Sanford Update
Dear Friend,
Last week I submitted to the General Assembly the Executive Budget for fiscal year 2006-2007. A full copy of the budget can be found online at www.scgovernor.com and I invite you to read it. In the meantime, however, I thought you’d be interested in what our state's leading newspapers are saying about it.
The August Chronicle asks: "Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?" … and then answers its own question: "If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget."
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/010806/edi_6174535.shtml
The Spartanburg Herald-Journal says: "Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint. Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation. State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget."
http://goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS/601080310/1022/OPINION
And the Charleston Post & Courier states: "Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment.â€
http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=64013§ion=editorials
The referenced editorials can be accessed online at the provided links, and they are also reprinted below. Please take the time to forward them to your friends and family.
Take care,
Mark
***********************************************************************
A great budget plan for South Carolina
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Published January 8, 2006
Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?
If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget - a budget that was forged in the wake of public hearings held around the state. Hence, the Sanford budget reflects the will of Palmetto State taxpayers more than any spending plan the Legislature comes up with. That ought to be important, especially in an election year.
The governor's budget is rooted in sound economics and common sense. Will majority lawmakers, who belong to the same Republican Party as the governor, have enough sense to listen to this guy?
There are two kinds of power struggles in South Carolina. One is familiar, Democrats vs. Republicans. The other is the legislative branch vs. the executive. Historically, power is weighted to the Legislature, even when the same party controls both branches. Legislators are simply loath to yield any of their power.
This leads to government by committee, which is terribly confusing, inefficient and expensive. It keeps the General Assembly in session for six months - nearly twice as long as Georgia's, yet South Carolina isn't as large in population or geography.
During all that time, legislators have to do something. So they tend to spend money they don't have, or make laws they don't need. Idle hands are, after all, the devil's workshop, and this could account for many of the state's problems, including its above-average unemployment and crime rates, low school performances and less-than-stellar credit ratings.
These are issues that Sanford's budget deals with. His $5.9 billion blueprint pays back trust and reserve funds while boosting spending on essential services such as law-enforcement and education.
The central feature of his plan, however, calls for limiting state spending to population plus inflation. Here's how it works: The governor would spend about $607 million of the $758 million in new money pouring into state coffers this year - which equates to a pinch more than 5.5 percent spending growth.
He would then rebate the other $151 million to taxpayers. That money, he says, "can be used to grow the economy and family budgets, instead of growing the government's budget."
He's right. The tax rebate would provide immediate property tax relief, and lighten some of the other spending burdens on families, such as energy costs and tuition increases. The question lawmakers ought to be asking is whether government can put that money to better use. The answer: not likely.
Government should never spend more money than it needs just because the economy is improving. It generates expenditures that can't be sustained during hard times, resulting in deficits, debt and weaker credit. Limiting higher spending to population plus inflation ensures that won't happen.
What South Carolina lawmakers ought to do, if they had any sense, is OK Sanford's budget and then go home. This could be done in 30 days or fewer. It would keep them out of trouble and probably get them all re-elected - a great year for them and taxpayers alike. Why not go for it?
***********************************************************************
Governor's budget sets a standard for limiting growth of state spending
Spartanburg Herald Journal Editorial Staff
Published January 8, 2006
Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint.
Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation.
State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget. And they should do so early before they get caught up in a year that doesn't present the same tight budget they have experienced in recent years.
It's important to set the perspective early in the budget debate. The state expects to take in almost $815 million in new revenue. That's 8 percent growth in state income. But state agencies have requested $960 million in new spending.
Lawmakers will have their own spending goals. The test will be whether the General Assembly shows proper spending restraint or returns to the free-spending habits of the past.
Lawmakers should follow the broad priorities the governor set for his budget. Sanford allows for $313 million in new state spending: $120 million more for education, an additional $109 million for Medicaid and more for law enforcement. But his budget limits that spending to 5.15 percent.
Sanford suggests allocating the rest of state revenue to several specific priorities. He would repay the state trust funds that were borrowed during lean budget years. He would repair a recurring accounting budget deficit. And he would give taxpayers a rebate that would amount to about $75 per taxpayer.
The first two are necessary to restore the state's fiscal foundation and are likely to be priorities of lawmakers as well.
The tax rebates have been criticized by Sanford's many political enemies in both parties as an election-year gimmick, but they are part of the tax reduction Sanford has been trying to achieve since his election.
But they are not the only solution at a time when the state has many deferred maintenance needs. Lawmakers could take the $151 million that Sanford has allocated to tax rebates and spend it on one-time, catch-up measures such as bridge repairs or school buses.
But the governor's overall perspective on the budget should be followed: Limit the growth of recurring state spending, take care of the state's fiscal condition, and return any money left over to the taxpayers.
***********************************************************************
Sanford's solid budget plan
Post and Courier Editorial Staff
Published January 8, 2006
Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment. Not surprisingly, his proposal to return some of the money to the taxpayers has taken the hardest hit from state legislators.
The governor said his budget plan, if adopted, "will allow us to finish the single greatest goal this administration has advocated" since taking office four years ago - "getting our fiscal house in order." Mr. Sanford points out that when he took office three years ago, "the state had an overlooked $155 million unconstitutional deficit, nearly $500 million borrowed from trust and reserve funds, and a $105 million accounting deficit created by the General Assembly and executive branch, beginning in 1991."
"As of this budget, the $155 million deficit has been retired and approximately $324 million has been returned to trust and reserve funds. This budget proposes to completely repay the $173 million in outstanding balances to trust and reserve funds and eliminate the $105 million in the accounting deficit that has been on our books beginning 15 years ago," he said in his budget message.
Thanks to Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, the long-standing accounting deficit issue was brought to a head several months ago when he decided to use excess funds to correct the mistake. While Mr. Eckstrom later was told only the General Assembly could correct the deficit problem, let's hope he made his point - an important one if the state's AAA credit rating is to be restored.
The governor's legislative critics have taken aim at his proposal to return $151 million in surplus funds to taxpayers. Those rebates, estimated to average $75 per taxpayer, have been decried as an election-year ploy and disdained as the sort of pork-barrel politics the governor has stood against. One legislator compared it to a company giving an employee two hams at Christmas.
The governor got it right in his response that a return to taxpayers of their own money hardly fits the definition of "pork barrel" spending. Mr. Sanford adds that this is the first year since he took office that the state's financial situation has allowed him to propose the rebate. "Taxpayers should share in good economic times, just as they have to pay through the bad economic times," he says.
The state's improved revenue picture has provided for substantial new contributions to critical needs. It proposes, for example, new education dollars, including a $63 million merit program for teachers, increasing the base student funding by $120 million and continuing to fund teacher pay at $300 above the Southeastern average.
There appears to be bipartisan support for the governor's plan to bolster the Department of Commerce's efforts for economic development and job creation. Critics of the lag in economic development score a point when they note that the earlier cutbacks in that department were initiated by the administration. The governor's new budget proposes $11 million in additional revenue for the Cabinet agency.
The budget seeks more support for additional law enforcement officers, including highway patrolmen, SLED agents and security for prisons and juvenile detention facilities. It recommends an additional $23 million for 320 officers, nearly comparable to last year's recommendation for bolstering public safety.
Overall, though, the governor contends that the number of state employees is higher than it should be, indeed, 43 percent higher than the national average. He recommends a cap on state spending, and restates his recommendations for restructuring government to limit duplication and cut waste.
So far, the Legislature has demonstrated an unfortunate reluctance to complete the restructuring of state government. The estimated savings of $19 million a year from a proposed merger of state agencies should finally convince legislative critics to support the governor's efforts to further streamline state government.
Last week I submitted to the General Assembly the Executive Budget for fiscal year 2006-2007. A full copy of the budget can be found online at www.scgovernor.com and I invite you to read it. In the meantime, however, I thought you’d be interested in what our state's leading newspapers are saying about it.
The August Chronicle asks: "Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?" … and then answers its own question: "If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget."
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/010806/edi_6174535.shtml
The Spartanburg Herald-Journal says: "Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint. Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation. State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget."
http://goupstate.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS/601080310/1022/OPINION
And the Charleston Post & Courier states: "Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment.â€
http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=64013§ion=editorials
The referenced editorials can be accessed online at the provided links, and they are also reprinted below. Please take the time to forward them to your friends and family.
Take care,
Mark
***********************************************************************
A great budget plan for South Carolina
Augusta Chronicle Editorial Staff
Published January 8, 2006
Do South Carolinians favor efficiency over waste? Simplicity over complexity? Slimmer government over bloated bureaucracy? Tax rebates over unnecessary government spending?
If they do, then they'll strongly support Gov. Mark Sanford's proposed 2006-07 budget - a budget that was forged in the wake of public hearings held around the state. Hence, the Sanford budget reflects the will of Palmetto State taxpayers more than any spending plan the Legislature comes up with. That ought to be important, especially in an election year.
The governor's budget is rooted in sound economics and common sense. Will majority lawmakers, who belong to the same Republican Party as the governor, have enough sense to listen to this guy?
There are two kinds of power struggles in South Carolina. One is familiar, Democrats vs. Republicans. The other is the legislative branch vs. the executive. Historically, power is weighted to the Legislature, even when the same party controls both branches. Legislators are simply loath to yield any of their power.
This leads to government by committee, which is terribly confusing, inefficient and expensive. It keeps the General Assembly in session for six months - nearly twice as long as Georgia's, yet South Carolina isn't as large in population or geography.
During all that time, legislators have to do something. So they tend to spend money they don't have, or make laws they don't need. Idle hands are, after all, the devil's workshop, and this could account for many of the state's problems, including its above-average unemployment and crime rates, low school performances and less-than-stellar credit ratings.
These are issues that Sanford's budget deals with. His $5.9 billion blueprint pays back trust and reserve funds while boosting spending on essential services such as law-enforcement and education.
The central feature of his plan, however, calls for limiting state spending to population plus inflation. Here's how it works: The governor would spend about $607 million of the $758 million in new money pouring into state coffers this year - which equates to a pinch more than 5.5 percent spending growth.
He would then rebate the other $151 million to taxpayers. That money, he says, "can be used to grow the economy and family budgets, instead of growing the government's budget."
He's right. The tax rebate would provide immediate property tax relief, and lighten some of the other spending burdens on families, such as energy costs and tuition increases. The question lawmakers ought to be asking is whether government can put that money to better use. The answer: not likely.
Government should never spend more money than it needs just because the economy is improving. It generates expenditures that can't be sustained during hard times, resulting in deficits, debt and weaker credit. Limiting higher spending to population plus inflation ensures that won't happen.
What South Carolina lawmakers ought to do, if they had any sense, is OK Sanford's budget and then go home. This could be done in 30 days or fewer. It would keep them out of trouble and probably get them all re-elected - a great year for them and taxpayers alike. Why not go for it?
***********************************************************************
Governor's budget sets a standard for limiting growth of state spending
Spartanburg Herald Journal Editorial Staff
Published January 8, 2006
Gov. Mark Sanford issued an executive budget last week that sets a standard for fiscal restraint.
Sanford's budget limits state spending growth to a combination of the increase in the state's population and inflation.
State lawmakers should adopt such a goal as they consider their own state budget. And they should do so early before they get caught up in a year that doesn't present the same tight budget they have experienced in recent years.
It's important to set the perspective early in the budget debate. The state expects to take in almost $815 million in new revenue. That's 8 percent growth in state income. But state agencies have requested $960 million in new spending.
Lawmakers will have their own spending goals. The test will be whether the General Assembly shows proper spending restraint or returns to the free-spending habits of the past.
Lawmakers should follow the broad priorities the governor set for his budget. Sanford allows for $313 million in new state spending: $120 million more for education, an additional $109 million for Medicaid and more for law enforcement. But his budget limits that spending to 5.15 percent.
Sanford suggests allocating the rest of state revenue to several specific priorities. He would repay the state trust funds that were borrowed during lean budget years. He would repair a recurring accounting budget deficit. And he would give taxpayers a rebate that would amount to about $75 per taxpayer.
The first two are necessary to restore the state's fiscal foundation and are likely to be priorities of lawmakers as well.
The tax rebates have been criticized by Sanford's many political enemies in both parties as an election-year gimmick, but they are part of the tax reduction Sanford has been trying to achieve since his election.
But they are not the only solution at a time when the state has many deferred maintenance needs. Lawmakers could take the $151 million that Sanford has allocated to tax rebates and spend it on one-time, catch-up measures such as bridge repairs or school buses.
But the governor's overall perspective on the budget should be followed: Limit the growth of recurring state spending, take care of the state's fiscal condition, and return any money left over to the taxpayers.
***********************************************************************
Sanford's solid budget plan
Post and Courier Editorial Staff
Published January 8, 2006
Gov. Mark Sanford continues to have his budget priorities in order - first finish paying off the debt and restoring trust funds and then give substantial extra dollars for essential services such as education, law enforcement and job recruitment. Not surprisingly, his proposal to return some of the money to the taxpayers has taken the hardest hit from state legislators.
The governor said his budget plan, if adopted, "will allow us to finish the single greatest goal this administration has advocated" since taking office four years ago - "getting our fiscal house in order." Mr. Sanford points out that when he took office three years ago, "the state had an overlooked $155 million unconstitutional deficit, nearly $500 million borrowed from trust and reserve funds, and a $105 million accounting deficit created by the General Assembly and executive branch, beginning in 1991."
"As of this budget, the $155 million deficit has been retired and approximately $324 million has been returned to trust and reserve funds. This budget proposes to completely repay the $173 million in outstanding balances to trust and reserve funds and eliminate the $105 million in the accounting deficit that has been on our books beginning 15 years ago," he said in his budget message.
Thanks to Comptroller General Richard Eckstrom, the long-standing accounting deficit issue was brought to a head several months ago when he decided to use excess funds to correct the mistake. While Mr. Eckstrom later was told only the General Assembly could correct the deficit problem, let's hope he made his point - an important one if the state's AAA credit rating is to be restored.
The governor's legislative critics have taken aim at his proposal to return $151 million in surplus funds to taxpayers. Those rebates, estimated to average $75 per taxpayer, have been decried as an election-year ploy and disdained as the sort of pork-barrel politics the governor has stood against. One legislator compared it to a company giving an employee two hams at Christmas.
The governor got it right in his response that a return to taxpayers of their own money hardly fits the definition of "pork barrel" spending. Mr. Sanford adds that this is the first year since he took office that the state's financial situation has allowed him to propose the rebate. "Taxpayers should share in good economic times, just as they have to pay through the bad economic times," he says.
The state's improved revenue picture has provided for substantial new contributions to critical needs. It proposes, for example, new education dollars, including a $63 million merit program for teachers, increasing the base student funding by $120 million and continuing to fund teacher pay at $300 above the Southeastern average.
There appears to be bipartisan support for the governor's plan to bolster the Department of Commerce's efforts for economic development and job creation. Critics of the lag in economic development score a point when they note that the earlier cutbacks in that department were initiated by the administration. The governor's new budget proposes $11 million in additional revenue for the Cabinet agency.
The budget seeks more support for additional law enforcement officers, including highway patrolmen, SLED agents and security for prisons and juvenile detention facilities. It recommends an additional $23 million for 320 officers, nearly comparable to last year's recommendation for bolstering public safety.
Overall, though, the governor contends that the number of state employees is higher than it should be, indeed, 43 percent higher than the national average. He recommends a cap on state spending, and restates his recommendations for restructuring government to limit duplication and cut waste.
So far, the Legislature has demonstrated an unfortunate reluctance to complete the restructuring of state government. The estimated savings of $19 million a year from a proposed merger of state agencies should finally convince legislative critics to support the governor's efforts to further streamline state government.
posted by SCGOP at 2:20 PM
<< Home