The Executive branch of the Federal government has done what SC governor Mark Sanford was hoping they'd do — send him a letter stating it's illegal to spend stimulus money on South Carolina's debt. With state and local governments forming committees and making plans to spend the windfall coming their way, everyone knew Sanford wouldn't stop the flow. They also knew he didn't really want to.

Several governors around the country are claiming they might refuse the stimulus money from Washington. All have three things in common. Each one is a Republican, each has future national political plans, and each one resides in a state that will override any attempt to keep the money from being accepted.

Everyone goes home happy. That state gets stimulus money, the legislature gets to show how much courage it has by bucking the governor, and the future candidate has some spiffy footage for 2012 campaign commercials.

But no one should be surprised we are seeing money and politics so intertwined. It has been that way for a long time. Every time a politician earmarks funds for a pet project back home or gets a bridge, walkway, or building named after him, someone in a state far away is paying to insure that legislator gets re- elected.

Each incident where a group of lawmakers passes some controversial edict to support a specific religion, outlaw some minor irritable activity, or take the rights away from the current

scapegoat minority group, everyone involved knows the ACLU will file a suit and most likely win.

The legislative body doesn't care; they claim they did everything possible to prevent whatever it was and blame activist judges. The outcome is as fixed as pro wrestling. The only part of the whole charade not mentioned is the legal price tag. Stop these quixotic escapades, and the budget is much closer to being balanced.

Raising funds to fill state and federal coffers could also be much easier with some political courage. Prohibition taught us people will break the law to consume certain things, even if they are illegal. So let's legalize everything people refuse to stop doing that's not covered by the Ten Commandments.

Marijuana is illegal primarily because the folks who used it in the 60s were protesting against Richard Nixon when they were awake. If pot were legalized tomorrow, annual tax payments to state governments would increase by several million dollars each. If you add the savings associated with the reduction of drug associated crimes, the revenue boost for each state would be substantial.

Gambling is illegal because Puritans frowned on the prospect of easy money. Estimates on illegal gambling during the Super Bowl and Final Four each year climb into the billions. We allow bingo, lottery, and online stock trading; why not legalize all gambling? Nevada allows it, and they haven't dropped into the fiery pit of Hell. Surely other states could survive.

One other thing; the oldest profession. How hard would it be to make it a holistic medical treatment? It has to be more beneficial than fortune tellers. Besides, how crazy is it to have a law against selling something that can be given away without any problem?