Say Anything Blog

A trillion for the banks.  A dozen billion or so more for the auto companies.  A $1 trillion “economic stimulus” bill from Obama.  Now a $1 trillion bailout from the states.

Pretty soon here we’re going to be talking about some real money.

A group of Democratic governors warned Friday that without as much as $1 trillion in federal assistance, many states will not be able to pay their bills in the next year.

“There are states that are talking as California has of not being able to meet their financial obligations in the coming months,” New York Gov. David Paterson (D) said on a conference call with reporters. California announced in December that all state employees would be forced to take two days of unpaid leave.

Paterson was joined by New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine (D), Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D), Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D) and Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) in warning that states across the country will be forced to make drastic budget cuts in the face of unprecedented deficits.

“We are not crying wolf, this is one of the worst situations our states have faced,” Strickland said. “This is a real crisis. These are real problems. And if we don’t get some significant assistance many of those in our states will suffer greatly.”

So is the fact that all these states lining up to demand a bailout are run by Democrats merely a coincidence?  Or simply cause and effect?

What astounds me is that we’re supposed to believe that if these idiots don’t get a federal bailout they’re going to slash important state-provided services.  Because we’re supposed to believe that there isn’t any possible way they could trim some of the fat from their budgets.

For big-government liberals, cutting spending is just never an option.

But here are the problems with a bailout of state spending that go beyond the $1 trillion that they want spent on it.

First, and foremost, what about federalism?  The more federal spending we do at the state level the more control we lose over state policy.  Federal money comes with strings attached.  The more our states become dependent on money from the federal level the more policy decisions get made in far-away Washington DC instead of our state capitols.

Second, why should we bail out irresponsible state budgeting?  And why should Massachusetts’ inability to budget be the problem of North Dakota taxpayers?  If we bail out this state spending all we do is bail out the inept leaders responsible for it.  I say let these states go bust, and let the idiots responsible for it be voted out of office hopefully to be replaced by people who know what they’re doing.