I read this today. And then I wrote this, a copy of which, I assure you, will find its way to my Congressman and each of my Senators:
I just read that the State of California is looking to have the United States Government basically act as a co-signer on its borrowing, with money from the TARP backing the loans. Sir, as a resident of Virginia, I could not be more outraged that any state would even ask Congress and the presidency to act in such a manner.
This is a state that has overspent, overtaxed, overleveraged, and overextended its own money; and now they propose to do so with money from the other states. Governor Schwarzenegger has been derelict in his responsibilities, as has the legislature of California, and now they want a de facto bailout from the federal government.
Mr. President, I have never supported bailouts of any kind. I've never bought the argument that businesses can be "too large" to fail. In the words of Senator John McCain, "does that mean some businesses are too small to save?" California needs relief, and it needs a rescue, but not from the federal government and not from my tax dollars.
Lest you think I have no sympathy or empathy for Californians, I believe they should receive assistance from the government, but I believe they should receive it directly. This, I feel, should be the mentality. Businesses and governments shouldn't receive bailouts, no matter how big or small they are, or how much money will be given, or in what form. The federal government isn't responsible for the operation of businesses or state governments. It's responsible for the citizens of the United States.
Mr. President, if you want to help the people of California, then help the people of California. They deserve your help; they need your help. The State of California, though, shouldn't receive a dime from you; and they certainly shouldn't have the federal government co-signing for them.
Federal court panel denies emergency restraining order against new PA congressional map, sets March 9 hearing - See's no need for Temporary Restraining Order "in light of the court’s willingness to expedite resolution of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction"
37 minutes ago