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?
You might think, since I’m not American, that this is of little interest to me, but although I agree about States (or in the UK, counties – and I know it’s not the same, but there are enormous and important similarities), paying and suffering financially along with everyone else.
However, I both agree and disagree with you. If he’s not telling untruths, or half truths, the Arnold is absolutely right! If you don’t want to pays states to carry out edicts that you pass down to them – then don’t make the bloody edicts in the first place. If the centrel government assholes have to face up to the COST of their moronic legislation, then maybe they’ll think a little harder about passing it in the first place.
In the UK local (council) tax is HUGE!!!! and (at the last official count) at the very least a massive 82% in order to pay for central government shit that does almost NOTHING that the majority (by a long, long way in most areas) of the voters of that local community want!
So, if it’s really to pay for central government demands, why shouldn’t they pay for it?
Quin…sorry for the delay …I have been concentrating on Info Ink…….I agree with the edict passing thing…..and I also think that cutting taxes at the state level is just not that smart…..especially in these times……I believe that there is NO property tax in Calif……and that is a major source of income for the local governments……it will be interesting to see if that changes……