Posted on 12/27/2010 5:21:08 PM PST by Nachum
It’s looking increasingly likely that California will get bailed out by the federal government. The Golden State is $70 billion in the hole. Analysts expect that figure to reach $150 billion within four years — and that’s not including the state’s $500 billion unfunded pension liability. Spending needs to be cut dramatically, but it won’t be; the state is too politically dysfunctional to do that. And the election of big-spender Jerry Brown will only make things worse. (Incidentally, Governor-elect Brown recently described his state’s budget problems this way: “It is much worse than I thought. I am shocked.”)
Most conservatives are adamantly opposed to bailing out any state, especially California. They argue that Californians in particular don’t deserve a bail out, that a bailout would set a bad example for other states, and that it would cost too much.
But these arguments assume that a bailout of California would come with no strings attached. That may be what ends up happening, but it doesn’t have to. It’s possible to make the bailout contingent on Sacramento making drastic budget cuts and passing constitutional amendments that radically reform the state’s political system.
And the state’s political system is certainly in need of reform. Some ideas: Scaling back the state’s maze of regulations; eliminating some of its hundreds of unnecessary boards and commissions; imposing a real spending cap (the current one is too high to make a difference); laying off state employees; and reducing future pension obligations.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I am a conservative and a Californian. I do NOT want the federal government bailing this state out.
attaching strings to crack doesn’t end crack addictions - it just teaches junkies how to use scissors.
I may not be the brightest, but what would happen if all those pension funds weren’t able to pay those exorbitant figures and they said “Screw you, we can’t afford it” and they stopped paying them. What would they do, sue the State and if they did, where exactly would the money come from if it’s broke?
Put me out of my misery and tell me why it couldn’t happen.
6. California is immediately a “shall issue” state. No excuses.
I dont want the government’s money for CA - its like drugs for a junkie.
Bail out a state that spent 1/2 billion dollars to build a high school? Cold day in hell!
Bo NOT bail us out! How will our leaders LEARN? This is basic psychology.
Even IF we were able to come to terms, nobody would ever enforce them. CA would spend the money then look for more...with no intention of ever enacting the harsh medicine.
Not. One. Penny.
Being fiscally responsible means saying no...PERIOD.
If they bailout CA...watch TX ditch the union.
Why would any conservative encourage the feds to interfere with state laws?
Or deliver them via airburst from secure launch sites outside of Kaulifornia.
Do you realize how many thousands of California veterans lay buried in that soil? What will you say to them when you so cavalierly sell the ground they fought and died for to China?
They get NOTHING.
Well said...
Just turn the lights out after everyone has left.
Then watch it wash into the Pacific, hopefully taking the spenders that ruined the state.
This is Peter Tucci, the author of this article? Why, he's a mere boy. No wonder the article is nonsensical.
Do some growing up, kid, before you attempt to advise conservatives about an issue as large as bailing out a failing state.
Not just NO, but #)#)*$)(&@#_)$R&#@)$$_&*#)(*Y&$_)(@#)(&$#@)(#)(#)(&$$##&)$(&$(*@Y^@)#+@+@+&*@)$(*&@(* NO!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.