Gov. Mark Sanford will take a slimmed-down agenda into his last two years in office, abandoning some of the plans he brought with him to Columbia.

In an interview with The State, Sanford reflected on his first six years in office and what can be done in his remaining time.

Declining to publicly name names, Sanford said lawmakers who have a financial interest in the status quo — whether a paycheck or a job for a relative — have thwarted his plans for reform.

However, Sanford said he still can make a long-term difference in South Carolina by influencing who will follow him into office. Sanford said he likely will support a candidate, but declined to endorse anyone in the potential 2010 field.

Sanford said he realizes he will not eliminate the state’s income tax on individuals and has given up on a handful of other priorities. But, he said, he will press for other reforms, including eliminating the state income tax on businesses.

Sanford also will revive the school-choice debate, pushing a plan to give parents tax credits if they send their children to private schools.

Asked who the GOP should nominate for president in 2012, Sanford — who recently gained a national platform as chairman of the Republican Governors Association — demurred, joking he should say someone in their 80s to eliminate himself from speculation.

Five things Sanford said

Highlights of Gov. Mark Sanford’s interview with The State

Sanford says his proposed reforms have failed because some lawmakers are profiting from the current system. Lawmakers are busy finding jobs for family members or landing clients for their businesses. The result, he said, is opposition to changes designed to make government more efficient.

He has given up on some of his ideas. Among them: eliminating the state’s income tax on individuals and comprehensive tax reform. But he will continue to push to eliminate the state’s income taxes on businesses.

He will support a candidate in the 2010 governor’s race who will continue his agenda. But Sanford was cryptic about whom he would support.

Private-school vouchers will be an issue again in the Legislature this year. Sanford said the new legislative session — including friendly freshmen — means he can push for tax credits to parents who send their children to private schools.

He says he’s not running for president. Instead, Sanford said, the GOP should look for a nominee “in their early 80s,” eliminating the 48-year-old.

QUESTION: What are your top priorities for the legislative session and what do you hope to accomplish?

ANSWER: I hope to pull across the finish line a number of things we’ve been working on for a number of years now, chief among them restructuring.

You know the bill last year that made its way through the House and died in the Senate, hopefully we can cross that bridge — particularly given the new recruits on the Senate side — on a Department of Administration. ...

There’s still this whole vacillation of, “Should you give to the voters a chance to vote on, in fact, the form of government they’d like to see?” The different (statewide) officeholders want to protect their turf. That’s a tough one. But maybe you could get the whole (governor and lieutenant governor) running on the same ticket routine here in South Carolina. I’d very much like to see that. Again, it won’t impact me, but it would impact future governorships.

So, continued work on restructuring. Multiply that times a number of different agency restructurings that we’ve been talking about for some time now. ...

We’re in a brutal budget year and so these are horrible choices.

As other folks look at those choices and how unpalatable they are in a political sense, maybe that’s going to tip the scale toward “Well, in fact, we could come up with some savings with an Administration (Department) and other things on health-care restructuring, administrative restructuring and maybe that’s a better choice than cutting this program or that program that has this constituency or that constituency.”

So, that may be the silver lining to today’s bad economic times. ...

I think particularly relevant is that corporate tax, given the disparities that now exist on that front.

Education choice, we’re going to push on that front — particularly important given the composition of the House and Senate with some of the new folks coming in.

QUESTION: Do you have an idea what that proposal is going to look like yet?

ANSWER: Working with some allies in the House and Senate to fine-tune it, but a more comprehensive form of choice. Again, particularly relevant in these budget times.

Do the math. If 10 percent of the kids in private schools across the state decide to go back to public schools ... because Daddy’s automotive business ain’t doing so well — I mean, you do the math — it’s going to have a reverse impact. ... Maybe the economic times make that option too a little bit viable because choice, in the end, is a savings for the taxpayer.

Quality of life is very, very important to us. ... You’ve seen what’s happened with the Conservation Bank. We’re going to try and redirect some money in our budget saying we still ought to find a way to fund conservation efforts given that now is the time to buy land, not at the top of the cycle but at the bottom of the cycle. ...

Spending caps ... in other words, can we avoid this whole roller-coaster that we tend to go through every couple of years in South Carolina. I was talking to a guy in Florida the other day, and not more than 3 percent of their budget can be annualized. And that’s pretty cool because ... the numbers get a lot bigger than that when times aren’t so good.

I suspect there will be a lot of efforts, not in our budget but in the House and Senate budgets, to annualize huge numbers. So those spending caps (are) another important one in terms of budgetary reform.

QUESTION: There’s a couple of proposals out there on the spending issue, Sen. (Glenn) McConnell’s stabilization plan ... the other one is what Rep. (James) Smith has talked about to only spend what the state actually takes in ... to try to avoid mid-year budget cuts. What do you think of those ideas and what is the right way to go?

ANSWER: I think there’s going to be a lot of different flavors out there. All that we care is, one, you hold the line on spending to a sustainable level; and two, you avoid some of the up and down that we have historically seen. ...

QUESTION: Another thing that lawmakers are talking about ... is comprehensive tax reform. You’ve tried to get the Legislature to take notice of that issue and haven’t had much success. Do you think that this year is going to be any different?

ANSWER: I know the (South Carolina) Chamber (of Commerce) and other groups are talking about it in a way they haven’t in the past. I still think it’s going to be a bridge too far, which is why we’ve gone for more of a rifle shot in saying ... “Trade these specific incentives off for a reduction in corporate income taxes.” I think you have to get to comprehensive tax reform in piecemeal fashion. (Otherwise,) you turn out every constituency in the world against you. In theory, I love it, but, as a practical matter, I don’t know that you can get there. ...

QUESTION: You’ve mentioned the new Legislature. We’ve got many new members on both sides, House and Senate. How do you think that’s going to affect how you work with the Legislature? Do you think there are things that could be accomplished now that couldn’t be in the past?

ANSWER: That’s my hope.

QUESTION: Why do you think that is? In many ways leadership is still the same on both sides, but you have new rank and file. Do you think that is an advantage for you?

ANSWER: We’ll see. It depends how much they’re willing to stand up and be counted on the ideas they believe in.

The first volley on that front (to record all votes) doesn’t bode all that well. I think the composition of the House, for instance, is, “Here it is, boys, take your orders.”

I remember when I got here, first, I was just baffled. I don’t understand this whole groupthink thing.

When I was in the United States Congress, I would be among a handful of folks and we’d go down to the floor and we’d say we totally disagree and here’s why. It didn’t make some folks happy, but, hey, I didn’t work for the speaker, I worked for the people I represented back home in the 1st Congressional District.

... You came here and it was much more of a unified bloc ... based on marching orders.

And that’s the way it was, and that’s a very foreign concept to what I was used to. I was like, well, why don’t people raise more Cain? If they disagree, make the noise. The punitive effects based on the way our system is based. I don’t think that’s good for debate, I don’t think that’s good for the taxpayer, I don’t think that’s good for South Carolinians. Because the place where ideas should be debated is upstairs.

Things shouldn’t be decided in a closed room — that’s old-boy politics — and then dictated to the membership on the floor. ...

So what I hope is that people will indeed be willing to speak their mind and stand up. If enough folks do that ... people respond to leadership, to people being willing to make a stand. But somebody’s got to be willing to go first. And the courage of (state Reps.) Nikki Haley and Nathan Ballentine on that point is something that may well cause a bunch of other folks to have courage, but time will tell.

QUESTION: You mentioned the differences from when you were in the U.S. House and when you came here. What else is different ... and what have you learned in the six years so far?

ANSWER: I had a number of senators come to me when I was first elected and say to me, “Look, we want to make you the best governor South Carolina has ever seen if you just do what we tell you to do.”

... Needless to say, that ain’t the way I operate.

... So what have I learned? I’ve learned the obvious: One, I wish I had read a little bit more of the fine print on some of the mechanical powers of governorship. And two, I learned what I already knew, which is if you simply play by the rules as they now stand, you’re allowed to do certain things within our system. Or if you’re for more of this or more of that, it’s pretty easy to get a group behind you and push.

But that isn’t what we’ve wanted to do; that isn’t our purpose. So I would say what I’ve learned is the obvious, which is adding to any political system is relatively easy. Taking from any political system is very, very difficult. ...

QUESTION: At times you’ve been a voice in the wilderness, you’ve said. Do you still feel like you’re alone in the wilderness? Do you think you’ve brought some folks into the fold? How much do you think you’ve built on what you started?

ANSWER: I go back to the quote on the Nikki Haley thing. Her saying, “You may be like Moses. You may never make it to the Promised Land, but because of some of the stands you’ve taken, you’ve started a movement, and we’re going to get there.” Time, history will be the judge of that. It’s certainly our hope. ...

QUESTION: You talk about rifle shots and kind of targeting your efforts — are there ideas that you’ve given up on?

ANSWER: I’m sure there are, just ’cause you’ve got 24 months (before leaving office) and just as a practical matter, that’s why ...

We would really like to see spending limits. We would really like to see some degree of educational choice. We would really like to see at least a step to a more common-sense or fairer tax system or more competitive tax system than we’re looking at.

(Aide mentions comprehensive tax reform.)

I’ve pretty much given up on that one. ...

QUESTION: How about (the governor appointing more statewide) constitutional officers?

ANSWER: No, we’re going to try to get it back up there. I’m not extremely hopeful on that, based on the feedback I’ve gotten. I don’t know what could be fairer than simply saying, “Look, you guys, decide whatever y’all want to do we’ll do, but could the people actually decide this one?” So we may end up with a smaller list that we want to see.

(Aide mentions eliminating individual income tax.)

Yeah, I’ve given up on that.

What you really learn as you get deeper and deeper in the system, is how differently it works than the federal system. ... You agreed or you disagreed. ...

But it wasn’t driven by, “How am I going to get a paycheck?” A lot of what occurs in our system is driven by a friend, a relative, a cousin, they themselves either getting a direct paycheck or deriving a direct benefit.

It makes it that much more important, this notion of income disclosure. We had to disclose our income as a member of Congress. I don’t know why it should be any different here. As constitutional officers, I think we have to disclose our income. Why shouldn’t the General Assembly? Because as it turns out, without speaking ill of anyone, there (are) a lot of very personal agendas with regards to what goes on here. And why you guys aren’t more aggressive with regard to reporting it, I don’t know.

... I think the general population would find it somewhat appalling. And, two, it really then underscores how impossible some of these votes are.

You could talk until you’re blue in the face, but if someone is going to get a check, or his kid is going to get a job or whatever else, it really doesn’t matter. There’s a lot more nepotism. People think nothing of naming a road after themselves, or getting their kid a job, or passing this legislation that accrues to their benefit. A lot of lawyers, that’s not an accident. ...

QUESTION: Do you plan to get involved in the race to succeed you?

ANSWER: I might, yeah. I think it’s very, very important. What you wouldn’t want to do is have eight years of a push in a direction, not quite see the finish line on some of these and then somebody goes the opposite direction.

I didn’t in my congressional race, and that was a mistake. I think that (U.S. Rep.) Henry Brown has been anything but a guardian of the taxpayer. ...

But as you go further, again, in this process, you see that it is important if you believe in these principles and these ideas that you push for them in any leverage point you have, and if that’s among them, you do so.

QUESTION: What do you think of the field, then?

ANSWER: I think some of my actions I’ve taken to date would probably give you some insights as to what I feel.

(Editor’s note: First Lady Jenny Sanford backed Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s opponent in the 2006 Republican primary. Bauer is thought to be a 2010 gubernatorial candidate. Sanford also fired another possible candidate, Carroll “Tumpy” Campbell III, from a state board. He has not done anything to suggest he will support or oppose other candidates.)

QUESTION: You mention the leverage points — is being head of the Republican Governors’ Association one of those?

ANSWER: Certainly. Not so much in state, that’s really more a leverage point for, really, what’s happening nationally.

QUESTION: What do Republicans need to do in 2010, 2012, down the road here, to change their message or re-establish their message with voters?

ANSWER: Do what they say they’re about. The curse has been they said one thing and done another. They said, “We’re the party of limited government,” but they haven’t governed that way. They’ve run on one message but haven’t governed that way. They ran as conservatives and just didn’t govern as conservatives. ...

QUESTION: Do you disagree with the folks who say the party has a demographic problem, that it needs to change its message to appeal to black and Hispanic voters?

ANSWER: No. There’s a difference between changing message and the voice of that message. Do we need more black faces or more Hispanic voices in actually communicating some of the ideas? Yeah. Which is part of the reason why we supported (Charleston state Rep.) Tim Scott in this last election. But I think the principles are timeless and color- or ethnic- neutral. ...

The principle of a limited government or freedom or individual responsibility doesn’t know a color or a creed. I don’t think that that’s our problem.

We didn’t put in black-speak enough or we didn’t put it in Hispanic-speak enough. I don’t think that that’s the problem.

We just didn’t stand for what we stood for. ...

QUESTION: What kind of candidate should Republicans look for in 2012 for president?

ANSWER: (laughing) ... I should say somebody in their early 80s to — make sure we put this on the record — a category of taking myself out.

I think that there’s going to be a real thirst — well, I don’t know. This is a really bigger question on the direction of the country. So the answer is I don’t know.

But I hope that there will be a thirst in the country at that time for a return to conservative roots. If there’s not, then (President-elect Barack) Obama’s certainly got a lock on the next four years beyond, and frankly I am even more worried what (may) come next economically. ...

Numbers are numbers, and I understand them at least reasonably well. And I think I understand history reasonably well. And neither of those two things bodes well for the direction our country is heading right now, so I’m genuinely worried about the direction of the country. I’m genuinely worried about what comes next.

I wish Obama the absolute best; he’s my president ... but the early signs, at this point, point to him going in the direction of much more government spending that I think could have horrendous consequences in the value of the dollar and the sustainability of our economic system.

Disclaimer