Too big to fail? Too big!
Here's the NYT editorial page advocating a bail-out for California, because it is too big to fail. (you may have to sign in--try bugmenot.com to make that problem go away forever)
Sure, if we're going to give California money, there should be conditions. But not conditions that just make California a vassal of D.C. Here's my condition: If California is too big to fail, we'll break it up until it's small enough. As my sole condition for bailing out California, I break California up into 6 smaller states: Shasta, San Francisco, the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County and the Coast. Now they're no longer the 5th largest economy in the world, and if one of them gets back into this problem, at least the rest of them might have the sense to avoid it. Note that nobody but California has this depth of problem right now. Note that my proposed solution breaks California up in such a way as to preserve the current balance in the Senate--half the states will be conservative, half will be liberal.
Are there problems with this plan? Let me know, and I'll tell you why they aren't problems.
Sure, if we're going to give California money, there should be conditions. But not conditions that just make California a vassal of D.C. Here's my condition: If California is too big to fail, we'll break it up until it's small enough. As my sole condition for bailing out California, I break California up into 6 smaller states: Shasta, San Francisco, the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Orange County and the Coast. Now they're no longer the 5th largest economy in the world, and if one of them gets back into this problem, at least the rest of them might have the sense to avoid it. Note that nobody but California has this depth of problem right now. Note that my proposed solution breaks California up in such a way as to preserve the current balance in the Senate--half the states will be conservative, half will be liberal.
Are there problems with this plan? Let me know, and I'll tell you why they aren't problems.