The Trust Committed To Me, by Mark Sanford

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Source: http://www.govote.com/Trust_Committed.htm

April 8, 2008



(Click for Amazon book review)

BOOK REVIEW by Jesse Gordon, OnTheIssues.org:

Our readers might wonder why Gov. Mark Sanford's book is here among the 2008 presidential books. That's because we predict that McCain will choose Sanford for Vice President. But first let's review the book.

This book is Sanford's story of his 3 terms as a South Carolina representative the the U.S. House. It was published in 2000, when Sanford was retiring from the House, and presumably was thinking ahead to running for Governor. Hence this book outlines Sanford's accomplishments in the House, and his political philosophy, in preparation for his first gubernatorial run in 2002.

The cover of this book, and its title, might make you think that it's all about Family Values or something about children. In fact, it's all about term limits, the issue around which Sanford defines his 3 terms in the U.S. House. The "trust" which was committed to Sanford in the title means "trust that Sanford would fulfill his campaign promise to limit himself to three terms in the House." Which he did, as he notes many, many times in this book. I guess the cover is just a nice photo of one of Sanford's sons on a nice South Carolina beach.

Sanford was elected to the U.S. House in the 1994 Republican takeover of the U.S. House based on newt Gingrich's "Contract With America." Sanford had not been involved with politics before -- he considers himself a "citizen-legislator" --
and he had no problem accepting the term-limit item of the Contract With America (many others in the same GOP freshman class DID have trouble with that item, including some who promised to exit and are still in the House!)

Because the Contract With America never did pass Congressional term limits, Sanford describes himself as a "self-limited" House member -- he voluntarily restricted himself to three terms. Sanford makes a compelling case that "self-limited" Congressmen really do vote differently than other Congressmen -- because they don't have to worry about getting re-elected, and don't plan to have a career in the House.

You can read the rest of the details in the excerpts below. One key aspect is that Sanford considers self-limited Congressmen to be immunized against pork-barrel spending (and to some degree, against corruption), because pork is mostly based on a desire to buy off one's re-election (and serious corruption is only possible when one has more ppwer and experience). That core value makes Sanford very compatible with McCain's core issues of reform. Even if the two men agreed on nothing else, that would be enough for a compatible ticket.

But Sanford brings four other key factors for McCain:

He is young (born 1960). McCain would be the oldest president ever elected, so that's a factor, and also, if Obama wins, Sanford provides a same-age counter. He is Southern (a popular re-elected governor of South Carolina, where McCain has had a "troubled" political past). If Obama wins, the South is certainly not a sure-win for the GOP, since the Democrats can expect very high black voter turnout, and the South has several states with very high black populations. He is a governor. McCain has no "executive experience", which normally would be a big factor, but will likely be less important against another Senator. Sanford, however, is a "budget hawk" (which governors actually do something about, as part of their executive experience) -- which matters because McCain is weak on economics. He is conservative. Sanford's conservative credentials have never been questioned, as McCain's routinely are.

Readers might also note that Sanford was very briefly considered a 2008 prospect way back in December 2006. OnTheIssues, in fact, included Sanford on our watch-list of possible contenders.
So keep your eyes peeled....

-- Jesse Gordon, jesse@OnTheIssues.org

Source: http://www.govote.com/Archive/Trust_Committed_Mark_Sanford.htm

Mark Sanford in The Trust Committed To Me, by Mark Sanford

On Government Reform: Cut his own staff and returned funds for staff pay annually

I was determined not to have a typical congressional office. I wanted one that was small, effective, and dedicated to my program. I also wanted to spend less money on staff that did the typical incumbent. Most congressmen spend every nickel they get.
This is hard to do since each House office receives about $1 million per year. Our goal was to treat the money as if it were my own. With this approach we returned over $200,000 to the Treasury every year I have been in office.

As part of the Contract with America, one of the first things we did as a Congress was to cut committee staff by a third. I thought it was only fitting to do the same thing with my own office. My naivet‚ stirred up a hornet's nest. I was asked why I was being so stingy with the money we were given, even though it was "just government money." We did cut committee staff in 1995. Today, were almost back where we started--with more staffers than we need, costing more than we can afford, to do work that often isn't necessary.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 10-13 Nov 4, 2000

On Government Reform: Supported 6- year congressional term-limits

The Contract with America's tenth and most controversial item was congressional term limits. I gladly signed the pledge, but even as we gathered to sign the Contract, it was doubtful whether there would be enough votes to pass any form of term limits
amendment to the constitution.

That we could even bring term limits to the floor for a vote was something of a milestone. Since the first Congress in 1789, more than 140 term limit bills had been introduced. The debate on term limits promised to be rough, and probably unsuccessful. Members were divided into three camps: those, like me, who strongly supported a three-term limit, those who strongly favored a six- term house limit; and those who opposed any and all term limits.

Those of us who had already pledged to limit our own terms could see that the proposal to enact term limits by constitutional amendment was dead in the water. Passage would require a two-thirds majority of both House and Senate

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 14-15 Nov 4, 2000

On Budget & Economy: 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

On Budget & Economy: 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

On Government Reform: Pledged never to take any PAC money

While my GOP primary opponent Van Hipp and I saw pretty much eye-to-eye on the deficit, federal spending and other issues, we parted company over term limits and PACs. Hipp had received baskets of PAC money during the campaign. I'd taken none and pledged never to take any, if elected.

On the issue of PAC money, my general election opponent, Robert Barber, raised the point that he did not want to unilaterally disarm when it comes to fundraising. Over the last five years in Washington, I have heard his argument used by Republicans and Democrats alike. In politics we never seem to like the idea of just leading the way because we think it right or what we believe.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 40&46 Nov 4, 2000

On Budget & Economy: 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

On Government Reform: 1995 government shutdown was a good thing, not a crisis

In 1995 if all you read was the Washington Post or New York Times, you'd have thought that the government shutdown was the worst crisis to hit the nation since the civil war. Once the networks joined in with pictures of idled federal workers, the pressure to cave in to Clinton escalated. But it wasn't pressure from home. In my district, some people might be upset that their passports were delayed, or that certain federal offices were closed. But these were inconveniences for the most part, not crises. In D.C. itself, those furloughed federal workers didn't form picket lines- they went shopping.

I thought the shutdown was a good thing. It didn't bother me that certain federal agencies were temporarily closed. I knew that the important ones--like the Social Security Administration, the Defense Department and the FAA, were operating normally. The republic was safe, retirees were getting their checks, and the airplanes were taking off and landing without incident.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 54-55 Nov 4, 2000

On Free Trade: Sugar and peanut subsides make no sense

In 1996, the federal sugar price support program meant that sugar costs in America were roughly double world prices. Today, that number has grown to be 3 times world prices. Like its sister programs, supporting the price of peanuts, the sugar program is incomprehensible. If you raised the finest peanuts in the world in our backyard and then tried to sell them on the local corner, we could be arrested. It's illegal to sell non-quota peanuts. No one in my district would say that makes any sense.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 64-65 Nov 4, 2000

On Corporations: Sugar subsidy is corporate welfare to a wealthy few

On the House floor in 1996, I said: "This vote is a gut check. It asks us who we are and what we do really believe in. As Republicans, we talk about free enterprise, we talk about open markets. Yet, the federal sugar subsidy program has a guaranteed floo
price of 23 cents. When I go to the produce store, I do not see a guaranteed floor price for tomatoes. When I go to the car shop, I do not see a guaranteed price for repairing the car. When I go to the hardware store, I do not see a guaranteed price for hammers. Yet are we going to make an exception here?

"You are looking at $1.4 billion of benefit. This subsidy flows down to one family in Palm Beach that gets millions every year. This style of profiteering does not pass the common sense test, nor doe the sugar program.

The vote to end this absurd corporate welfare program came to a disappointing result. Term limits would do much to end such patently offensive and nonsensical programs as the sugar subsidy."

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 65-67 Nov 4, 2000

On Government Reform: Require that congressional pay raises have open votes

Most folks dislike sneaky people. So given the way Congress connived to boost its pay in September of 1997, people have yet another reason to dislike and mistrust Congress as a whole and politicians as a breed. If Congress wants another pay raise, they should vote for it openly, not tuck it within another bill. It's understandable that some in Congress would want to sneak a pay hike into the first legislation that comes along.

Some of us tried to reverse the pay rise. We didn't have enough votes. 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.
Along with a handful of others I would donate the raise to charity, but once again we are losing on something I thought would easily be seen as the wrong thing to do.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 68-69 Nov 4, 2000

On Budget & Economy: 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

On Social Security: Off-budget accounting undermines trust in government

One house colleague talked about how we should move Social Security and its so-called Trust Funds off-budget and how John Kasich, the incoming head of the House Budget Committee, had said no. The reason? If we removed Social Security, and the mountain of money pouring onto it, from the budget, we wouldn't have been able to formally balance the budget by the target year of 2002. We needed the excess tax revenue Social Security was generating to mask the true size of the yearly budget deficit.

This creative accounting was the type of behavior that consistently undermined people's trust in government Even before we could get started on the hard work of cutting government down to a manageable size, the old bulls who publicly said they wanted to balance the budget and cut wasteful programs were already hard at work cooking the books. And they were doing it with Social Security, the one program almost everyone privately admitted was headed for trouble.

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 7-8 Nov 4, 2000

On Budget & Economy: 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

On Technology: Highways are Congress' responsibility, but don't break bank

I joined with [mostly self-term-limited] Congressmen in asking the President to veto the outrageous 1998 transportation bill [which included millions in "bribes" to Districts of Congressmen who voted for it]. Providing such internal improvements is part of our responsibility as Congressmen. But we don't have to break the bank and plunge the nation further into debt to do it. When I ran for office the first time, I said I would vote against any piece of legislation--regardless of the good it had for the District--if it was bad for the country as a whole. This bill was a rotten deal for the taxpayer.

If it were approved, it would shatter the spending caps we had fought for--and nearly lost control of Congress for--back in 1997. At that time, wit
much self-congratulatory fanfare, Congress and the White House fashioned a balanced budget agreement that promised to limit all areas of government spending, including highways. This bill made hash of that agreement less than a year after it was written.

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

On Foreign Policy: 1997: proposed freezing State Department budget at $6.3B

International spending is about $12 billion for foreign aid and $6 billion for the State Department. My proposal only dealt with the State Department portion, and left one of Washington's sacred cows, foreign aid, untouched.

Freezing State Department funding at 1997 levels ($6.3 billion each year), as opposed to increasing it by $265 million for each of the next two years was a no-brainer to me. Every day families and businesses are asked to do more with less--was it too much to ask for the State Department to manage with what they already had?

This amendment was consistent with testimony given to the international relations committee suggesting that if we merged the two cold war programs--the US Information Agency and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency--we would see over $1 billion in savings. This bill did indeed fold the two programs into the State Department. But instead of saving $1 billion, spending at the State Department was set to rise by $265 million!

Source: The Trust Committed to Me, by Mark Sanford, p. 79 Nov 4, 2000

On Government Reform: Term-limited Congressmen do behave differently

In the large unruly band of Republicans newly elected in the election of 1994, three stand out: Matt Salmon of Mesa, Arizona; Tom Cuburn of Muskogee Oklahoma; and Mark Sanford of Charlestown, South Carolina. They vowed that they would serve only three
2-year terms and then leave the House of Representatives. Wonder of wonders, they actually kept their word, declining to run a fourth term in 2000.

Sanford's message is clear and consistent: term limits do make a difference.
Imagine how different our government would be if the entire House of Representatives were term-limited. The tiny band of self-limited Congressmen did vote differently. The explanation here by Sanford is that the self-limited house members "don't have
to preoccupy themselves with reelection and career. Reelection fever is what leads politicians to exaggerate good news and water down bad news. People want something a lot simpler: they want the truth. A lot of people in Washington seem to miss this.

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