California, Get Smart and Ronald Reagan: Is California--a Failed State--Worth Saving?

The title is misleading. There is absolutely no doubt that the ongoing Federal Government bailout of California is a TERRIBLE MISTAKE--not even defensible. As with the bailout of Wall Street, the banks, and car companies, the bailout of California only REWARDS and encourages bad behavior.


California is the largest economy i the United States, and the NINTH (give or take one or two) largest economy in the world. The Federal Government gets its money from the people in the states--to the extent it does not just print it--which means that California residents are bailing out THEMSELVES (to the extent the money is not siphoned off by the Federal bureaucracy). What sense does that make? Why can't California solve its own problems--of its own making. Texas--probably the second biggest economy in the United States, or at least close--does not have nearly the problems of California.


Why does leftist California have to use the shell game of relying on the Federal Government to "save" California, even though California has the resources to save itself? After all, if California does not have the resources to save itself, neither does the whole country.


It is, of course, BECAUSE California is leftist that it is in such trouble. And one of the key components of leftism is DECEPTION. Money routed through the Federal Government is not "real" money (to the people, or at least so leftists believe). It is Monopoly money--"free" money that is more expensive than any money you earn.


California--to a degree, anyway--has to live within its means--"pay as you go". In California, and every state, you can SEE where the money comes from, and where it is going (to a degree, again). Despite the fraudulent statements of Obama, the Federal Government does NOT "pay as you go", and can print money. Plus, it is so big and remote that the money seems to come from--and may actually come from--some large printing press sending out unlimited money (like a counterfeiter out of control, which is what the Federal Government has become). Thus, the Federal Government becomes a FINANCIER of leftist irresponsibility in California, because California cannot get away with its irresponsibility itself without the deception of "free" Federal money--despite the fact that California has more resources than any other state. It does not matter that using the Federal Government in this manner is the most WASTEFUL and INEFFICIENT way to spend money. It is a way for California, and California politicians, to escape responsibility for their own FAILURE.


Let us go to health care. Does California have the resources to create its own health care "solution"? Of course it does. If leftist California likes a leftist "public option", it could do it. Massachusetts did. This is true, really, of every state, and that is the way it SHOULD be done. But California found that it could NOT AFFORD leftist health care. So rather than bankrupt California, which leftists did anyway, California wants the Federal Government to go BANKRUPT providing a massive Federal health care program that California found too expensive. There is no way that makes sense. California is more capable of "solving" its own health care problems, on an efficient basis, than is the Federal Government--if, in fact, a leftist "solution" makes sense. Why siphon off money in a Federal bureaucracy when the money could stay in California? You know why. It is that same DECEPTION that Federal money is "free" money.


Now look at that 40% increase in insurance premiums in California. Leftist Democrats are using that to BASH the "evil" insurance companies (with which Obama has made a "deal"), and as a main reason we need a Federal takeover of the health, and health insurance, industry. It is exactly the opposite; showing that a Federal takeover is absurd and stupid.


What is the most leftist state in the union? Now that Massachusetts has elected Scott Brown, it may be California. California has to be close. If leftist California--with FULL AUTHORITY to regulate insurance companies--cannot successfully control insurance costs, what makes you think the Federal Government can do it? Are you insane? That is the leftist deception. If California fails, use the "free" money of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government fails, as it does, then we need MORE Big Government. This is the route straight to Hell (as a country).


Segue to "Get Smart" (TV show rating: 100 out of 100 for the series). KAOS has a plan to blow up California (or "kal ee fournia" in Arnold slpeak). The episode is called "Valerie of the Dolls". Here is some of the dialogue (approximate):


Chief: "Max, if KAOS succeeds in blowing up California, it will be a disaster."


Maxwell Smart: "Chief, that WOULD be a disaster. Ronald Reagan would have to go back to making movies."


Chief: "Max, why would that be such a disaster."


Maxwell Smart (with a knowing look): "Think about it, Chief."


Yes, that is funny stuff, although Ronald Reagan was not really THAT bad an actor. Even "Bedtime for Bonzo", where it is alleged the chimp out-acted Reagan, was not THAT bad a movie (average--rating 51out of 100).


What Reagan was, of course, was remarkable. As this dialogue shows, Reagan was not just the last truly successful President of the United States. He was also the last truly successful governor of California. Reagan has to be rolling over in his grave to see Arnold in the chair Reagan once occupied --alleging himself to be a Republican.


We now get to the real meaning of the title. Is California worth saving? Not bailing out. Saving. In other words, if an intelligence agency (like CONTROL) finds out that a terrorist organization (like KAOS, or al-Qauda) intends to blow up California, should it be stopped? This seems to me to be a serious moral dilemma. Thee are all of those people. But we are talking about CALIFORNIA. God must have faced the same dilemma with Sodom and Gomorrah.


A close questioning.


P.S. Contrary to rumor, my willingness to consider the total destruction of California as a desirable thing has nothing to do with my ex-wife living there. We get along fine, so long as we are far enough apart and don't talk to each other much. It also hurts if my daughters carry reports back to my ex-wife of the things I say. See yesterday's article.