Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

c.i., I maintain much of California's discomfort stems directly from the old "Proposition 13" and its kin, and from State Legislated deregulations and other perhaps well-meaning but ill-advised initiatives. While the current economic downturn has impacted California, California's proportionately greater budget deficit is due primarily to the voters of California and their elected representartives, and to the course they chose to take. Washington DC did not bankrupt California; California managed that autonomously.



timber

timberlandko: along with unmitagated fraud perpetrated by energy companies absolved by Bush & Co

timber, I think you missed my point: If GWBush can give away $32 billion of our money to Turkey, but not a penny to help with California's $35 billion deficit, there's something drastically wrong. c.i.

What's wrong is that Bush knows California doesn't love him and said so. That re-endeared California to a lot of us!!

A number of the executives of those energy firms might question how much absolution is involved in the prosecutions they currently face.



The Administration did not create California's woes, and should not be expected to bail California out of its own mess (though I suspect there will be considerable Federal "Bailing Out" done, and not just involving LaLa Land). I see nothing wrong with using National Resources to further the accomplishment of Foreign Policy, while I see little reason to absolve US States of the consequences of their own fiscal irresponsibility. This does not mean I condone "Buying" Turkey; that too disturbs me deeply. I can't really blame Turkey though; past experience led Turkey to press the demands she pressed. The insensitivity displayed by previous Administrations to Turkey's legitmate concerns, indeed to the legitimate concerns of many erstwhile allies, created that particular embarassment, IMHO.



timber

For instance, good buddy - Ken Lay?

They are "National Resources" when it involves buying votes, it is return of taxes to the rich when it involves domestic issues!

timberlandko: i do believe President Bush's refusal to consider price controls on energy was politically motivated: "By JONATHAN SALANT
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON -- One of the biggest beneficiaries of the California power crisis is a Texas energy conglomerate that more than any other single company has helped bankroll President Bush's political career.

Enron Corp. of Houston is among a handful of a new generation of independent electric power brokers and producers that have reaped giant revenue increases from California's power shortages and higher natural gas prices nationwide.

The new president's rejection of price controls to hold down soaring electricity costs in the Golden State reflects the views of Enron, the largest wholesaler of electricity and largest owner of natural gas pipelines in North America

Thanks BillW and dys. Some people will argue ad infinitum their positions with the myopia of extremism without considering 1) the federal treasury is some of Californian tax payers money, 2) this administration continues to ignore the harm done to our state treasury because of the fraud perpetrated by Texas companies, and 3) the California (the US and the world) economy is being hurt by Bush's march to war with Iraq. Show me an economist who doesn't agree with this statement. c.i.

Heritage Foundation economists - dribble down theory sociopaths!

You are welcome c.i., in my view - it is easy to beat the Bush rabble -

All you need to do is look at El Paso energy's record.

Tartar, Some have already confessed to the fraud. We stilled don't see them being shackled and put into the police cars headed for jail - where they belong. c.i.

Domestic terrorists are the ruination of the USA and they are policitically sponsored and looked after!!!!! (see what campaign donations can get you!)

Every state in the union is bleeding. This is one of the reasons.
Mandates - With Money

The nation's governors met in Washington this week, obviously seeking more aid for their cash-strapped states. But among both Democrats and Republicans, the most common complaint was this: Why doesn't Congress pay for its share of programs that it requires states to implement?

They have a point. Most states are now cutting budgets like mad, but they must also find money to meet the requirements of federal laws on education, homeland security, and election reform, to name just the latest ones.

Take the 2001 education law known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which calls for mandatory testing in public schools. The Bush administration's own estimate of funding the act's requirements is $30 billion. But the budget for it is only $21 billion. The states must make up the $9 billion difference.

Then there's the 1975 federal mandate for special education, known as the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act). Congress promised to pay 40 percent of the costs. Instead, it pays only 17 percent. Local and state governments are left to make up the difference.

It's not that the states are squeaky- clean when it comes to passing the funding buck. Just look at California Gov. Gray Davis's recent plan to "realign" a number of drug-treatment programs - transferring them to the county level, hoping counties will fund them with new sales taxes.

National politicians long have had a tendency to micromanage local concerns, especially during the 1980s, when the federal government was running huge deficits and needed to pass off costs to states. That led to many unfunded mandates. Congress responded by enacting the 1995 Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. That law requires the Congressional Budget Office to estimate the cost of bills, ideally ensuring adequate money for programs.

But this basically useful act has loopholes that need to be closed. For instance, it doesn't apply to existing unfunded mandates, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, which states and cities have paid a big price to implement. And the law still makes it too easy for Congress to pass an unfunded mandate with a simple majority.

Surely the framers of the Constitution did not intend the federal government to force states into picking up unreasonable costs of federal mandates.

States, Congress, and the administration must strike a balance between a full-blown federal bailout for federally created programs, and requiring states to come up with reasonable amounts to fund new ones.

If Congress wants something badly enough, it ought to be prepared to find a way to pay for it.

Thank you, au. Balance is the "key" word. c.i.

But, c.i., the Federal budget doesn't have to balance?

They control the treasury and the printing presses. According to law, the feds are allowed to run deficits, but the states do not - from what little I know. c.i.

And now we are told that the largest deficit in the annals of mankind is good for us! Yeah, got some swamp land in (hey, that stuff may be valuable) - never mind!

Bill, you are HOT today! Wow!

I'm going over to the UN Iraq thread to post the gloom and doom I just heard on NPR about the cost -- real cost -- of the war. But in the meantime I wonder which candidate will WANT to run when he sees what he's likely to inherit. We have a major mess on our hands, friends. I remember that anti-Nixon, America pull out of the war bumper sticker, "Nixon's father should have pulled out!" Ah George. Ah Barbara... I wish...

tartarin: just curious regarding ultimate cost. last friday on THE NEWS HOUR someone gave the figure of 1.9 Trillion $ and a minimum of 10 years as an optimistic figure, how does that fit with what you heard on NPR?