California gets no bailout love from White House

posted at 1:35 pm on June 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

California hoped that their dire economic predicament might get enough sympathy from the Obama administration to get a GM-style bailout.  Sympathy, the White House has in abundance, but not cash — at least not for self-indulgent states who don’t want to exercise some fiscal discipline.  The White House finally drew the line on throwing cash at the insolvent:

The Obama administration has turned back pleas for emergency aid from one of the biggest remaining threats to the economy — the state of California.

Top state officials have gone hat in hand to the administration, armed with dire warnings of a fast-approaching “fiscal meltdown” caused by a budget shortfall. Concern has grown inside the White House in recent weeks as California’s fiscal condition has worsened, leading to high-level administration meetings. But federal officials are worried that a bailout of California would set off a cascade of demands from other states. …

After a series of meetings, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, top White House economists Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer, and other senior officials have decided that California could hold on a little longer and should get its budget in order rather than rely on a federal bailout.

Gee, you think?  States have sovereign rights in the Constitution, including the right to tax and govern themselves.  California citizens should be embarrassed to run to the federal Treasury to solve their budget crisis.  The Congressional delegation should demand fiscal discipline and responsibility and resist federal encroachment on California’s sovereignty.

That is what a bailout will mean, as the administration strongly hinted:

These policymakers continue to watch the situation closely and do not rule out helping the state if its condition significantly deteriorates, a senior administration official said. But in that case, federal help would carry conditions to protect taxpayers and make similar requests for aid unattractive to other states, the official said. The official did not detail those conditions.

Perhaps Congress should set the rules so that any state applying for a federal bailout will get treated like the District of Columbia.  Since they seem keen on surrendering their sovereign status, they can have non-voting delegations to the House and Senate until they repay whatever federal dollars they take to cover their shortfall.  Considering the vast majority of California’s elected representatives on Capitol Hiill, that would be in practical terms a net plus for Congress, although an egregious violation of the Constitution.  (Yes, I’m being glib.)

California needs to “bail” itself out by cutting spending and eliminating unnecessary services.  The state has spent the last several decades expanding government far beyond the necessities of actual governance and extending into social engineering.  It has one of the highest tax burdens in the nation, which belies the notion that the legislature just hasn’t taxed Californians enough. Now that this last avenue of responsibility-shirking has been closed, Sacramento needs to start making the tough decisions that they’ve avoided for most of the last 40 years.

It’s at least somewhat heartening to see the White House express a limit to federal bailouts. Too bad they didn’t stop before getting to automakers.

Will they do it?  So far … not so good:

Tobacco and oil severance taxes are key elements of a revenue-raising package that will be unveiled today by Assembly Democrats. …

“The problem is that this economic crisis was caused by an enormous and rapid drop in revenues, so to ignore the need for new revenues is irresponsible,” said Evans, D-Santa Rosa.

Besides the tax on cigarettes and oil extraction, the Assembly possibilities include closing corporate or business loopholes that were approved as compromises in past budget negotiations.

Jon Fleischman says Arnold won’t play along this time:

The attempt by Democrats to hike taxes are not surprising in the slightest.  After all, we are talking about Democrat caucuses that are split between complete union hacks, whose fealty to the public employee union bosses leave them unable to vote for cuts that would negatively impact the core mission of the unions (to increase the wages and benefits for union members, as well as increase the size of the union) — and liberal ideologues to whom making any cuts in social welfare programs, let alone cuts of this magnitude, are heresy to even consider.

Fortunately for California taxpayers, Governor Schwarzenegger is not tone deaf, and has made it crystal clear over and over that he will not support tax increases as a part of resolving the state’s fiscal crisis (at least going forward).  So I would expect a pretty quick veto from the Governor if these or other taxes are passed on a majority vote and placed on his desk.

We’ll see.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Maybe CA should be chopped up into 4 states — South (OC and San Diego), South Central (LA), Central (Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.), North (SF, Sacramento) — I think that would create two red states and two blue states. Then at least there would be some semblance of representation of Californians in the Senate.

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 2:22 PM

We are trying to rename Central CA “Free California.”

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 2:38 PM

This is a rather nice opening for the PUMAs, BTW. Obama will bail out his buddies in the finance and auto industries, but not the State of California?

TheUnrepentantGeek on June 16, 2009 at 2:39 PM

I have an idea. How about only giving California 1 Senator for each 18,000,000 residents while Montana gets 1 Senator for each 250,000 residents. Oh wait….

Senators were never intended to represent individual citizens. The intention was for The HOR to represent citizens and the Senators to represent the states, that is why there is two per state and it is not based on population. The state legislatures originally selected Senators and sent them to DC, this was soon repealed. Perhaps some Constitutional history lessons are in order?!?

clarobert on June 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Where the hell is

AnninCA???

Figured she’d be all over this.

Had a whole lot to say on nationalized health care yesterday….

Hello???

BigWyo on June 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM

“The White House finally drew the line on throwing cash at the insolvent:”

An alternate theory is that he won’t do it for a RINO governor but would do it for his Arnold’s Democratic replacement.

burt on June 16, 2009 at 2:43 PM

J.E. Dyer on June 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM

Thanks for that link. I hope everyone clicked over and read that eye-popping account of where the balance of the state budget goes, after the prison guards and teachers unions get theirs.

califcon on June 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Get too da chawpah!!!!!! Ah’ll be bockk!!!!

HomeoftheBrave on June 16, 2009 at 2:51 PM

I live here and California’s budget problems come from too much spending. Chuck DeVore (CA state legislator) points out that over the last 10 years the budget has doubled, but would only be up 50% if limited by inflation and population growth and we would likely have either no or a small issue to deal with. He also notes that the performance review that Arnold commissioned after his election during the recall has only had a handful of items implemented even though the report is the size of a phone book.

Tom McClintock (now CA rep to US congress) notes that in 1974 (surely California’s golden years) the cost of government per capita (adjusted to current dollars) was about $1250. We now spend about $3500 and services are much worse.

The final item is that historically California has had about 8 – 8.5 state employees per thousand of population. We are now up to 9.5 per thousand.

Only an idiot can claim that California needs more taxes.

mrveritas on June 16, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, top White House economists Lawrence Summers and Christina Romer, and other senior officials have decided that California could hold on a little longer and should get its budget in order rather than rely on a federal bailout.

And they base that evaluation on what, exactly?

They’ll get their budget in order??? WTF? How are they going to do that? They don’t have the spine to make any changes that would , in the long, long run, help their financial situation. To make the changes necessary they would have to admit that they approach and values decisions have been wrong. They don’t have the courage or the integrity to do that.

Reminds me of a Bob Marley lyric:

Is there a place for the hopeless sinner
who would hurt all mankind just to save his own beliefs?

Liberals/lefties/progressives don’t have the basic respect for life to admit they were wrong and how many people lose everything and get hurt in the process doesn’t matter.

Itchee Dryback on June 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM

“The problem is that this economic crisis was caused by an enormous and rapid drop in revenues, so to ignore the need for new revenues is irresponsible,” said Evans, D-Santa Rosa.

Translation: The patient is sick and on the brink of death, so it would be irresponsible not to get as much blood from him as we can before he expires.

Cicero43 on June 16, 2009 at 3:14 PM

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-cars16-2009jun16,0,7433198.story?track=rss

Here’s $3.2 million we can save.

mperek on June 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM

I have an other idea. How about only giving California $.78 in federal spending for every $1.00 taken out in federal taxes. Oh wait…

That problem is easy to solve:

California should secede.

agmartin on June 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Again, I think this is because polling shows that if Obama bails out California that it will cause his popularity to collapse.

The bailouts have all been VERY unpopular. California isn’t very popular outside… California. And the Dems can afford to shaft them, it’s not like the welfare constituency there is going to vote REPUBLICAN is it?

wildcat84 on June 16, 2009 at 3:27 PM

That problem is easy to solve:

California should secede.

agmartin on June 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Please!

And let them take New York with them.

wildcat84 on June 16, 2009 at 3:28 PM

the Assembly possibilities include closing corporate or business loopholes that were approved as compromises in past budget negotiations.

Classic. Close the “loopholes” (some call them incentives) for businesses to operate in California and drive them out of a state that badly needs to hold and increase its tax base. So raise some quick cash and don’t worry about the state’s fiscal health in the years to come. I kind of feel like this has always been tried.

If only there was some data, some empirical evidence of a large state, perhaps on the West coast, that followed these policies for say, the last 40 years, that proves these sorts of policies always end in failure. If only.

Liberalism is nothing more than a mixture of amnesia and myopia.

derik on June 16, 2009 at 3:30 PM

That problem is easy to solve:

California should secede.

agmartin on June 16, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Before California secedes because it feels so mistreated, Utah which has had 80% of the state seized as Federal Land (parks wilderness etc. etc.) should have long gone.

Californians control much of the Federal Government and its powerful committees. How much influence do you think small red states get? So give me a break Californians, my crying towel is not very big.

KW64 on June 16, 2009 at 3:32 PM

I am not for bailouts, but I guess the point that I am making is that if any state deserves a bailout from the feds, it would be CA. Sure CA spends a lot of money, but it also makes a lot of money (it’s 13% of the US GDP). It send a lot of money to DC, but because of its relatively weak representation per capita in the Senate it gets little in return. It pays more money into the federal government (9th per capita), and gets relatively little in return federal expenditures (43rd per capita). Thus, CA is a donor state supporting those little states with lots of Senators. Furthermore, CA would have billions in surpluses if the feds would have done its job on illegal immigration. Prop 187, in my mind, was passed by CA not to be cruel to illegals, but to force the feds to pay for the problem that the feds allowed to develop and which disproportionally effects CA.

It is easy to pile on CA as being populated by fruits, nuts and spend happy liberals — which is all true. However, a good argument could be made that CA deserves a bailout a lot more than GM.

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Why not just re-appropriate those $135 billion in bearer bonds the two Japanese gentleman were trying to smuggle into Switzerland, and just give them to California, get on that bullet train that Reid wants to build, and bet it all on Red in Vegas? Problem solved, Fancy Nancy gets to keep her beloved mouse habitat, and California gets its $$.

notanobot on June 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM

I am not for bailouts, but I guess the point that I am making is that if any state deserves a bailout from the feds, it would be CA. Sure CA spends a lot of money, but it also makes a lot of money (it’s 13% of the US GDP). It send a lot of money to DC, but because of its relatively weak representation per capita in the Senate it gets little in return. It pays more money into the federal government (9th per capita), and gets relatively little in return federal expenditures (43rd per capita). Thus, CA is a donor state supporting those little states with lots of Senators. Furthermore, CA would have billions in surpluses if the feds would have done its job on illegal immigration. Prop 187, in my mind, was passed by CA not to be cruel to illegals, but to force the feds to pay for the problem that the feds allowed to develop and which disproportionally effects CA.

It is easy to pile on CA as being populated by fruits, nuts and spend happy liberals — which is all true. However, a good argument could be made that CA deserves a bailout a lot more than GM.

Yikes, there’s “little states” with lots of Senators???!!
Did they stop teaching the “Great Compromise” in school.
Last time I checked, every state, regardless of size and population has 2 U. S. Senators.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM

My post was slightly in error:

In Utah, almost 70 percent of the land area remains in federal control, with only about 21 percent privately owned

My 80% number included land owned by the state. Still for the private sector to own only 21% of the land seems a much greater intrusion than what Californians are suffering.

KW64 on June 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Where the hell is

AnninCA???

Figured she’d be all over this.

BigWyo on June 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Like all lib trolls she is either

a) in school during the day
b) on welfare and doesn’t get up until well past noon
c) trolling on other sites to get her 40 hour time card into George Soros by EOD Friday

angryed on June 16, 2009 at 3:46 PM

tommylotto:

Moron, every state has 2 senators. Are all liberals this uninformed? No wonder you voted for DER OBAMA.

angryed on June 16, 2009 at 3:47 PM

A Stimulus Story

It is the month of June, on the shores of the Black Sea . It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town. He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 Euro note on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to choose one.

The hotel proprietor takes the 100 Euro note and runs to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the 100 Euro note, and runs to pay his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the 100 Euro note, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel.

The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100 Euro note and runs to pay his debt to the town’s prostitute that in these hard times, gave her “services” on credit.

The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100 Euro note to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there.

The hotel proprietor then lays the 100 Euro note back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything.

At that moment, the tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his 100 Euro note, saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town.

No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government under President Obama and the State of California under Governor Arnold are doing business today.

KentAllard on June 16, 2009 at 3:51 PM

California to propose a $1 per sheet toilet paper tax.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM

I have an idea. How about only giving California 1 Senator for each 18,000,000 residents while Montana gets 1 Senator for each 250,000 residents. Oh wait….

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 2:00 PM

Senators provide states with equal representation, while members of the House provide proportional representation based on population. It’s all written down in this thing called the Constitution.

Vashta.Nerada on June 16, 2009 at 2:04 PM

Technically, Senators are NOT representatives of the people they are representatives of the state.

jsunrise on June 16, 2009 at 4:11 PM

California to propose a $1 per sheet toilet paper tax.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM

hmmmm….the sinks are still free, right?

Stranded.
On the toilet bowl,
without a roll
To prove you’re a man
you must wipe it with your hand

(sung to the theme for “Branded”, if anyone is old enough to remember that show)

BobMbx on June 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM

California citizens should be embarrassed to run to the federal Treasury to solve their budget crisis.

Some of us are.

PersonalLiberty on June 16, 2009 at 4:15 PM

California to propose a $1 per sheet toilet paper tax.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 3:56 PM

hmmmm….the sinks are still free, right?

Stranded.
On the toilet bowl,
without a roll
To prove you’re a man
you must wipe it with your hand

(sung to the theme for “Branded”, if anyone is old enough to remember that show)

BobMbx on June 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM

LOL…Chuck Conners

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Yikes, there’s “little states” with lots of Senators???!!
Did they stop teaching the “Great Compromise” in school.
Last time I checked, every state, regardless of size and population has 2 U. S. Senators.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Just because its in the Constitution does not mean its fair. I doubt the founding fathers envisioned any of the colonies developing into a single state with a population of 36,000,000, nor would they have envisioned a 72:1 population differential between a small state and a big state. Not to mention as was pointed out by another commenter that the Constitution was amended to elect Senators by popular vote, not state legislatures. The ultimate result is that residence of states with small populations get greater representation in Congress — and that’s not fair. The numbers do not lie. CA has only 2 Senators for 36,000,000 people. Consequently, CA pays $8,028 per capital to the US government and only gets $6,709 in return (that .78 of every dollar taken). Alaska with 2 Senators for only 686,000 residents pays $5,434 per capita to the US government and gets $13,950 back (thats $1.84 of every dollar taken). Montana with 2 Senators for 900,000 pays $5,605 and gets back $8,378 ($1.47). Delaware has been an exception, being a small state with lots of representation in the Senate but still being a donor state, but I guess that is because until recently, they had a retard as a Senator.

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM

what do you do when you’re branded
and you know you’re a man

dingbat on June 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM

what do you do when you’re branded
and you know you’re a man

dingbat on June 16, 2009 at 4:20 PM

Make sure the sink is in good working order before you have a seat…..

BobMbx on June 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM

J.E. Dyer on June 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Thanks for that link. I hope everyone clicked over and read that eye-popping account of where the balance of the state budget goes, after the prison guards and teachers unions get theirs.

califcon on June 16, 2009 at 2:45 PM

I agree. If you didn’t take the time to read this, you need to…

California is in trouble because as most liberals, the demo government doesn’t know how to say the word ‘no’ and set boundaries. Other states have ways to take care of the indigent that protect human rights without going bankrupt.

Ltlgeneral64 on June 16, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Being from California (Thank goodness i live in RED Orange County)…it kills me to see my state in the condition it is in.

The idiots have driven out business, created useless gov’t jobs, are taxing the c%ap out of the people that do work here. AND they want to keep taxing. CLUELESS.

I would LOVE to see the state declare bankruptcy, void the union contracts and re-bid them.

TEA PARTY_ON

rlongstrat on June 16, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Good God! That would be the final nail in the coffin for California. Governor Gavin Newsom.

Doughboy on June 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM

With the help of our local media, CA Democrats have been conducting a highly efficient PR campaign by redirecting the budget blame towards what few Republican legislators we still have in Sacto and the tiny shred of power they weld — thanks to our current two-thirds vote requirement.

ex. “Arnold and the GOP are to blame for our budget mess because of 2/3, blah, blah, blah….”

But as we’ve all seen, the CAGOP have shown themselves to be nothing but pantywaists so you might as well get used to idea of Governor Newsom.

The Ugly American on June 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM

California is in trouble because as most liberals, the demo government doesn’t know how to say the word ‘no’ and set boundaries. Other states have ways to take care of the indigent that protect human rights without going bankrupt.

Ltlgeneral64 on June 16, 2009 at 4:28 PM

And even with all of that out of control spending, if the federal government would afford CA the same largess afforded to most of those other states — federal expenditures matching or exceeding taxes collected — CA would have a $21 billion dollar surplus, not a $26 billion dollar deficit. That’s right, the fed farms CA for $47 billion per year more in taxes than in federal services provided. Just give some of that back and CA would be just fine — even with the open borders and illegal immigration (which should also be the fed’s expense to the tune of $10 billion per year).

The US needs CA a lot more than the other way around.

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM

And California is still trying to spend their way out of their deficit. Idiotic. The first thing they will cut is the police force. Because you’ve got to keep the bureaucrats employed at all costs./

Christian Conservative on June 16, 2009 at 5:02 PM

The US needs CA a lot more than the other way around – tommylotto@4:44PM

It is sad to see delusions of grandeur turn into begging for food. Liberalism is a progressive mental disorder. California has passed the point of no return in regards of returning to financial responsibility. Their terminal cancer has no hope of recovery.

volsense on June 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM

Just do what Flint Michigan is going to do, fire up those ‘dozers and start leveling neighborhoods.

Problem solved.

Skandia Recluse on June 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

But as we’ve all seen, the CAGOP have shown themselves to be nothing but pantywaists so you might as well get used to idea of Governor Newsom.

The Ugly American on June 16, 2009 at 4:43 PM

No. Tom McClintock represents the 4th district and is a great conservative. He’s seen exactly what liberal policies do to healthy, productive communities.

We have some good Republicans and even *gasp* blue dog Democrats in the Central Valley. Sacramento is getting nervous that we’re getting too big for our britches so they’re cutting water off to the conservatives to force us to disperse and lose our political clout.

I’m sick of always hearing how Californians are pussies. When was the last time any of you shut down a major Interstate or marched for miles to protest for your rights? We started in April and did it again yesterday.

That’s what I thought.

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Is there anything preventing CA from discouraging rather than encouraging illegal immigration on its own (other than its liberal voters, politicians)?

cs89 on June 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Y’know, tommylotto, you make some good points.

Now ‘splain to me why it is you guys keep returning people like Pelosi to Congress — people who will actively support, e.g., John Murtha in his search for pork, and never saw a Federal outlay they didn’t like?

Yeah, California is a tax farm, no doubt about it. Your Representatives apparently consider that a wonderful thing, because it gives them plenty of cash to throw around and buy votes for the rest of their club.

You might consider sending a few of the free-spending Progressives home before committing to an all-out assault on the Constitutional method of allocating Senators.

Regards,
Ric

warlocketx on June 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM

CA is gerrymandered to keep the leftists in power.

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 6:10 PM

Just because its in the Constitution does not mean its fair. I doubt the founding fathers envisioned any of the colonies developing into a single state with a population of 36,000,000, nor would they have envisioned a 72:1 population differential between a small state and a big state. Not to mention as was pointed out by another commenter that the Constitution was amended to elect Senators by popular vote, not state legislatures. The ultimate result is that residence of states with small populations get greater representation in Congress — and that’s not fair. The numbers do not lie. CA has only 2 Senators for 36,000,000 people. Consequently, CA pays $8,028 per capital to the US government and only gets $6,709 in return (that .78 of every dollar taken). Alaska with 2 Senators for only 686,000 residents pays $5,434 per capita to the US government and gets $13,950 back (thats $1.84 of every dollar taken). Montana with 2 Senators for 900,000 pays $5,605 and gets back $8,378 ($1.47). Delaware has been an exception, being a small state with lots of representation in the Senate but still being a donor state, but I guess that is because until recently, they had a retard as a Senator.

tommylotto on June 16, 2009 at 4:17 PM

Actually, if you read a little history, the Founding Fathers DID anticipate this fight. It was called the “Great Compromise”. It allowed 2 U.S. Senators to each state regardless of state size or population, but it assigned the number of representatives in the House of Representatives, based on a states population. (Actually districts within a state) So you see you have no less representation than you’re supposed to have. As far as the ratio of money back to your state, that’s more a problem of YOUR representation.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM

I know that, NTWR.

The question is why they’re content to keep sending the tax farmers back to where they can continue to reap.

Regards,
Ric

warlocketx on June 16, 2009 at 6:12 PM

I wish my other post hadn’t evaporated… maybe too many links?
We are trying to fight back. It’s just hard with the odds overwhelmingly out of our favor.

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Is there anything preventing CA from discouraging rather than encouraging illegal immigration on its own (other than its liberal voters, politicians)?

cs89 on June 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM

We passed Prop 187, which would have done that, but one of the judges decided our vote wasn’t politically correct and tossed it. That’s why we had to actually change the CA constitution to stop gay marriage- it’s likely that’s what we’d have to do to change our immigration policy.

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM

Ahh, there’s my other post *blushing*

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM

My guess is that all of them are sprinting to low- or no-income-tax states: Nevada, Texas, Florida and the like.

BuckeyeSam on June 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM

The problem with that is that they are all the retarded liberals who screwed the place up to begin with. NOW that California is a joke they are going to come here to Texas or other places and SCREW IT UP just as badly as the place they’re running from.

It’s what liberals ALWAYS do! Once they have ruined a states economy with their dumb ideas they leave and spread the disease to other states.

babydoll4you on June 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM

With any luck America will luck out and save some money if the “Big One” finally comes along and most of Ca. slides off into the ocean. Certainly no real loss in population you’d want to keep.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 6:31 PM

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM

I understand. Just responding to tommylotto, who keeps bringing up reasons about how “unfair” the system is to CA. On the immigration issue and costs, it is a federal responsibility but there are things state and local govt. can do to minimize the problems. Most reports I’ve read indicate that CA officials aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to turn illegals back at the border, or to defund care for noncitizens.

cs89 on June 16, 2009 at 6:32 PM

Most reports I’ve read indicate that CA officials aren’t exactly chomping at the bit to turn illegals back at the border, or to defund care for noncitizens.

cs89 on June 16, 2009 at 6:32 PM

That’s true. It’s a strange set-up with farmers “needing” the help because citizens would rather watch tv and collect welfare, and politicians (Democrats) wanting everyone on welfare and hoping they can co-opt the illegals into voters after “comprehensive” reform.

That’s why it’s great to hear the Governator float the possibility of cutting all welfare- farmers would have legal workers, illegals would go home and stop collecting food stamps, Medicare, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc.

NTWR on June 16, 2009 at 6:46 PM

My guess is that all of them are sprinting to low- or no-income-tax states: Nevada, Texas, Florida and the like.

BuckeyeSam on June 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM

The problem with that is that they are all the retarded liberals who screwed the place up to begin with. NOW that California is a joke they are going to come here to Texas or other places and SCREW IT UP just as badly as the place they’re running from.

It’s what liberals ALWAYS do! Once they have ruined a states economy with their dumb ideas they leave and spread the disease to other states.

babydoll4you on June 16, 2009 at 6:30 PM

I disagree with that somewhat. Most of the liberals are staying here. The people who own businesses and create jobs are sick of the liberal cesspool that has become California and are leaving in droves.

California is becoming more business-unfriendly by the day.

RedbonePro on June 16, 2009 at 7:43 PM

NTWR: I realize that, outside of The Bay Area & Los Angeles, California voters tend to lean conservative but that fact usually doesn’t do us a whole lot of good when election day rolls around.

Frankly, I don’t know how Pete Wilson managed to be elected two terms but I guess there’s always hope for another take-charge Republican who can turn this mess around.

Also, just for the record, I live in Los Angeles.

The Ugly American on June 16, 2009 at 7:50 PM

Will someone give North Korea the co-ordinates for California.
Let em start with New Sodom, then LA.

Jeff from WI on June 16, 2009 at 7:52 PM

So, how’s Alaska doin’?

Saltysam on June 16, 2009 at 10:31 PM

Doesn’t matter if Arnold signs it or not. All new taxes passed by the legislature must be put on a general ballot for approval of the public. Prop 13 is a beautiful thing.

papertiger on June 16, 2009 at 10:48 PM

With about one in seven California state workers earning more than $100,000 last year in base pay, overtime and bonuses, lawmakers still reject state worker pay cuts.

What were we talking about again? I hope it wasn’t something about how stupid Californians are for voting down all those “emergency” tax hikes the Governor proposed on the last ballot.

papertiger on June 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

California gets no bailout love from White House

BAAHAHAHAHA…KEEP VOTING DEMOCRAT YOU CALI FOOLS!

byteshredder on June 16, 2009 at 11:04 PM

This California Republican is overjoyed at the news.

papertiger on June 16, 2009 at 11:33 PM

It is easy to pile on CA as being populated by fruits, nuts and spend happy liberals — which is all true. However, a good argument could be made that CA deserves a bailout a lot more than GM.

tommylotto

Neither deserves a bailout. They deserve hard-nosed leadership that could stand up to the demands of special interests (unions) without the interference of a federal government making such leadership impossible. GM may be a lost cause, but California isn’t going anywhere for the next few million years, so it is still salvageable. The citizens of the state own this responsibility. Will they rise to the challenge?

SKYFOX on June 17, 2009 at 8:08 AM

Give the North to the MUslims. They’ll clean up this pervert city and stone Nancy Pelosi at the gates.

bluegrass on June 17, 2009 at 8:56 AM

I moved from Arkansas to Southern California nine years ago. (talk about wallet and culture shock) I have watched the California legislature block every attempt of fiscal responsibility. It seems that every member has his own pet projects and the associated promises he has made about them which keeps him (or her) re-elected. Sometimes I think that every wierd frog, bird, or fish has it’s own private Sacramento politician protecting it.

Coming from the “outside”, one of the large problems here seems obvious to me. There is too much legal and illegal immigration into this state from Mexico. It has managed to overload all social and emergency services as well as the California schooling system.

It’s not that these people are all bad people (though many are, maybe through necessity. I don’t know). The problem is that most of them come here in abject poverty and immediatly start taking advantage of a system that was originally designed to help just a small percent of the population who were in need. So California has always been faced with a choice. Either cut off the sevices across the board which would include those American citizens for whom the services were originally designed, or cut off the services for illegal aliens and face the onslaught of political heat and righteous squabbling that would ensue.

The California government has always chosen to ignore the problem and hold firm to deficit spending. Now, with the down turn in the economy, all the chickens have come home to roost and the taxpayers are saying “Don’t come to us…been there, done that”.

It’s going to be fun to see what moves, the rock or the hard spot because obviously somethin’s gotta give.

Ernest on June 17, 2009 at 12:10 PM

With about one in seven California state workers earning more than $100,000 last year in base pay, overtime and bonuses, lawmakers still reject state worker pay cuts.

papertiger on June 16, 2009 at 10:58 PM

My wife works for the State of California and like all the other state workers had a ten percent pay reduction (2 unpaid furlough days per month) which looks like it’s going to continue indefinitely. I know that’s not exactly the same as a pay cut, but in reality it’s the same because your work still has to be done and you have to do it in two less days per month. Viewed from state management it’s pretty close to being a pay cut.

Ernest on June 17, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Comment pages: 1 2