GOV. MARK Sanford has a point when he says Senate budget writers are exaggerating the crisis he will cause if he turns down $700 million in federal stimulus funds.
The “chaos” scenario laid out last week by the Senate Finance Committee leaves out not only the $350 million that Mr. Sanford wants to block but also $578 million that he already authorized.
And those scary school lay-off numbers, it turns out, include job losses that will occur even with the $350 million. (If you’re confused, $350 million is the half of the $700 million that the Legislature wants to spend in the coming fiscal year.) Education Superintendent Jim Rex says getting all the stimulus money would mean school districts would have to lay off just (just!) 1,900 employees, instead of the 5,200 without it.
But while you and I can feel a bit misled by all this, Mr. Sanford has no room to complain. If he’s not doing as good a job selling a skewed version of reality, it’s not for lack of trying. It’s because he’s trying so hard — and stretching so far — that he finally has lost any hint of credibility.
His nadir came last week when he trotted out a “study” that said taking the cash would cost our state more than 20,000 jobs.
That was pretty transparent, as it overlooked the central fact that the governor seems oblivious to: The question isn’t whether the Congress will pass the stimulus package (which is what the study actually seemed to address) or whether South Carolinians will have to pay for it — both are already determined — but whether we will get the money we’re already on the hook for.
The governor’s other numbers aren’t quite as obviously skewed, which is why we need to take a closer look at them. Since Mr. Sanford consolidated most of his claims in a recent op-ed column, let’s just work from that:
• “Last year state government spent $19 billion, and this year we will spend $21 billion.”
The budget passed by the House, which includes all $928 million in stimulus funds, was $21.2 billion, but because of another across-the-board cut last month, it will have to be cut to $21.1 billion. If you left out the $350 million Mr. Sanford wants left out, you’d be down to $20.7 billion. That’s about $800 million more than the current budget of $19.9 billion, which has been cut many times, but it’s less than the $20.9 budget the Legislature passed last spring.
On top of that, more than a third of the money is federal funds, which agencies don’t have the discretion to divert the way they can state funds. And of course our population is increasing, which increases the demand for government services.
• “Even education spending will go from $3.3 billion to $3.5 billion.”
After I raised questions about the first figure, Mr. Sanford’s office sent out a note Tuesday saying it got bad figures from the State Budget Office and it should have said education spending will go from $3.43 billion to $3.55 billion. But even the “correct” numbers demand explanation. The budget passed by the House includes $3.8 billion in state and federal funding for the state Education Department; eliminate stimulus funds, and it drops to $3.55 billion. Last month’s budget cuts would reduce that figure to $3.5 billion. So, the increase would be $70 million, not $200 million.
Still, that is an increase. Sort of. Here’s where context is crucial: The budget the Legislature passed last spring promised $3.8 billion to the schools, so they started this school year thinking they had $3.8 billion to spend; they paid the raises the Legislature mandated, and kept their staff at the levels that would support. Then the state budget cuts started. Since schools were barred by law from laying off teachers or cutting their pay, they had to dip into their reserve funds. That means they will actually spend significantly more than $3.5 billion this year.
So getting $3.5 billion next year would be a reduction, and reductions mean layoffs. (At an average $61,000 in salary and benefits, a $100 million cut takes out more than 1,600 teachers.)
• “Requiring our state to spend beyond its means for the next 24 months to be eligible for all the stimulus monies guarantees that South Carolina will dig itself a $740 million financial hole.”
There’s nothing misleading about this statement. It’s just an interesting example of the governor having it both ways. Here, he criticizes lawmakers for using not just the $350 million but also that $578 million in other stimulus funds to keep programs running; elsewhere, he has criticized the Senate Finance Committee for not using the $578 million in its spending projections.
• “More than $8 billion of total stimulus effort is projected to come to South Carolina, we proposed taking about 10 percent of this and applying it to paying down state debt.”
The bulk of the $8 billion represents reduced federal income taxes or goes directly to local governments. The state government is slated to receive $2.8 billion; $700 million is a quarter of that.
• “This stimulus is more than our state budget spends in an entire year.”
There are at least two problems with this statement. First, as noted above, the state government is eligible for just $2.8 billion. On top of that, the governor is again trying to have it both ways. When he wanted spending to look high, he said our state budget will be $21 billion; that’s the “total funds” from state and federal taxes and fees. Here, when a smaller total suits his needs, he counts only state “general funds,” which will be about $5.5 billion next year without the $350 million.
I suppose I can understand why the governor would manipulate the numbers. If I were trying to sell this idea, I’d be pretty desperate too.
Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.
E-Mail
Print
Get The State newspaper delivered to your home. 
