Should The Government Bailout States?

An interesting question with a possible of starting a helluva argument…..I propose this question because of something I read in the WSJ blog Washington Wire:

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger asked for $6.9 billion in federal funds in his state-budget proposal for California and warned that state health and welfare programs would be threatened without the emergency help.

Do you think the federal government should comply with the request? What about the governor’s argument that the money would amount to a reimbursement to his state of unfunded mandates?

Should the federal government bailout states that are in financial treacherous waters?  I say NO….no way….nope…..and why is that professor?

Yes the recession has hit all states heavily, but beyond that…the states have made horrendous decisions in the past all in the name of politics and elections…..most notably the tax revenues which all states need to provide for their citizens….but politicians make promises to the voter to cut taxes if they are elected and then they push for it as a pad to their resumes….and once they succeed in cutting taxes to attract votes, business and so forth…they start cutting programs to make up for the shortfall in their revenues……

I say NO to bailout the states……they should be forced to face the disaster that they have created……maybe instead of taking away programs that are needed maybe they should look at a more realistic way of gathering revenue, besides looking to cover their butts with federal funds….

And what pray tell is the answer, Professor…..simple try looking at the land value tax (LVT) and maybe then needed programs would flourish and the people of the state could go about a happier existence…..what could it hurt to look for a feasible answer and stop wasting time begging the federal government to cover your ass?