Someone to Keep an Eye On

****PLEASE READ UPDATE HERE****

In 2001, when I was working as a deputy press secretary in Washington, D.C., a colleague loaned me a book entitled The Trust Committed to Me.

The book was written by a then-obscure Congressman named Mark Sanford. The book is 124 pages long and probably never sold more than a few thousand copies. It is currently ranked 1,009,927 on Amazon.

Although the book was never a bestseller, it transformed me into an avid Mark Sanford fan. I have been following his career ever since I read that book and will hopefully continue to follow his career all the way to the White House.

Mark Sanford is currently serving his second term as the Governor of South Carolina. Recently, Governor Sanford used his veto pen to strike down a bill that sought to place greater restrictions on the payday lending industry. A payday loan is a short term loan that is intended to cover a borrower's expenses until his or her next payday. As you can probably imagine, the interest rates accompanying these loans can be pretty high.

Governor Sanford recently issued a letter to the Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives explaining the why behind his decision. This letter is one of the best representations and articulations of conservative, free-market thought I have ever read.

Here are some of the highlights of the letter (if you are interested in the entire letter, please email me):

I have had any number of lengthy conversations with people who stood both for and against this bill, and in them I have seen firsthand the emotion that surrounds this issue. On the one hand one can go as far back as biblical times to hear insightful words on debt, interest, lenders, and borrowers. And thought many would see the interest rates charged as unfair, wrong, or even unconscionable, there is obviously a void in the marketplace for these borrowings and, as a consequence, this form of lending has grown tremendously. Human needs will always be met in some form or another, thus the philosophical question raised in this debate lies in whether or not everyone of those needs should be sanctioned, regulated or addressed by the government. This administration has always fallen solidly on the side of maximizing individual liberty - so people are able to make both the stupid, and wise, decisions that are the hallmark of a free and market-based society. In this case the bill lumps all payday borrowers into the same spot, though the preponderance of borrowers understand its very high cost and use this costly service without consequence to others. For them the limitation of this available form of credit may come at a still higher cost.

There are a number of people who I admire tremendously who I know I will disappoint with this veto, but it is my hope that in time they see my consistency in pushing for limited government and maximized individual freedom as a good part of the foundation behind our friendship. To simply acquiesce to their view because of personal affinity, while moving counter to the themes this administration has long advanced, would work to undermine the trust of thousands who have supported this administration's at times lonely stands against government's creeping growth into lives and society.

You may or may not agree with his politics, but you have to agree that it's very refreshing to see a politician simply answer the question "Why?" and do it with a level of integrity and common sense that is far too often nonexistent in the political arena.