Governor Sanford’s decision to reject $700 million in federal education stimulus money earlier this month is the target of a New York Times editorial this morning. The editors write: “Now that Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina has polished his credentials with the Republican right by recklessly rejecting $700 million in federal education stimulus money, we keep hoping he will change his mind and put the needs of his recession-ravaged state ahead of his political ambitions.”

They then go on praising Republicans in the state legislature who disagree with Sanford:

In the State Legislature, it was encouraging to see influential Republicans’ distancing themselves from what State Senator Hugh Leatherman, the Finance Committee chairman, rightly describes as an irresponsible policy. In a letter sent to Mr. Sanford last week, Mr. Leatherman pleaded with him to change his mind, writing that rejecting the funds would “create absolute chaos in governmental agencies that perform core missions for the people, and will hurt tens of thousands of South Carolina families at a time when uncertainty and fear over the economy already pervade almost every household.

The article, of course, forgets to mention the reasons behind the governor’s decision. He has rightfully made the case that it makes no sense to spend this one-time stimulus money on the creation of new jobs and new programs that the state won’t have money to pay for later. What happens when the $700 million are spent and the programs are in place? The state will have to either put an end to the programs and lay off employees, or it will have to raise new taxes to continue to pay for it. It is hardly a short- or long-term solution to South Carolina’s economic problems.

More importantly, Governor Sanford is right. His state needs to pay down its debt before spending more money. In October, the New York Times shed some light on the fact that deeply indebted state and local governments were having trouble issuing new debt and that tough choices were needed: “Analysts said the dysfunction in the municipal bond markets appeared to signal the end of an era of relatively cheap money for governments and, probably, the start of an era of tough choices for communities.”

As this chart by Cato Institute Chris Edwards shows, state and local debt outstanding has almost doubled since 2000.

States are in trouble because they have spent too much money. And doing more of a bad thing — spending — isn’t going to produce economic recovery.

Finally, the editors note that “we keep hoping he will change his mind.” But they fail to mention that Sanford has tried to find ways to get the money. Twice, he requested that the White House let him use the money in more efficient way: first to payoff the state’s debt, second to spend down the state’s education debt. Both times, his requests were rejected.