Home > Opinion > States Seeking Bailout Bucks Should Disclose as Much as Big Three

States Seeking Bailout Bucks Should Disclose as Much as Big Three

Reader Comments
Back to article

On the 7.70 per week the stimulus includes for the people footing the bill, who will be able to afford a car? With the hyperinflation the bailout causes who will be able to afford a bicylce?

Alison of MA 11:32AM March 09, 2009

Why does this man Frank Micciche want states that are not in trouble to pay for states that are. I like the approach of Mike Cur. They spent their way into the hole. Let them dig themselves out. If they can't live like the rest of us Americans who are law abiding, let them suffer the consequences.

J. M. of WI 3:47AM January 05, 2009

The huge run-up in median housing prices in CA may be traceable in part to excessive public-sector salaries compared to the median private-sector taxable incomes that support such governmental salaries and ancillary benefits. While unions in the past certainly helped raised middle-class wages in the private sector and the overall U.S. economy, their move to representing most public sector employees over the past 30 years has been more remarkable. Instead of negotiating with tough private businesses, they have gotten practically anything from passive governmental entities too timid to bargain reasonably and who act as if they are essentially not responsible or accountable for the funds they actually spend. Perhaps public employees in CA should take an across-the-board 25% cut in salaries and benefits to balance the current and future CA state operating deficits. I am not against governmental spending that goes toward private sector companies providing new infrastructure, but I do not suport more money for bloated employment agencies that many public entities have become, not only in CA but across the U.S. We are now paying the price of our reckless public, private, financial and economic activities of the past 2 decades. It will take a long time to dig ourselves and the planet out of this mess.

Peter Martin of AZ 1:38PM January 04, 2009

Something I've noticed in many other countries is a Vaule Added Tax as a better and fairer taxation means.
In China for example the rate is 7% of the value added by a level of production. This is paid monthly. This is now, changing but the original idea was toe rebate the VAT if the item was exported.
The tax collection machinery is greatly simplified with no individual tax. It's all paid by business.
It works.

larry jackson of IN 9:45AM January 03, 2009

Hey, I have a nutty idea. How bout the states who are in fiscal trouble raise their own money via taxes on their constituents?
Maybe the states will stop spending money like drunken sailors whence they come to the conclusion they have bankrupted themselves. The sad part is, the monthly nut on some of these states bond service, is approaching meltdown point. Some of these states are showing the preconditions of what the Federal govt fiscal meltdown is going to be in a few years.
Unfortunately, states like California and New York (where I reside) are going to have to raise the state income tax up to 4 basis points, unless of course they can find radical new sources of tax revenue. Its going to become very, very, expensive to live in New Deal states.
Fiscaly, the US soon to resemble Europe. Which is not a good thing.

Michael Cur of NY 1:14PM January 02, 2009

This is an excellent article.
In California, after years of financial mismaqnagement, financial bubbles and the adoption of a byzantine property tax system, we are struggling with probably the worst budget and defict of any state, and everyone including the Republican governor and the Democrat legislature are asking for federal assistance. When the GM bailout was being debated Californians overwhelming supported "Give Backs" from UAW members, who top out at plus or minus $30.00 an hour salary and benefits.
Yet in California, our police officers, fire fighters and prison guards are averaging $150,000 a year, and more, in salary, benefits and built-in overtime pay, are working (not counting overtime) about 62% of what would be a full-time job in the private sector, and can retire at age 55 at 90% of their salary. Indeed California taxpayers will soon be
supporting more retired police officers, fire fighters and prison guards than are actually working and that disparity will grow wider every year!
Incidentally, despite these salaries which are higher than the salaries of most physician and suregical residents in California, and the fact that California now incarcerates more people than any other state, albeit many of them diagnosed as mentally ill who could be housed in state hospitals for less than half the cost of keeping then in jails and prison, and many more non-violent parole violators who could be managed on intensive parole for a fraction of the cost, our crime rate is slightly above average.
The state also employs psychologists at higher salaries than other states pay psychiatrists, and deputy district attorneys who earn more than U.S. Supreme Court judges.
This is a situation that is crying out for "give backs" but yet neither our Governor, nor our legislators (man of whom have receive huge campaign contributions from police and prison guard unions) will even dare raise the subject.
Hopefully, when our politicians go to Washington to beg for their bailout members of congress from other states will not be so timid.

Peter of CA 9:54PM January 01, 2009

Here's a novel idea that we should try to get into the publics mind. There seems to be no end to the support congressional and senate leaders make towards bailouts of institutions whose sole purpose is to profit from our indebtedness. (Banks) Why not grant a tax amnesty for the American taxpayer for a couple of years and eliminate the unconstitutional Federal Reserve Bank system? Either that or give us as individuals the shares in those corporations you purchase spreading our wealth around. Perhaps we could get back to the Constitution and fund only those things specifically spoken of in it's pages. At one time it took an armed insurrection to free this nation from the politics of the day. As far as I can see that seems to be the only legitimate reason why there seems to be such a rise in the efforts of congress to restrict 2nd Amendment rights. Concerning that, isn't it odd that the government wants to define our rights as individuals when in reality the Constitution and the Bill of Rights actually point out the limits of what the government cannot do which is infringe on our rights.

J.M. of WI 5:30AM January 01, 2009