Mark Sanford on Budget & Economy

Republican SC Governor; previously Representative (SC-1)

Limit spending increases to population growth plus inflation

Our number one priority has been and continues to be to cut income taxes for individuals & small businesses in South Carolina. The proposed FY ‘06-07 Executive Budget limited state government spending increases to population plus inflation, and proposed returning more than $380 million to South Carolinians in the form of a tax rebate.

With our unemployment rate continuing to lag the national average, we will persist in our push for a lower income tax rate for all South Carolinians so we can reverse this trend. We have effectively the highest income tax rate in the Southeast and the 5th highest rate in the nation and we believe that a lower rate will give South Carolina a competitive advantage when it comes to attracting jobs and encouraging business start-ups. Whether attracting new jobs and capital or looking to grow from within, we must remain competitive with other states (Florida has no income tax) and other nations (even Russia & China are lowering rates) if we are to compete globally.

Source: Campaign website, www.SanfordForGovernor.com, “Issues” , Nov 7, 2006

Deficit spending hurts private business & personal finances

Politicians in our nation’s capitol were unable--or unwilling--to control spending. Federal borrowing to cover the deficit was competing with the capital available for the private sector, which consequently was making it tougher for me to earn a living. The more money the politicians sunk into their schemes, the more expensive it got for the rest of us to borrow money. The more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. I couldn’t expand my businesses because the politicians kept expanding theirs.
Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 28 , Nov 4, 2000

Incumbents spend more tax funds the longer they’re in office

A well documented but little discussed study by the National Taxpayers Union showed that regardless of party, the longer a person is in office, the greater his tendency to spend the taxpayers’ money. It’s not that representatives become evil people--just that they’re human. Basic biology teaches how remarkable adaptable human beings are to the world around us. Unfortunately, Washington is a place where large sums of money become rounding errors. Over time, congressmen become accustomed to the large sums and the inevitable rounding errors that are part and parcel of the political process. And while being in Washington may change the lawmaker’s perspective, what doesn’t change is how hard folks at home must work to send that same money to Capitol Hill. For me this always meant less is more when it comes to term limits. The fewer number of years in office, the less time to grow accustomed to the idea that $50 million is a rounding error.
Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 17 , Nov 4, 2000

Federal deficit weakens dollar against foreign currencies

In 1995 the budget debate led to a government shutdown. At the time of the debate, our nation’s debt was nearly $5 trillion and growing faster than the economy. Even today, in the era of “balanced budgets,” that is still the case. If we stay on our current course, we’ll continue to see our dollar, and consequently, everything you and I own, fall in value.

Twenty years ago, the dollar was worth 360 yen. Today it’s worth slightly more than 100 yen. In official Washington, this fact is indeed cause for alarm. But far from worrying that our currency has lost more than half its value during that time. Government policymakers often tell us our currency is too strong--and should be weakened even further.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 52 , Nov 4, 2000

No congressional pay raise until budget is balanced

People don’t go to Congress for the money. They go because it affords them the chance to affect policy. To ask for a salary level seven times higher than the national average is asking too much. In the summer of 1999, I offered an amendment to hold the president’s pay at $200,000, rather than double it to $400,000. The amendment had little to do with the president’s compensation package, which in total is worth several million dollars a year. It had everything to do with a glass ceiling on member pay. Members knew they could never legitimize paying Congressmen and Senators more than the president’s visible wage.

All these machinations aside, the basic point was this: we did not deserve a raise. If the budget is actually balanced in five years, then Congress may want to consider a raise. I don’t think it will be. One of my campaign promises had been not to take a pay raise until the budget was balanced--because if Congress is serious about spending less, we ought to begin with ourselves.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 69-71 , Nov 4, 2000

Highway bills are congressional bribery

Young boys often receive party favors after attending another child’s birthday party. Transportation Committee members got the “mother” of all party favors for attending and supporting Bud Shuster’s [the committee chairman’s] mark-up. Friends of the committee and House members facing tough reelection fights got $20 million to $30 million. Everybody else got around $15 million--but only if they voted for the entire bill. If a Congressman refused to vote for the bill, or was sitting on the fence, Shuster tried to bribe them.

Others were unhappy too. Self-limited members took to the house floor and voiced genuine outrage with this highway bill.

The likely result of breaking the caps for highways would be a mad rush to break the caps on every other government program. After all, how could the other House committee chairmen sit by and watch Bud Shuster get everything he wanted, and more, and not draw the conclusion that they were entitled to oodles more money, too?

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 72&75 , Nov 4, 2000

Sponsored bill allowing $3 on tax form to pay National Debt.

Sanford sponsored allowing $3 on 1040 form to pay off National Debt

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: Amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit an individual to designate three dollars on his or her income tax return (six dollars on a joint return) to be used to reduce the public debt of the United States.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT: Pres. Eisenhower apparently once said that he believed that there could be no surplus as long as our Nation was in debt. I come from that school of thought, and yet that is not exactly where we are right now in Washington.

Where we are right now is debating whether or not 90 percent or 50 percent, or some number in between, of these projected future surpluses should be allocated to the debt. What struck me is the fact that really more than just the Congress should be involved in that debate. It is for that reason that I introduce today the Taxpayers' Choice Debt Reduction Act.

What this bill would do would be to simply take the 1040, the tax return as we now know it. And right now, we can send $3 to the presidential campaign. This would create another box wherein we could send 3 bucks to debt reduction. That is not enough money to change our national debt, but it is enough money to make a small step in an important debate that we all ought to be a part of.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means; never called for a House vote.

Source: Taxpayers' Choice Debt Reduction Act (H.R.5349) 00-HR5349 on Sep 29, 2000

Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto.

Sanford signed the Contract with America:

[As part of the Contract with America, within 100 days we pledge to bring to the House Floor the following bill]:

The Fiscal Responsibility Act:
A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out-of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
Source: Contract with America 93-CWA3 on Sep 27, 1994

Other governors on Budget & Economy: Mark Sanford on other issues:
SC Gubernatorial:
Nikki Haley
SC Senatorial:
Jim DeMint
Lindsey Graham

Newly seated 2010:
NJ Chris Christie
VA Bob McDonnell

Term-limited as of Jan. 2011:
AL Bob Riley
CA Arnold Schwarzenegger
GA Sonny Perdue
HI Linda Lingle
ME John Baldacci
MI Jennifer Granholm
NM Bill Richardson
OK Brad Henry
OR Ted Kulongoski
PA Ed Rendell
RI Donald Carcieri
SC Mark Sanford
SD Mike Rounds
TN Phil Bredesen
WY Dave Freudenthal
Newly Elected Nov. 2010:
AL: Robert Bentley (R)
CA: Jerry Brown (D)
CO: John Hickenlooper (D)
CT: Dan Malloy (D)
FL: Rick Scott (R)
GA: Nathan Deal (R)
HI: Neil Abercrombie (D)
IA: Terry Branstad (R)
KS: Sam Brownback (R)
ME: Paul LePage (R)
MI: Rick Snyder (R)
MN: Mark Dayton (D)
ND: Jack Dalrymple (R)
NM: Susana Martinez (R)
NV: Brian Sandoval (R)
NY: Andrew Cuomo (D)
OH: John Kasich (R)
OK: Mary Fallin (R)
PA: Tom Corbett (R)
RI: Lincoln Chafee (I)
SC: Nikki Haley (R)
SD: Dennis Daugaard (R)
TN: Bill Haslam (R)
VT: Peter Shumlin (D)
WI: Scott Walker (R)
WY: Matt Mead (R)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Contact info:
Email Contact Form
Fax number:

Page last updated: Nov 23, 2011