Oh my: No bailout for California, says White House
posted at 10:09 am on May 22, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not yet, anyway. I’m surprised, but only because the thought of The One declining a request for free taxpayer money seems unfathomable, like Santa telling a kid he really is getting coal in his stocking this year. Santa doesn’t do that.
Of course, Santa doesn’t have to run for reelection either. Given that voters nationally oppose a California bailout by a margin of 35 points and that California’s likely to stay blue in 2012 no matter what happens, this is actually a no-brainer.
Axelrod indicated that federal intervention on California’s behalf would set a dangerous precedent.
“There’s no doubt that there are states all over this country who have problems — not problems the size of California — but significant problems. And every governor in the country wants and needs assistance,” he said…
Even if the president were to make an exception for California, the aid would need to come on unattractive terms so as not to send a message that distressed states can expect Washington to engineer a painless rescue.
Although the $700-billion federal bailout fund potentially could be tapped to help California, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner expressed doubt Thursday that he had the authority, without new congressional legislation, to aid California under the program originally set up by Congress to rescue financial institutions…
California Democrats are working to build a case for federal intervention, noting the state’s importance to President Obama’s efforts to turn the economy around.
“Allowing California to go belly up presents a great risk to our hoped-for continued economic recovery,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) told Geithner.
How strange that Team Barry would suddenly become sticklers about TARP’s proper purpose and cavalier about the systemic effects of letting a huge entity fail. They were happy to ignore the former and fret about the latter when it came to rescuing GM, which is now set for $30 billion more in, ahem, “loans” as part of its imminent bankruptcy. In any case, as I emphasized, there’ll be no bailout yet, but once the economy recovers a bit and Obama has some new political capital to spend, all bets are off. George Will eyes the game plan in California:
The Obama administration, which rewarded the United Auto Workers by giving it considerable control over two companies it helped reduce to commercial rubble, will serve the interests of California’s unionized public employees and others largely responsible for reducing the state to mendicancy.
These factions will flourish if the state becomes a federal poodle on a short leash held by the president. He might make aid conditional on the state doing things that California Democrats and their union allies would love to be “compelled” to do: eliminate the requirements of two-thirds majorities of both houses of the legislature to raise taxes and pass budgets, and repeal Proposition 13, which voters passed in 1978 to limit property taxes. These changes would enable the legislature (job approval rating: 14 percent) to siphon away an ever-larger share of taxpayers’ wealth and transfer it to public employees. Such as prison guards, whose potent union is one reason California’s cost-per-inmate (about $49,000) is twice the national average.
Per the LA Times piece, Barney Frank’s already talking about passing legislation to let Treasury tap TARP to aid ailing states. If you missed Reason TV’s video the other day about the coming California-ization of America under Obama, now might be a good time to catch up.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
So sponsor an autistic child out of your own pocket. Don’t support those who would force people to do so under the threat of wage garnishment and jail time.
It’s easy to bring up a child with a mental handicap as an example, but would you say the same about a heroin addict who’s been in and out of rehab a dozen times and has committed robbery to pay for his habit? When money is forcibly taken from taxpayers to be redistributed to others, the line between who is deserving and who isn’t disappears.
Yours is a mentality that needs to change. I doubt you could find anyone who wouldn’t want to help the disadvantaged, but what liberty-loving individuals oppose is the forced charity at the point of a gun. At that moment it ceases to be charity and becomes outright theft.
TheMightyMonarch on May 22, 2009 at 12:14 PM
California is our future.
Star20 on May 22, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Key word here is “promote”, not “provide”. The first suggests that government merely maintain the conditions necessary for the private sector to provide for the general welfare, but the government would not be directly involved in it.
“Provide” means that the government should directly provide for the general welfare. Because government produces nothing on its own, it can only be done through forceful taxation and confiscation of capital and wealth from the private sector.
TheMightyMonarch on May 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Oh, man, is this argument deteriorating.
The state should only do what it can afford to do. CA can’t comprehend that. Period. Forget arguing about populations who may need care. Just do not spend beyond your means.
I keep saying this, in my state, they will run out of things to tax. In CA they ran out of things to tax.
ORconservative on May 22, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Let’s see… bail out banks… get control of money.
Bail out GM build “The People’s Car”…. Money to cronies… I dunno… what’s AHHHNOLD done for us lately? Let California break off and sink in the ocean….
CynicalOptimist on May 22, 2009 at 12:25 PM
The discussion about special needs is also relevant to healthcare.
Starting with my own childrearing years, every teacher wanted me to designate my son with the ADD label. I knew he was ADD, but I didn’t see that it interfered with his abilities. He was knocking the top off of every standardized test. Obviously, he was learning. He just didn’t look like he was paying attention.
So I rebelled against the label.
Lots of people don’t. They then tap into state funds for this or that. We can’t do it all, that’s clear.
I laugh at the right-side that objects to controlling costs. Hello. We better!
AnninCA on May 22, 2009 at 12:26 PM
I don’t demand that you deny your kid anything.
I do think you are a hypocrite when you defend that spending though.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 12:33 PM
Please show us the receipts for the donations you have been sending in to the many charities that help such children.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 12:35 PM
Using your logic, there is no limit to what govt should be doing for us.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 12:37 PM
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Someone who doesn’t reproduce is an economic drain on the community?????
What the bl**dy he!! have you been drinking?
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Actually, like all of the Constitution, the entire meaning of that phrase has been reversed. It was changed from “…PROMOTE the general WELFARE” to “PROVIDE the INDIVIDUAL Welfare…”
Look at the societal terrorism the California government just threatened its citizens with. They offered to abolish law enforcement and education. But did they offer to take one penny out of the state-enforced wealth redistribution programs? Of course not; because they’ve proclaimed all that to be “non-discretionary”.
logis on May 22, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Don’t worry, it’s coming. The terms will be more strict than in the past.
Obama owns Arnie. He sized up the former muscle man and summarized correctly he is a girly-man and can be dictated too.
We will get the money, you can bank on it.
FireBlogger on May 22, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Oh spare us the sob story routine. The massive amount of illegal aliens popping out kids and getting government aid have nothing to do with autism. My cousin is autistic, however my aunt has never gotten a handout, nor does she want one.
We all know where most of CA’s money goes, and its not to help people who actually might deserve it. Trust me, I live here.
Grayson on May 22, 2009 at 12:58 PM
I am not seeking to defend the spending, I am just taking advantage of spending that was going to take place regardless and that was made over my objection in the first place. I rationalize that as a difference.
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 1:07 PM
When you are old a decrepit and cannot even wipe your own but, living off of social security and medicare, and you have no off spring in the work force paying into the system, then we will have this discussion.
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM
FIFY, breeder.
Dark-Star on May 22, 2009 at 1:11 PM
Okay, what does it mean to “maintain the conditions necessary…” Does that mean ensuring an educated populace to maintain an effective work force? Does it mean early intervention with special needs kids if it means they will become productive members of society as oppose to wards of the State? What is your point? Are the only legitimate government purposes to provide you with cheap gas, guns and ammo?
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Have they polled Californians on this? Because I bet Californians themselves are opposed to a federal bailout. The vast majority of the citizens here aren’t state employees or members of state employee unions. Only a tiny minority are the sanctimonious soldiers of Holy Hollywood, or members of the Eco-Nazi brigade. We want spending to be cut back, dramatically, in welfare and health entitlements.
… is a perfect example of the kind of dependent constituency big-government leftists are always desperate to cultivate. But there’s an important reality that goes with the services he is so happy to have.
One is that tommylotto can pay California state taxes his entire life, and unless he becomes at least a multimillionaire, he will never pay enough taxes to cover the services his son is receiving from the state, between his diagnosis with autism and whenever those services end (which may not be until he dies).
The average California tax burden was about $4700 per head in 2006. The annual cost of the services to tommylotto’s son is at least 6 times that, and probably substantially more. That means tommylotto’s neighbors are picking up the great majority of the cost of those services. No one “deserves” to pay in $4700 and get back tens of thousands of $$ in services. No one.
The other part of the reality is captured in information unearthed from California’s 2009-10 budget proposal, which I dissected here. Here is what I discovered about the Department of Developmental Services in the Dept of Health and Human Services (emphasis mine):
“The DDS provides services to the developmentally disabled, including those with mental retardation, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and autism. According to the ‘Summary of Major Changes’ for the 2009-10 budget,
” ‘The DDS Regional Centers continue to experience significant and unsustainable expenditure growth. The DDS will work closely with the regional centers to manage program expenditures while meeting consumer service needs within the existing 2008‑09 appropriation authority. For 2009‑10, the DDS estimates that absent changes to contain costs, there will be significant caseload and expenditure growth. The budget establishes a savings target of $334 million. The DDS will work with the Legislature and stakeholders in the coming months to develop proposals to maintain the 2008‑09 fund level and achieve the targeted savings while maintaining the entitlement and ensuring program and service integrity.’ ”
One reason I looked into the budget so thoroughly is that I realized, as the political announcements kept coming out about the deficit being higher than expected, and costs spiraling out of control, that there is only one budget element that can behave that way, with such very large effects — and that’s entitlements. Other state spending doesn’t behave that way: it’s budgeted for, and that’s what is spent. The one exception to that, in other state spending, is disaster response; but disaster response (firefighting, flood-fighting and relief) has been microscopic in comparison with the geometric expansion of entitlement spending.
It’s the entitlements, people. That’s what has put the California budget so out of balance. Entitlements are never a controllable expense: you show up eligible, there’s an obligation, whether it was foreseen and budgeted for or not.
It is simply not sustainable for California to continue to expand entitlement services. California cannot afford to provide a dedicated “shadow” to every elementary-age child with autism. No state or people can afford to do this.
This doesn’t mean people with autistic children can’t or shouldn’t get help from other people — but it does mean that the current regime by which unions, advocacy groups, and professional groups get colossally expensive sinecures instituted for themselves, in the name of helping autistic and other children with disabilities, has got to end. We can’t afford it.
J.E. Dyer on May 22, 2009 at 1:19 PM
You don’t get it. Why do we have illegal aliens? Why does Europe have Muslims? Because of non-breeders like you. When SS was passed the average life span was less than 65 so the only people to get benefits were freaks of longevity. Now the benefits you receive will most likely outstrip your investment in the programs. The system needs a growing work force to sustain it. My kids will help pay for me. Who is gong to help pay for you? Yep, my kids…
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Those who don’t learn from their mistakes, are doomed to repeat them. Ahnald isn’t totally to blame for this mess. The California Congress helped nicely.
That being said, if Californians, continue to vote for this mess to run their state, while these dorks ,continue to spend, spend , spend, then they deserve what they get, and no other states citizens, should be forced to bail them out.
capejasmine on May 22, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Because we don’t have the spine to throw them out, at gunpoint if necessary, and take measures to sufficently discourage further border-jumpers from entering.
Because they are willfully blind to the threat.
If fertility was anywhere close to as important as you and other baby-rabid numbskulls think it was, Turd-World nations like Niger, Mali, and Uganda would be among the most prosperous nations on the planet. Have a gander at this little bit of inconvenient truth:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Dark-Star on May 22, 2009 at 1:37 PM
If you aren’t defending the program, then what is the purpose of your post?
Are you just trying to get us to feel sorry for you or something?
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 1:39 PM
So in your pathetic excuse for a mind. The only way a person can prepare for their old age is by having children.
You are right about one thing, you are making me feel sorry for you. It must be tough having to go through life without a functioning brain.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 1:40 PM
Tommy, your autism is showing.
This has nothing to do with the subject. CA spends way more than it takes in. No one is responsible for CA but CA. Enjoy your services, it looks like they may not last forever.
ORconservative on May 22, 2009 at 1:41 PM
It means capturing crooks and making sure contracts are upheld.
Beyond that, it means nothing.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 1:41 PM
No, it’s because whinny little girly men like you can’t live without their fancy govt programs. Programs that they aren’t willing to pay for.
If SS had been set up as a pay as you go program, like FDR promised, then there would be no need to tax future generations to keep it going.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Let me tell you something. I don’t have any kids–not because I didn’t want them, but because I have been divorced for 16 years (miscarried during the marriage) and, though I’m about to get married again, my time has almost run out. I didn’t have kids in the interim because I don’t believe in have children outside of wedlock. However, I am only just now remarrying because I would not settle for the losers that came my way in that time: losers who have been indoctrinated with the morality of the last forty years. Promiscuity, illegitimacy (he may have a bunch of bastards), adultery, abortion, general assholery–all of these will keep a good woman who is not 25 from (re)marrying and having children, that is if she has a brain and is not so selfish as to think that the world is just waiting for her to spawn so it’s time to get cracking now that she’s past 40.
I did not bring a child into the world because I wanted it to have a father–a real one.
Your kids won’t be paying a damn thing except for the taxes that Barry has imposed upon them.
baldilocks on May 22, 2009 at 1:50 PM
That’s partly why systems like SS were started: so that people had an option to prepare for old age besides constantly requiring children to become indentured servants to their parents if they became infirm. It’s fairer to both sides, better for the economy, and a nice bonus for people like me who can’t afford to start a family if the economy turns sour (like now).
Dark-Star on May 22, 2009 at 1:50 PM
It is a philosophical or ethical question. I reviewed J.E. Dyers great analysis of the CA budget. I agree with his take. I voted no on all the propositions earlier this week. I would vote to discontinue all the special services that my kid is taking advantage of, if it came up for a vote. But it is not up for vote. I do not have control. The services are available. They benefit my kid. Do I deny my kid the benefit of these unsustainable services to enhance my fiscal conservative bona fides, or do I approach it as a pragmatist, realize that while the funding for the services are available, the services will be provided to someone, it might as well be my kid?
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM
This argument is the nearly the exact same one that many dealers of illegal wares use to soothe their conscience: ‘Somebody’s going to make that money…why shouldn’t it be me.’
Dark-Star on May 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I guess the California Girls (Nancy, Diane, and Babs) don’t carry much weight with the Obammy.
Blake on May 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM
Nancy, Diane and Babs just don’t have that “swagga”. Maybe if one of them looked like Rihanna or Beyonce, he would go down that road. Could BO be a racist?
luvstotango on May 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM
Let’s see, every time there is an article on Ca budget problems, tommylotto posts about his kid who benefits from one of the programs.
On the other hand, he tells us that he doesn’t support the program and would vote to get rid of it if he could.
tommylotto’s getting schizoid.
MarkTheGreat on May 22, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Gee, except for the obvious illegality of drug dealing, I see your point… Actually, it is more like the liberal in favor of higher taxes taking advantage of a tax cut.
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Well, of course they’re not bailing out California. Yet.
Arnie would have to be fired, the unions would be given a 55% stake, and the editors at the San Diego Times-Union would have to go.
I R A Darth Aggie on May 22, 2009 at 2:31 PM
True. While robbing fellow Americans – via the government – to pay for a problem caused by your personal choice (in this case having a child) is immoral, it isn’t illegal.
Dark-Star on May 22, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Of course, it only becomes other people’s financial business whether you marry and have kids — or have kids without being married — when the we set up state-funded entitlements.
The central problem is always the entitlement — not other people’s matrimonial and procreational choices.
J.E. Dyer on May 22, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Looks like you’ll have to make your own bailout, Kalifornia…..why don’t you try this:
1. Post immigration officers in front of welfare offices.
2. Post immigration officers in front of Home Depot.
3. Post immigration officers in front of ER’s.
4. Post immigration officers in front of Walmarts.
5. Post immigration officers in front of convenience stores, around quiting time.
Enforce the law and make your OWN bailout!
HornetSting on May 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Of course, CA could not do that even if it wanted to. It is the federal government’s responsibility to enforce immigration law. And the federal government’s failure to do its job, secure the border, and deport the illegals has cost CA approximately 10 billion a year (by common estimates). That extra burden on the state caused by the fed’s immigration policies, plus the fact that CA has always been a donor state tax-wise (meaning it pays much more in taxes to the federal government than it gets in federal spending), are two powerful justification for a CA bailout.
That and the fact that we only get two Senators — the same number as Vermont!
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 3:07 PM
baldilocks on May 22, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Best wishes for your current and future happiness. \
My kids will help pay for me. Who is going to help pay for you? Yep, my kids…
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Dream on!!!
Cindy Munford on May 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM
baldilocks on May 22, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Best wishes for your current and future happiness
Sorry I don’t know how I manage to do that crazy symbol at the end. Unintended, best wishes are real.
Cindy Munford on May 22, 2009 at 3:09 PM
It means that government should ensure economic freedom, so that the private sector has the maximum ability to provide for general welfare as it sees fit. That means collecting no more taxes than is absolutely necessary and required under constitutional guidelines.
No, but allowing parents freedom of choice in choosing the best schools and teachers for their children would be a start. Vouchers would be a good way to facilitate that.
How about keeping tax rates so low that the private sector can afford take up charitable responsibilities for such persons? Private charities must answer to their contributors, but rarely are politicians made to do so.
I don’t expect the government to pay for any of those things. I expect them to protect free trade and defend us from outside threats. Anything beyond that is at best a luxury, at worst an outright theft of capital.
TheMightyMonarch on May 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM
New word for the dictionaries–Whenever a state or other political entity screws up big time in governing itself it shall henceforth be declared to have gone “california” or become ‘californiaed’—with a small c.
jeanie on May 22, 2009 at 4:37 PM
Love it
Jamson64 on May 22, 2009 at 6:51 PM
Whoa, you are all over the place. If it is not the responsibility of the government to educate the population, why provide vouchers? Just not tax people so much, and let them decide to pay for a private school to home school their own kids. But we know that many parents would be derelict in the duties to educate their children. To promote the general welfare, we know the government should see to it that kids are educated. You are just offering a different means to that ends. So, your answer is yes, but through vouchers not through public schools. But then we also need regulations to make sure parents are using the vouchers or properly home schooling. Either ay the government will be up the parents but to make sure the kid is getting schooling…
tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 7:41 PM
As a happy former resident of Cali, I can confirm that the nonsense y’all have read about their government increasing spending on top a record setting deficit is TRUE! The voter referendum says the people don’t want to pay more. The government says spend like there’s no tomorrow.
The government is in denial and so are the citizens. That state is a train wreck.
Blacksmith8 on May 22, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Again, all over the place. You are correct with regard to vouchers – you have kids, you educate them.
The fact that many parents are not fit to be parents is not the fault of those who do the right thing. If a vast majority of people are convinced, through plebiscite, that all kids must be educated, regardless of cost, then they own the cost, and should willingly pony up. Has there ever been such a plebiscite?
Also, if govt were to do its job properly, taxes would be low enough that there would be no excuse for a working person to not look after his/her own costs in life.
Non-working people only have the right to hope for charity – a dirty word these days.
OldEnglish on May 22, 2009 at 8:11 PM
LOL. Half of nuttin’, is still nuttin’!
Dandapani on May 22, 2009 at 8:33 PM
If any believe that the California Bailout is a must, I will simply ask them to google ‘Not yours to give’ by Daniel Boone.
Seriously… Just do it.
Chaz706 on May 23, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Damn…. got the author wrong.
It’s David Crockett. not Daniel Boone.
Here’s a link.
Chaz706 on May 23, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Either way, AHNOLD won’t be there, he’s being recalled. Bye Ahnold Schwartzenkennedy, don’t let the door hit you in the ass!
nelsonknows on May 23, 2009 at 3:29 AM
“I won’t be baaack”
Hening on May 23, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Saving GM through nationalization consolidates power to the federal government. Letting California’s state government fail is just another attempt at proving that federalism isn’t the way ahead. I think this is similar to the attempts to discredit Capitalism because of the recent financial crisis (no mention of regulatory burdens or government intervention of course). If you can provide examples of states being weak and the federal government being the solution the narrative writes itself. There is no contradiction in the response towards GM and California – check your premises.
blankminde on May 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2