Former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford
engaged in personal indiscretions. To the point, his behavior was reprehensible. He
lied to his state, claiming to be taking a trip along the Appalachian trails,
when he was visiting his mistress in Argentina. Shortly after the revelation,
the South Carolina legislature censured
him, and he had to pay
the largest ethical fine in
South Carolina's history.
Despite his personal failing, one should not
neglect the greater good that he encouraged in his state.
He attempted to pass a statewide school
choice program, which would have permitted students to enroll in
any school of their choice. ABC libertarian journalist John Stossel spotlighted
this courageous effort, which unfortunately failed in the state legislature. He refused the Obama administration's wasteful stimulus
dollars in 2009. He also resisted pork and excessive spending, even
bringing two pigs to
the state legislature to mock the spend-thrift laws passed.
These reminders are not meant to minimize his
personal failing, yet voters should not neglect the good which he did for his
state.
If Mark Sanford was seeking higher office merely
because he wanted to solidify any forgiveness for his previous peccadilloes,
that would be unfortunate. However, the state of South Carolina should not
settle for a liberal Democrat just because of the one-time libertine past of
the fiscal conservative, limited government Republican running for the seat.
A short rundown of Sanford's Democratic opponents
major views should be enough to discourage anyone from giving her a term
in Washington:
On fiscal
policy, she refuses to rule out higher taxes:
In the short-run, I do not support new taxes.
Before we raise taxes, we need to drop the foolish idea of across-the-board
cuts and use the regular Congressional process to enact measured, targeted
cuts. I’m not saying that will be easy or make everyone happy, but that is
Congress’ job.
"Before we raise taxes". . .as if taxes
need to be raised! She outlines the non-partisan sources which expose the waste
and fraud in government. As if cleaning out the waste and fraud justifies
taking more from hard-working families.
Colbert Busch's statements on economic
policy and green technology should
also raise red flags.
I support investing in a clean-energy
economy. Here in the 1st District, alternative energy provides
good jobs with salaries above the national average. The market is
growing—projections estimate that the wind industry alone will add an
additional 20,000 jobs, $2 billion in wages and $600 billion in state and local
revenue in the next two decades.
Has she already forgotten about Solyndra, the $500 million boondoggle which cost taxpayers
because of faulty, perhaps fraudulent, loan guarantees to a California solar
panel company that went bust in 2011? The Obama administration floated
taxpayer-backed loans to nineteen
green
tech companies. Clean energy investments will only clean out the
taxpayer and will not clean out the waste and fraud which Colbert-Busch claims
to care about.
Regarding
health care policy, she refuses to recognize the outrageous cost
overrruns associated with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Around the country, media pundits and middle
income earners are complaining about the rise in premiums. Obamacare is taxing
everyone. Businesses are struggling to catch up with the growing regulations
emanating from the law. Insurance carriers are raising costs or leaving the
health insurance industry altogether. While trumpeting her father's connection
with health care, Ms. Busch offers a flimsy non-stance on the issue:
The debate in Washington has been just as
frustrating because too often it’s just about politics. Everyone is either all
for the Affordable Care Act or all against it.
It’s time to be practical and not political. I
believe there are good and bad provisions in the new law and that more needs to
be done. I will work with patients, providers, hospitals and businesses in the
1st District to implement what works and fix what doesn’t.
The law needs to be repealed. Even members of her
own party have called the law "train wreck." Despite the Supreme
Court ruling in 2012, the law faces new, "taxing"
legal challenges.
Mark Sanford has a record of cutting costs and
cutting spending. Looking past his personal failings, South Carolina voters in
the first Congressional District should not fail to elect Sanford to Congress,
and prevent one more rubber-stamp vote for President Obama's liberal agenda
from advancing any further.