Sanford rips into Senate as 'dying ground' for proposals

As state lawmakers head into the homestretch, reporter Robert Behre interviewed Gov. Mark Sanford about how his 2007 agenda is faring, his at-times testy relations with the General Assembly and why his name keeps popping up as a presidential or vice presidential pick.

QUESTION: What do you feel has been your biggest accomplishment so far into your second term?

ANSWER: The verdict is still out there. We have made a very strong push on DOT (Department of Transportation) restructuring. If there was ever a poster child for restructuring, it's indeed DOT, where literally every paper in the state has editorialized on the need for change and yet we have an amazingly recalcitrant political system. There is not an outcome yet. We're close to the goal line, but we're not there.

Q: Why should the public care about the makeup of DOT's commission?

A: Because it's not as far from your life as you might think. If you're stuck in traffic going from Summerville to Charleston in the morning time or the reverse commute in the evening time, well, you can thank DOT for part of that. We have a DOT system that is biased toward areas where there is not growth. Our view has been that we have a system that is in essence merit-based, where you put resources where there is the most need. ...

Congestion issues are real in and around the Charleston area. We actually spend more than other states in the Southeast on a per-person basis on DOT, but as I travel other roads in other states, I don't think we get more in the way of results.

Q: What has been your biggest disappointment so far this year?

A: The way that what people think on a grass-roots level, in any case, just does not connect with what's happening in Columbia. We won with a rather convincing margin with the way that tide was running that Tuesday night in November. You would think that some folks in Columbia would say, 'Woo, I guess that says something.' But it doesn't. You've got some senior senator who lives in a secure district, it really doesn't matter what's happening across South Carolina.

The Senate continues to be the dying ground of a number of different proposals that we have. It's not a disappointment. The reality I've come to see is that you've just got to begin another campaign all over again, and this time it's toward the ideas that you ran on as opposed to your own candidacy.

Q: What are your plans for regrouping and trying to persuade lawmakers to restructure state government by placing more constitutional office holders in the governor's Cabinet?

A: Sunlight. It's been said that sunlight is the ultimate disinfectant in the political process, and I think a lot of people back home don't know the degree to which their (representative) or senator votes against some of the various things that they've asked me to work on. We're going to look for more explicit ways of making real to folks the degree to which people are lining up with where we're coming from or lining up against where we're coming from.

Q: Do you feel the state should pass some sort of smoking restrictions or clarify that local governments should be allowed to pass their own restrictions?

A: I've long believed in federalism, the idea that the government that's most local generally governs best. On the smoking issue, I think it ought to be a municipal decision. You have that competition of different ideas that work or don't work.

I don't think the state should do anything to pre-empt the municipalities. We consistently trample on the notion of home rule here at the state level, and that's something we've fought against.

Q: On the immigration issue, would you sign a bill requiring businesses contracted by state and local governments to check the legal status of their employees?

A: I would. It's already happened over in Georgia, and it's not proven to be cataclysmic to the business environment over there. We've had a bunch of business folks come in this week and say, 'We can't do that, it will cripple our business prospects.' That is not the case with what's happened in these other states.

Nobody wants to take the first step on the immigration issue. You've got the feds not wanting to deal with it. You've got some of the chamber crowd not wanting to deal with it, and yet you've got a lot of people on the grass-roots level very upset and bothered by the fact that nobody's dealing with it. I think that would be a very important step.

Q: Outside your office you have a "spending clock" showing how quickly the state budget would spend the $1.3 billion coming into Columbia. How concerned are you about the status of the state budget?

A: I'm quite concerned. I very strongly believe that this sets us up for a fall down the road. We've been through mid-year budget cuts. They're not fun. They hurt some of the neediest of the needy. That's the road we're setting up for.

I think there will be consequences both to the taxpayer and the people served by government, and they are relatively bizarre priorities. We're going to take $25 million out of Medicaid and create an annualization hole so we can have more spending for things like about $1 million for a bean museum over in Florence County. In our budget, we proposed 100 new troopers on the road, because there are still way too many people dying on the roadways of South Carolina, and we're going to take, in the Senate budget, that proposal down from 100 to 50 officers and instead redirect some of that law enforcement into a security detail for what some have argued is a security detail for the lieutenant governor to protect him from himself. There's just a lot of very strange things in there.

The bottom line is that South Carolina government will have grown by 40 percent over the past four years. People's paychecks and wallets across the state have not grown by a corresponding 40 percent, so why should government?

Q: Given what you just said about the budget and restructuring, do you feel you have a better working relationship with state lawmakers today, or is it about the same?

A: I would say some in the House have been real allies, pushing if not for all of what we wanted, then for at least a portion of it. We've had more difficulty over in the Senate side. At this point, you've got (Senate President Pro Tem) Glenn (McConnell) actively working against DOT restructuring. I think that's a real problem. And it's fairly hollow logic. He's said we can't put that much money before one executive director. But at the same time he's argued that we ought to have a Secretary of Education as a Cabinet member. That's five times the amount of money. Until we get our arms around the structure of government, I think both the cost and results of government will be found wanting.

Q: When can coastal property owners expect some relief on their insurance bills?

A: I think what first needs to be recognized is the crisis we've had in what's occurred with coastal insurance rates is much larger than South Carolina.

It will not be tomorrow. People who go out and make promises that we can solve this problem for you tomorrow are being disingenuous.

What people need to realize is this problem is much bigger than the coast of South Carolina. It is worldwide coastal properties, and it has had a significant impact. We're trying to respond to it in ways that don't exacerbate that problem. I think we've been very steady in our response, and I know it's beginning to pay dividends, based on reports I've heard from (S.C. Department of Insurance Director) Scott Richardson with regards to some of the reinsurance markets.

Q: What do you make of the presidential race so far?

A: There's been excitement. There's about to be a lot more. It's a big event for our state given the timing of our primary. All eyes will be on South Carolina. It's a big deal in all senses of the word. Very directly, South Carolinians will have a big hand in who becomes the next president of the United States.

Q: Why does your name keep coming up as a presidential or vice presidential possibility?

A: Some of my enemies want to hurt me, so they keep it out there. Seriously, it's been kind and flattering. ... Literally, some people who love you keep bringing it up because they love you and other people who don't like you keep bringing it up because they don't like you. There are a lot of different reasons it's stayed out there, none of which has been based in any kind of fact because we're committed to being right here in South Carolina.

Q: When you talked with Charleston County Republicans a few weeks ago, you urged them not to let the excitement of the presidential race keep them from paying attention to state and local issues. Like what?

A: The third issue I ran on, which oftentimes can fall to the edges if you don't watch out, is quality of life. It's an incredibly timely issue given MeadWestvaco's Wednesday announcement that they're doing something with 70,000 acres just to the southwest of Charleston. I think quality of life, congestion, retaining some of what has attracted so many people here in the first place is the issue of the coast over the next 20 years. You can either completely react and therefore end up looking the way that south Florida does or you can be a bit more progressive in trying to get ahead of a mammoth wave of people coming our way.