Like the legislature, we don't agree with a number of Sanford's suggestions. And his antic of bringing two pigs into the Statehouse to chasten his fellow Republicans for putting too much pork in the state budget did nothing but harm. Our leadership simply must have a better way to communicate than through photo-ops, news conferences and gimmicky stunts.
But give the governor credit for using his brain, doing his homework, stating his principles, dealing with the devil in the details, making suggestions and providing in-depth reasoning for his suggestions.
There need to be more people challenging the status quo in a state that trails the nation in areas such as per-capita income and leads the nation in a number of areas involving violence, lack of safety and poor health.
Unlike any previous governor, Sanford conducted extensive budget hearings with state agency heads. He then introduced a budget of more than 300 pages, the likes of which this state has never seen.
But in the end, Sanford had to rely heavily on one of the few tools available to the single person elected statewide to guide state policy: the veto. And he was trampled by the legislature that, in a nutshell, felt like he should butt out. They overrode all but a handful of his 106 budget vetoes quicker than most legislators could read Sanford's 43 pages of detailed explanation for each action. They quickly overrode his veto of the "kitchen sink" bill that became such a grab-bag it was a joke even among legislators.
In a state with the governor's office and the Statehouse led by Republicans, the governor is being faulted for being fiscally conservative and libertarian.
Sanford needs to learn how to communicate better and how to sway legislators to his way of thinking if he wants to see more than a couple of his long list of to-do items pass. He has a lot to learn. It can get no worse than the pig gimmick.
At the same time, legislators need to learn how to listen to criticism of the old way. It is their right, duty and constitutional role to keep the executive branch in check. But they must keep an open mind when a governor shows the absurdity of a multi-billion-dollar operation with a chief executive controlling only 16 percent of the budget. The overwhelming legislative power in this state dates to the era when the governor was an arm of the king of England, and naturally the locals wanted a bigger say in things. But those days are gone, and Sanford is not being naive or selfish when he points to the folly of today's governance in South Carolina.
Perhaps no one wants to hear it, but we share the following two paragraphs from the governor's widely ignored budget veto message:
"In this appropriations act, seven of the eight higher education institutions that employ taxpayer-funded contract lobbyists received a total of $6.4 million in new money -- an average of more than $900,000 per school. On the other hand, the 20 schools that had no registered lobbyists had their budgets reduced by an average of $650,000 per school.
"Clearly, we have a system that is in need of change. First, we should enact a ban on taxpayer-funded contract lobbyists and, second, we need to create a Commission on Higher Education that provides leadership and oversight of how funds go to higher education. Without these needed changes, we will continue to see colleges use our tax dollars to leverage for more dollars in Columbia through a process based more on politics rather than merit."
South Carolina can improve, but it will require a willingness by leaders to explore change and listen to each other.