South Carolina, you got some 'splaining to do!
I am generally considered a fairly bright person, however, I am just not understanding this whole scenario. S.C. Governor Mark Sanford goes to South America last year as part of a tax-payer funded trip (why? What possible business does a Governor have globe trotting on the taxpayer's dime? But, I digress. For the purposes of this post, we'll presume the trip itself was valid.). Governor Sanford, once he is caught with his hand in the proverbial Argentinian cookie jar, confesses to an affair, and pays back $3,330 to the state treasurer to pay for the cost previously charged to taxpayers for his rendezvous. http://www.thesunnews.com/news/breaking_news/story/962319.html
The State Law Enforcement Division "(SLED") then claims to conduct an investigation into the improper use of taxpayer money by Governor Sanford, when he used the money to visit his mistress. Today, SLED states there were no improprieties. http://www.wsls.com/sls/news/politics/article/south_carolina_investigators_say_governor_did_not_break_law_to_visit_mistre/40425/
I just don't get it. Either it's alright for Governors to use taxpayer dollars to visit their mistresses, in which case Governor Sanford didn't have to pay back the $3,300 to the state; or there was an impropriety. Somebody from SLED really needs to explain to me how this scenario is any different from a bank robber who is caught and who promises to pay back the money stolen. Why do we prosecute the bank robber, but we say an elected official did nothing wrong in using a taxpayer funded trip to see his mistress?
As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. " And, I would add, act accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment