 "Photo:")
Allow me to apologize to the Gamecock readers who read my column for not supplying your weekly dose of liberalism or throw-up, depending on your politics. I was sick last week.
Since my last "real" column two weeks ago, the stimulus standoff between Gov. Mark Sanford and - well - South Carolina has really heated up. One could see the opinion from S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster and Sen. Lindsey Graham's independent study of the Clyburn Bypass legislation - that Gov. Sanford has sole power to accept or reject the $700 million in state stabilization funds going to education and public safety - as a victory for the governor. Yeah, right. The Office of Management and Budget came to the same conclusion.
In laymen's terms, they are cutting off any avenue of escape the governor has to pass responsibility for accepting the funds to the General Assembly.
I say: Good job. Sanford wants nothing to do with public education, much less the best interests of the state. An article in Clemson's student paper from last month puts the per-pupil spending in South Carolina at $7,787 a year, below the national average of $8,287. Even if South Carolina somehow found the funding to support its public schools at the rate of the top five states for education funding (and achievement) - an average of $11,758 in 2008 - it would still be more fiscally conservative for South Carolina's families to prop the public schools. In comparison, high school tuition at Columbia's two largest Protestant private schools averages $13,700 without books, and non-Catholic tuition at Cardinal Newman, a Columbia-area private high school, is $9,816 without books.
When you crunch the numbers, even if you raise education funding to Top 5 levels, the only reason why public school shouldn't be fiscally sound to liberals and conservatives alike is "My kids go to Catholic school." So, if it is fiscally sound to educate in the public schools, why are we neglecting kids on the I-95 or I-26 corridors? Why can't our kids learn in Lancaster, Laurens or Estill? The question is not whether we have the resources to equip our children with the knowledge they need to compete with kids from California to China, Indiana to India. It's not even a matter of whether we have the money. The question is whether Gov. Sanford will ever look back at his early State of the State addresses where he quoted Thomas Friedman and realize that President Obama and the members of Congress are giving him the opportunity to invest where his mouth is.
Sanford is throwing it all away.
If Sanford's motivation is to run against President Obama in 2012, he's already lost. You can't justify his blatant disregard for school kids, the unemployed or public safety and call it fiscal responsibility. It's fiscal fallacy. Keep this up and run for president, and Sanford's liable to lose his own state in the general election. Really.
Be the first to comment on this article!