The Glade 4.0

My own thoughts are this:

Federal tax dollars being to be used to start bailing out failed states is nothing short of taxation without representation.

I don't have a vote in the state of California. I have no say when it comes to their tax structure, their entitlement programs, or their political culture. Yet a Federal bailout takes my tax dollars, and sends them of to pay for other peoples poor choices, of which I had not even the smallest part.

In addition, what would be the point of keeping a reign on public spending if as a state I can legislate anything I want, knowing I don't have to pay for it. At the same time knowing that even if I do, I'll be taxed anyway to pay for those who don't. It completely undermines any notion of small and responsible government.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That's spending without representation, not taxation without representation. You had a representative in the US government, and it is that government which would be using your dollars/their taxing power to spend on things.

This isn't to say that I disagree with your overall point, merely that the logical basis of that statement is incorrect.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I disagree. Spending becomes taxation.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Elaborate.

Edit:
In other words, please explain at what point you no longer have representation in the Federal government, which is the entity collecting and allocating the funds.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Who has to pay for such spending? It is either a tax in the form of an actual tax or a tax in the form of reduced purchasing power in the case of inflation or a tax in the form of more tax revenue evaporating to cover the interest on the debt accumilated.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

And the Federal government, in which you ostensibly have representation, both collects and allocates that tax. Therefore, you have representation. The logic is improper to call this "taxation without representation."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

You're still being represented in the government directly spending your money. Someone else's spending that indirectly causes your taxes to go up isn't where you're entitled to representation, so the question is moot. If you want the money not spent, your representatives and senators need to have it made known to them that you don't want to be bailing out someone else's state.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yeah, that's the crux. How your representatives decide to spend it is irrelevant at best until you have a chance to select your next representative.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Not really irrelevant; the First Ammendment gurantees the right to petition.

That said, trying to go down the line past where you are represented and claim "well, I'm not also being represented at this level" is really not a very convincing argument.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Irrelevant as in "unimportant under the circumstances", where the circumstances are as conveyed in the original post - the allocation of funds because of a possible state bankruptcy.

Pretty much anyone's opinion of any kind of spending is irrelevant these days, until November 2, 2010.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Because the federal government doesn't have a say in California's programs or budget, and the individual states are Constitutionally mandated to have balanced budgets.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

They are? Since when?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm assuming by that statement he is referring to the various State constitutions that require a balanced budget. However, not all states have that provision if I recall correctly (I don't know if California does or not, and didn't take the time to look), and for the states that do, federal funds are already accounted for in the "balancing" of budgets, so if the Fed chips in the expected $20bn to fill that hole California is staring into, their budget is "balanced".

The only way for that to have any teeth is if the Fed was constitutionally required to balance the budget, which at least then would cause all "our" representation in DC to have a stake in the vote... Money to bail the fiasco in CA would directly remove money from some other state/program..

AFAIK, They aren't by the federal constitution. Several states, including California, have bound themselves to having a balanced budget.

Personally, I think it is a good barrier to what would be even worse abuse than we have now. Legislators still find ways around it and we're paying the price for all the pork.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Everything I have read recently, its not the pork, its Calpers.

They don't need to. They can decide to just not spend the money, and thereby force California to cut.

As long as you're repesented in the Congress (which you are) you don't need further representation in the continued spending of those dollars. Your only concern as a taxpayer is "I want my tax dollars spent bailing out California." or "I don't." It's not taxation without representation any more than it is when the government allocates money to the Navy, and the Navy then decides what sort of computer paper to buy.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The states are bound by the Constitution to have a balanced budget because the Constitution prohibits the states from making any sort of legal tender other than gold or silver coinage. They therefore cannot monetize their debts.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It is entirely different because the Navy is a federal entity equally benificial or detrimental to all states and thereby all tax-payers, and California is not.

California is an entity unto itself, working for the benifit of Californians only.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Except that it's not entirely different. Either way, your money is spent at the level at which you're represented. The Navy also buys airplanes from contractors that are not Federal entities and serve only their own interests.

The fact of the matter is that you're being represented when your tax dollars are spent. I don't see any good reason why you need even more representation.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that it is. Your absurd assertions that the State of California is a federal entity benifiting all states and tax payers equally not withstanding.

Your position assumes that my representatives consent to the bailout. Or that any such bailout would be subject to congressional vote, instead of Executively administered, or administered by fiat declaration by the Federal Reserve.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

You're from MA. (I Think)

Your representatives probably *do* approve of bailing out CA as its a Socialist thing to do

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm from Rhode Island, and my representitives will likely think the bailout is a good thing, since they are likely to be asking for one of their own next year or the following.

The way this is going to break down is what makes it taxation without representation.

States with deficits, facing bankruptsy, will seek federal dollars for themselves and their ilk.

Those states without such deficits will oppose, and if outnumbered they will have had their money stolen, with no representation.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Let it all collapse. The weak and ignorant will die or suffer. The strong and smart will survive and future generations will be raised in an environment where such ignorant ideals that dragged us here will be beaten out of them by reality - until the point that the lack of interfering law allows them to create a soceity in which tehy can sufficiently and temporarily distance themselves from reality where these poisonouss ideas again take root.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Yeah, except it won't be the smartest surviving. It'll be the people with the most relevant skills, like survival training and whatnot. You think the top physicists, chemists, and mathematicians have any chance?

Or telecom engineers, salespeople, or those sorts of things?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!