (the head of the Senate Finance Committee), there's unfortunately been a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation about the stimulus and its implications. So in fairness, I'd be somewhat apprehensive too if much of what you've undoubtedly seen and read were true.
Fortunately what has been suggested is not the whole story, so I wanted to take a minute and lay out the facts and let you know why we've taken this position. So, even if we simply have to agree to disagree, in the end I hope you'll at least have a better idea of where we're coming from on our stimulus position.
I opposed the stimulus package in Washington because of what I believe to be the disastrous long-term consequences that will come to our nation by spending money we don't have - and issuing yet more debt to solve a problem that was created by too much debt. But that debate is passed, and now the question before us is, "How do we best custom fit the stimulus to South Carolina?"
Governor, I can already tell you we're going to have problems here. You act as if your a total victim here with the beginning paragraph about these ads being run against you for your stance. Wake up and smell the coffee, Mark. People around the country see how much of a jerk you are because of your posturing on national television and the snide comments made about South Carolinians. You paint the picture to the rest of America of a people who don't know any better, like children for example, and you're there to mind us. Pathetic.
And, as far as our state budget goes, I applaud the legislature in overriding your veto of it. Seriously, you'd have to be in a bunker to not realize what is happening. Then again, that Howard Rich money didn't come without ties, now did it? This is your last ditch effort to stamp out public education in this state. You could care less about school teachers losing their jobs, students having to join classes in which teacher/student ratios increase, schools becoming underfunded, less materials provided for students, and the school system in general.
|
|
There's More...
:: (0
Comments, 1957 words in story)
|
|
Fri May 22, 2009 at 18:28:33 PM EDT
|
|
The S.C. Association of School Administrators has filed an action with the S.C. Supreme Court, asking for declatory judgement to force Gov. Mark Sanford to take action to secure $350 million in federal funds for schools included in the 2010 appropriations act. The suit also names Education Superintendent Jim Rex as a defendant but notes that... "...Defendant State Superintendent has, to the extent possible without the cooperation of the Governor, taken 'all action necessary action and provided any information needed to assist the Governor in fulfilling his obligation to apply for State Fiscal Stabilization funds pursuant to this Section,' as required by Part III, section 1 of the State Budget." A statement from the group says suing Rex is regrettable, but legally necessary. "Dr. Rex has done everything required to obtain ARRA funds, but the lawsuit and his participation as a party is necessary to ensure appropriate and complete legal relief," said the group in a statement.
SCASA President John Tindal says, "Our organization deeply regrets that we have to go to these drastic measures to receive funding that our students and citizens deserve. We know that Jim Rex wants to deliver these funds to school districts but cannot due to the Governor's refusal to request the money." The suit brings up an argument not yet addressed elsewhere: that Rex, not Sanford, has the ultimate executive authority over education funding in South Carolina. The plaintiffs then ask the Court to give Rex the authority to draw down the funds since they have already been certified by the governor: "...as a matter of State law, the State Superintendent of Education has been empowered by the General Assembly to act in the name of the Governor to make the application for ARRA Stabilization Fund money allocated to the State and to take all ancillary steps necessary to perfect the application and the receipt of ARRA Stabilization Funds by the State for use as appropriated in Part III of the State Budget. In other words, the General Assembly, as authorized by Article XI of the State Constitution, has given the State Superintendent of Education the legal authority and power to make the ARRA Stabilization Fund application on behalf of the State. As a matter of state law, the State Superintendent of Education and the General Assembly, together, have or can make all statements and assurances necessary for purposes of South Carolina's ARRA Stabilization Fund application, in the name of South Carolina as a "State desiring to receive an allocation under section 14001." ARRA § 14005(a)." The plaintiffs say that Sanford's role is purely administrative and that - beyond his vetoes which have already been overridden - Sanford has no discretion on applying for or spending the funds. They also argue that federal law cannot supercede a state constitution: Nothing in the ARRA provides that a governor of any state must make his or her application for ARRA Stabilization Funds as a matter of personal choice as a matter of the applicant's state's own law. Further, a federal statute cannot change the constitution of a state. In other words, the ARRA does not change South Carolina law – it instead simply does not address South Carolina law. The General Assembly may require the Governor to take specific actions with regard to appropriated funds. State ex rel. Condon v. Hodges, 349 S.C. 232, 562 S.E.2d 623 (2002). This is exactly what Part III of the State Budget does. Yet, this does nothing to offend any part of the ARRA or other federal law. On the contrary, it would be a fundamental affront to states' dignity if Congress were able to rearrange the distribution of powers in a state government. An interpretation of ARRA as a federal statute whereby Congress gives the South Carolina Governor more power over revenue and appropriations viz a viz the South Carolina General Assembly, than the Governor has under the State Constitution, is clearly within the class of cases where Congress is forbidden to "commandeer" the machinery of the State executive functions of state government for federal ends. See, Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). This is particularly acute in the field of public education, where our State Constitution and our Supreme Court are both uniquely explicit as to the extent of the General Assembly's authority and responsibility. The court ordered Gov. Sanford and Dr. Rex to file answers to the complaint by noon Tuesday. We've not yet been able to reach Dr. Rex or other officials in the Department of Education for comment.
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
Fri May 22, 2009 at 10:47:44 AM EDT
|
( - promoted by Jennifer Read)
April unemployment data has been released, and South Carolina again ranks third in the nation in unemployment at 11.5%. Only Michigan (12.9%) and Oregon (12.0%) fared more poorly than we. The State notes that our seasonally adjusted unemployment is a new record for South Carolina - highest since recording started in 1976. When does this become a "depression" rather than a "recession"? The comments on that The State link above are interesting.  Right away we have a couple of folks blaming Obama for South Carolina's economic woes, while at the same time our Governor is adamant about refusing any help from the Obama administration. He's so adamant about this that he's filed a lawsuit about it. Perhaps someone can educate me. How is our state government's refusal to accept help from the Obama administration Obama's fault?
|
|
Discuss
:: (0
Comments)
|
|
|
|
|
|
