The national debt is not as dire as it's being portrayed (Vanity)

My letter to the editor of every major paper | October 21, 2003 | Peach

[Hoplite]

In addition, the record deficits in California continue to have a negative impact on our national economy. California is the world's fifth largest economy and their breathtaking social experimentation in recent years has resulted in a state dangerously close to needing a national bail-out.

Considering California sent Washington $57 Billion more than it got back in 2002, you appear to be misrepresenting the issue just a tad.

[Peach]

Considering California sent Washington $57 Billion more than it got back in 2002, you appear to be misrepresenting the issue just a tad.

The fact that Californians pay taxes is a completely separately issue of a bailout.

NYC was bailed out by the federal government many, many years ago and New Yorkers continued to pay taxes, of course.

Airline employees and corporations pay personal and corporate taxes but that does not negate the fact that the airlines have needed bailouts throughout history.

[Hoplite]

How can Federal funds be disassociated from each other simply upon the basis of which way they travel in regards to Washington?

I doubt that a Federal bailout of California is in the works, I hope and expect we will tackle our financial problems without Federal intervention.

In the meantime, however, I object to California being portrayed as some kind of a welfare state.

[Peach]

You object to California being portrayed as a welfare state? Just when did you start to object - before or after the near bankruptcy of your state?

Nearly every conservative editorial I have seen that mentions the financial disaster in CA blames it DIRECTLY on the social experimentation that took place there during the last few years. Have you been offended at those hundreds of article, too?

[Hoplite]

The elementary mathematics of the situation don't conform to the model of a welfare state, no matter how many editorials you have read.

California has problems, yes, but they are more complex than a simple issue of too much largesse from Sacramento.

[Peach]

The primary problem, according to those who live there and write about it, is that California has over-taxed business, to the point that so many businesses have left the state that the revenue stream has been severely reduced.

Additionally, California politicians have indulged in social programs that have been called socialistic in nature. Giving tax breaks and freebies to illegal aliens who do not even pay a dime into the program certainly qualifies for the name I gave it: Social Welfare.

There are many other problems to be sure. But the two mentioned seem to be the biggest. If you would care to elaborate on what you consider the biggest problems in California, feel free. However, you will not my comments about California totaled two lines, I believe, in an editorial about the GDP and the deficit.

[Hoplite]

And now that we have a Republican governor the only thing that's going to change radically is the tone of those editorials you're reading - the tax burden on businesses won't be altered dramatically because to do so would be to eviscerate the State budget, which can't be done without committing political suicide.

Unless Gov. Elect Schwarzenegger wishes to be the Education Terminator - something I highly doubt.

I'd be happier than a pig in mud if we'd tackle the illegal immigrant problem, but waiting for Uncle Sam to do anything isn't going to get us anywhere, and placing the burden upon local businesses and citizens to ensure they don't hire any illegal labor would be met with cries of more government regulation strangling business.

Welcome to Catch-22, California style.

As I said, it's more complicated than you portray, and in the meantime, California continues to provide funds to other States in the Union - we are not a welfare State.

I commented upon what I viewed as an inaccurate depiction of California - I still view it as inaccurate.

As to the balance of your post, since we're paying $352 Billion or thereabouts to service the debt, any budget that doesn't reduce the overall debt is just digging us into a deeper hole, so minimizing the damage done by each successive budget deficit isn't doing anybody any favors as far as I'm concerned - we either get realistic about our National Debt or merely add to the pain when we can no longer ignore it.

[Peach]

I don't think anyone is going to do what needs to be done in California or elsewhere. People are finding they like the nanny state and the giveaways. Until we experience what Canada and Great Britain have experienced in regard to health care, we will continue to think that free health care for all (including illegals who haven't paid into the system) is the way to go.

The entire point of my comments is that as the fifth largest economy in the world, what happens in California affects the entire national economy. It may be simplistic, but there is no doubt that the social/welfare give-away programs are what have, in part, nearly bankrupt that once great state.

I fully expect conservative columnists to continue to point out that the failed social experiementation in CA is what has so financially hurt the state and it is likely they will be very critical of Arnold if/when he does not make gutsy cuts in those programs.

Considering the deficits of the last 20 years have been paid back at far higher interest rates and at higher deficit to GDP, I am not terribly concerned about the current deficit. Others have disagreed. No one likes deficits and I certainly do wish that we had a balanced budget and would make gutsy cuts in Washington. Ticks me off to no end that we don't. However, it is not all the doom and gloom as portrayed in the national media either. That was the ONLY point of my post.

Anyway - good luck in CA. Arnold is in for a rought ride, no matter what he does.

[Hoplite]

Best of luck to you too.

Regards -