Skip to main content

California's Cluster**** Is A View Into America's Future Under Obama

California is a microcosm of the federal state under the policies of Barack Obama.

When economic turmoil hit the tech and tourism economy in 2001 and 2002, California's answer was to increase spending and borrowing to "stimulate the economy." Government payrolls surged, new departments sprang up like weeds, regulations and tax increases choked commerce, and California became a pariah for the productive -- with the highest level of net outmigration of middle class workers of any state in the country (including basket cases like Michigan).

California, like Obama, believed that government could create "green jobs" with borrowed money.

California, like Obama, borrowed cash to spend on lavish public works projects.

California, like Obama, created "free" health care for everyone.

California, like Obama, made college "free" for most residents.

California, like Obama, increased taxes on "the rich," implemented environmental taxes on different classes of cars, penalized driving, and cranked up fares on public transit in the Bay Area once that became a monopoly form of transit for many commuters.

Fast forward to today -- California is bankrupt.

I received a letter from the state informing me that my estimated $2,000 tax refund will be delayed and effectively, I'll be getting an IOU from the state for the money.

State contractors, companies and individuals owed money by the state, and state employees will also be receiving IOUs -- many in lieu of paychecks.

Try as the Governator might, he cannot convince banks to take California IOUs as "same as cash" instruments. And nobody is lending money to California because, well, it's broke and unlikely to pay the money back.

California will probably demand, and receive, a large bailout from the rest of the country. It will probably blow through that and be back in crisis in a year or two, as the massive growth of the state's government continues to crush its poor citizens. It will likely persist in its deadbeat status for a long time.

But when America as a country reaches the same point, who will provide IT with a bailout?

You cannot continue spending trillions of dollars that you don't have and not eventually go broke. California is illustrative of that.

If Obama wants "change," he should start by changing his policies, which as implemented in California have led to the ruin of that once-dynamic economy.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"...he cannot convince banks to take California IOUs as "same as cash" instruments...."

Someone might litigate that there is a constitutional ban on states issuing paper currency.
Tyler Nixon said…
"You cannot continue spending trillions of dollars that you don't have and not eventually go broke."

I think spending trillions you don't have is the definition of being well past broke.

The problem is that they don't want to stop the runaway train from steaming ahead, until it derails into the big hole they have dug...right on top of all of us.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...