How bad should budgets get before states are bailed out?
Ten states struggled to pass budgets before the Tuesday deadline, including Illinois. According to the Wall Street Journal, state governments could face partial shutdowns if budgets aren’t created soon.
In Illinois, the new fiscal year has already started with no budget, according to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article.
The state will ultimately be more than $9 billion in the red for the fiscal year that starts today, Gov. Pat Quinn’s administration says, unless the Legislature provides new revenue. He has warned of potential deep cuts in human services such as day care subsidies and elder care, as well as interruptions in other state functions, if the budget gap isn’t closed.
State economies are so desperate they may even seek federal bailouts, many say. California has already asked for federal backing. Instead of asking for cash, they are asking the federal government to serve as more of a co-signer on loans, according to the Associated Press.
Although the Obama Administration already denied the request, many wonder what will happen to California if they don’t find a solution soon.
Fox News on TV this morning warned of a possible collapse in state government. California and other states could be unable to pay its police officers, firefighters and other city workers. In Illinois, human services will be cut along with the pay of social service workers.
In light of this desperate economic situation, should states receive the help of the federal government? Like GM and AIG, if state budgets get bad enough, we will have a choice?
If state budgets get out of control what could this mean for the nation’s already struggling economy?
This is citizens rights issue. The citizens of each state have the opportunity to require services from the state and the obligation to pay for them. If the state doesn’t want to pay for them, the services must be stopped no matter how good we feel about providing them.
It is unfortunate that we seem to have so many states where the request for government provided services out strips the states ability to pay for them. The elected politicians then have an obligation to reduce cost back to what is affordable. It should be easy, drop back to what is mandatory for the state and add things back in until you run out of money.
By all means, cut services. The states need to manage the money they have, just like everyone else. There are way too many services that are simply unnecessary. Why should I be paying for day care subsidies? Why should I be paying for alcohol and drug treatment centers? I didn’t have kids I can’t afford. I didn’t drink all day and all night every day or shoot heroin in my veins? Why should the tax payers be responsible for other people’s screw ups? All these liberals want to do is do what they do best. Stick their hands out and beg, so they can continue to pay people who are sticking their hands out and begging. The only services that tax payers should be paying for are those that are necessary, like police and firefighter services, and TEMPORARY financial assistance for food and shelter. I saw posted elsewhere, and I’ll echo it here, I’m all for helping someone out when their down, but they need to make an effort to get back up on their own, as well.
This mess is hopeless.Way to many worthless,lazy freeloaders on the dole,having everything giving to them and giving nothing in return.Now they are coming over here illigally by the millions,not to bear the fruits of hard work,but to ripped off everything they can from us.Sorry state of affairs,to say the least!
How many of the ten are historically Dumbocrats run?
“Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Keep the Feds out of it.
We always have choices, it’s just that statist politicians and promoters of the welfare state refuse to accept most of them. The issues with GM and AIG are entirely different than those of state budgets not good examples here. They should have been allowed to go into civil bankruptcy with no interference from the federal government. That boondoggle is going to haunt us for decades.
State budgets are the sole responsibility of each state’s citizens and their respective legislatures. Forcing people in other states to pay for other state’s mistakes is as close to taxation without representation as we’ve seen in a couple centuries. The results will not be pretty.
Absolutely not. The citizens of these states need to pay for these services if they want them. You don’t hear Missouri, or most other states, crying for federal bailouts. California voters had their chance to raise revenue, and they voted down almost all the measures. Now they should deal with the corresponding service cuts. It’s somewhat refreshing to see this debate on a state level at a time when our Democrat-controlled Federal government is trying to tax us to death at that level as well. Cap & trade and nationalized health care are essentially incredibly burdensome tax hikes that will stifle this nation’s recovery and growth. At a time like this, the government should be offering less services and easing the burden, not the opposite.
No State or business should be bailed out, it removes the “survival of the fittest” factor and that is not healthy for the economy. The States will always survive, but letting the weak businesses go down, only turns the arrows of the business charts up.
No bailout for states. If a state gets bailed out, then why is there the need for a state?
pass a law prohibiting the hiring of cousins and brothers-in-law and everything will balance out.
I haven’t heard anyone in any of these bankrupt states make the hard choices. Let’s face facts, the free giveaway programs have to go until the state gets their fiscal house in order. Welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, free breakfast/lunch programs, the size of the state work force all have to be cut dramatically. When companies need to cut expenses to correct a budget shortfall, they start by cutting overtime, offering early retirement, not filling open positions, and layoffs. This is what the states in trouble need to do. Then they need to slash so called social services. I am well aware of the need for some, not all, of these programs but I also have seen way too many bums scamming the system. The states need to clamp down on able bodied people with satellite TV and cell phones getting food stamps. Illinois can’t pass a budget. Are they still giving in-state tuition discounts to illegal aliens? California has a massive illegal alien problem. In light of their budget shortfalls, are they still handing out welfare, food stamps, housing, education, and medical care to the illegals? Give me your budget and I’ll balance it. The “do gooders” won’t like it but I’ll bet the people who work everyday and pay state income tax, real estate tax, property tax, state sales tax and bear the full tuition burden to send their kids to college will like it.
What is the difference between California and the US? California should be prospering, but they arent. They have health care for everyone, and no way to pay for it. They have High taxes, and those that can flee them, are. They have an immigration problem and no solution, they have strict environmental laws (which are killing agriculture). Look at California and yo uwill see where the US is heading, FLAT BROKE and no way out.
Give California to CHina as payment on our debt and lets move on.
SVPPB -
I see you are so knowledgeable about my home stat that you do not require any facts.
Even with a “failing economy” California is still doing better that many countries, not to mention many other states.
California also has an immense wealth of talent in non-traditonal areas other than manufacturing, ie agriculture, hi-tech, and the incipient green economy. Cf. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-green-jobs11-2009jun11,0,3978144.story
Unlike many other states, Missouri included, California has not been afraid to take risks. Too many states have relied solely on their “traditional” bases for their economy, and those bases are disappearing or being severely reduced.
By the way, for every tax dollar California sent in to DC, they got $.79 (seventy-nine cents) back. compare that to Missouri ($1.29), Mississippi ($1.79), Kentucky ($1.45), Tennessee ($1.30), Alabama ($1.71), Alaska ($1.87), South Carolina ($1.38), Virginia ($1.66), West Virginia ($1.83) etc. In point of fact there are only seven states that receive less than California (New Hampshire, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Minnesota, Illinois, Nevada) all the rest either are more or exactly the same. Cf http://www.taxfoundation.org/UserFiles/Image/Blog/ftsbs-large.jpg
Did you notice anything about this list?