Schwarznegger's budget crisis got me thinking.  He expects $7 Billion in federal bailouts  - most of which will come from taxpayers in the OTHER 49 states – to bail out California’s overspending.   People in Texas, Mississippi, Kentucky, etc should subsidize California lifestyles?

What happens when all 50 governors ask for a bailout?  Is this the definition of a zero sum game?

And its not as if the Federal Government has the money available.   We’re using Federal deficits to solve state deficits.   Nothing is being repaid – debt is just being shuffled around.   This is borrowed money.

And we’re borrowing to send GM billions, so they can have a faster bankruptcy.   Is that something that WE, as ordinary taxpayers, want to sign up for?  Our kids will be repaying the GM bankruptcy, actually.   Buy a Honda, and pay for your sins with a huge obligation of future taxes to keep UAW workers on the assembly line?

Would you borrow $100 billion to send to Pakistan?  That’s Hillary’s request – again, money we don’t have.  We can’t get mortgages or car loans, but we’re borrowing money (at the federal level) to send to countries that share none of our values of human rights, democracy, separation of church and state. 

Would you borrow money to keep guys in their McMansions that they can no longer afford?  Shouldn’t our own rent and mortgages and car payments and grocery bills actually come first?   Why subsidize the mortgages of people who are unemployed and are going to lose their homes anyway?  Is there an actual winner here?

This is all a shell game – borrow huge amounts we probably can never afford to pay back, to buy stuff we don’t even want or need.

Wait a minute – isn’t that how the crisis started in the first place?