You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Laficornia budget solution: US taxpayers to fund state bailout
2008-11-13
Not that many people outside of California care, but according to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state faces a nearly $25 billion budget deficit. As the rich man that he is, the former movie star favors everybody else helping out by making his state's sales tax the No. 1 biggest, averaging 9.5%.

According to the nonpartisan legislative analyst, Mac Taylor, the state's deficit will actually be closer to $28 billion in the next 20 months. That's a lot of money, even at California prices; more money even than Barack Obama raised to get elected president.

Meanwhile, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, a Los Angeles Democrat, has drawn up a partial solution anyway: Federal money. Use some of those Wall Street taxpayer $700 billion bailout bucks on California! Bass has urged the federal government to hand over the money to states -- well, her state anyway -- as well as those rich Wall Street banks in another coastal state. Why should New York get it all?

With federal money it won't really cost anything, see? And she won't have to explain voting for more taxes back home come next election. It's the least Americans can do for the sunshiney state they love to hate.

"We think that with the state of California about to go over a cliff," Bass says, "we ought to be part of the bailout as well. Can we have $5 billion or $10 billion?"

Handing out that much federal money to the most populous state that can't balance its own budget is probably O.K. with the rest of the country, don't you think? How could anyone possibly object in any of those other puny places?
Posted by:Steve White

#10  I live in California and would be outraged if the US gov't acceeded to this request. This pressure is the only thing capable of inserting a modicum of sanity into the equation. The legislature (in particular) has built this monster and REFUSED to act responsibly. They could not act in any other position of authority in anything beside government because thye private sector eould have discded them long ago.
Posted by: Shatle and Tenille1815   2008-11-13 17:50  

#9  That number above is not me, just an example. And yes, single no dependants is brutal and my guess will take the brunt of any future tax increases. Then there is state withhold, ss, med, and various local additions etc.

Still on for $2trillion total bailouts by eoy, $25billion divides into that number quite a few times (80). $100mil waste here there don't seem much until it all adds up and Tax Freedom Day is after 4 months of work. I don't mind paying taxes - roads, military, police so on are good; this however is bullcrap.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-11-13 15:57  

#8  swk, try single w/ no dependents. There are no "gimme's" for us.
Posted by: tipover   2008-11-13 15:25  

#7  You left out 15.3% FICA taxes (7.65% from your paycheck, 7.65 from employer).
Posted by: ed   2008-11-13 15:21  

#6  (loose figure based on fed paycheck withhold, variable of course by total household income etc etc tax laws)
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-11-13 15:13  

#5  Since they like the whole idea of share the wealth and all, how bout a 85% income tax on all hollywood and music industry types making +$1 million per year (besides all those CDs and movies with promos is bad bad right)? Otherwise STFU and end the socialist programs and balance your account just like Average Joe must.

If there are 77.5 million (only stat I could find 2005 census.gov; any other figures out there?) households who file federal, then that means average household would pay litl over $320 to help California (of course, this depends filing household income). Gee, I think I would rather spend that on family groceries than an obviously floundering socialist state.

A married person no kids making $50-$60k per year already puts $7k in the Fed per year.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2008-11-13 15:08  

#4  Sell it back to Mexico.
Posted by: ed   2008-11-13 15:00  

#3  while i would like to think that the other 49 might have some objection to that, due to the state of many states' budgets, they all might want to get in line, so all the good little donks will strap on the feed bag and head for the pork.
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2008-11-13 14:58  

#2  Schwarzenegger has been spending a lot of time and effort on Climate Change (formerly Global Warming). He and his wife are probably angling for an Obama appointment to Energy Czar, Climate Change Czar or EPA so he doesn't have to deal with this mess.
Posted by: DoDo   2008-11-13 14:22  

#1  Maybe. You go into receivership which in this case is territorial status. A territorial governor will be appointed who will oversee the Chapter 11 operation of the state till a new state convention will be called to write up a state constitution which will address and restructure the operation of the state within a budget that it can sustain by revenue generation and not bond creation. Said constitution must be approved by Congress. Meantime, you don't have any representatives or senators with voting rights in Congress [sort of like the District of Columbia or stockholders in AIG].
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-11-13 13:34  

00:00