Skip to main content

A Federal Bailout for California: My Proposal


Dear President Obama and Chairman Bernanke,

On behalf of the citizens of the State of California, I’m asking for a bailout for the California state government in the amount of $42 billion. Specifically, I’m asking for a $42 billion zero-interest loan from the Fed window, repayable over 20 years and collateralized by the state’s real estate and other holdings and its pension fund. I’m not asking for stimulus fund monies with their numerous restrictions on public spending. Make no mistake – we want that money, too, on top of the $42 billion bailout.

Yes, I am fully aware that $42 billion is no small sum. However, compared to the $700 billion the federal government is spending on toxic assets, zombie banks, hubris-filled insurance companies and failing auto manufacturers, I think the positive economic impact that will come from assisting a state that houses 12.5% of the nation’s population will provide, in the parlance of financiers, “more bang for the buck.”

Mind you, I am not an expert on public finance. In fact, I’m not certain, but believe I had Chairman Bernanke as my macroeconomics professor at the Woodrow Wilson School over twenty-two years ago. If my memory serves me correctly, I slept through most of the class and, in the finest of Ivy League traditions, I think I received a “C” for my slumber. That said, I feel compelled to make this request. Although our governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, has an amazing grasp of the obvious when he says that the state must live within its means because it can’t print its own money, he fails to take the next analytical and practical step: Borrowing from the government that CAN print its own money.

First, the terms:

1) The $42 billion will not be spent on general fund recurring expenses. One-quarter will go to a reserve fund that will be invested in safe instruments, the interest from which will be used to retire the state’s debt; one-quarter will go directly towards retiring state bonds that pay interest above what the Fed currently pays for Treasury bills; and one-quarter will go towards a dedicated endowment to pay for expenditures guaranteed by California’s Proposition 98 and other similar propositions for as long as they remain in effect (more on that below).

2) The $42 billion will be repayable at zero interest over 20 years. The collateral will include: All state-held real estate, property (autos), leases of state land and mineral rights, lottery proceeds, and the California Public Employees Pension Fund. Not too shabby, if I say so myself.

3) As a condition for receiving the bailout, the California Legislature will submit to you both a plan for restructuring the means by which California incurs expenses and receives revenues, including but not limited to:

a) A constitutional convention to place on the ballot constitutional amendments to:
i. Eliminate the right of the public and the legislature to place initiatives on the ballot to dedicate public funds for specific expenditures and rescind any prior initiatives that do so;
ii. Require a simple majority to pass a state budget;
iii. Require a balanced budget;
iv. Eliminate the rights of public unions to contractually limit the state from using private firms for public work;
v. Allow public school vouchers;
vi. Require a reserve fund of no less than 10% of the annual budget;
vii. Limit borrowing to no more than 5% of the annual budget;
viii. Remove the independent governance of any state government entity that receives state tax dollars, including, but not limited, to the University of California.
ix. Vest budgetary and spending control for all state government entities with the legislature and the executive office, regardless of whether they are led by constitutionally elected offices.
x. Legalize prostitution, gambling and marijuana, and tax these industries;
xi. Eliminate term limits for legislators.

b) Legislature salaries commensurate to those of the Texas legislature ($7,200 per year), with no per diem.

c) Mandatory state employee retirement at twenty years of service or $1.5 million in individual lifetime state government wage earnings, whichever comes first.

d) A restructuring of state agencies with elimination of redundant agencies.

e) Phasing out of public pension and retiree healthcare availability over the next 20 years while increasing 401(k) matching or, in the alternative, providing retiree benefits that match but do not exceed those provided by the federal government.

f) Contracting out prisons.

g) A five-year hiring freeze.

h) Zero-based budgeting and tighter controls on the use of state funds by state agencies.

i) A “Come Home to California” program matching the lowest state corporate tax rate for any corporations that relocate to California and provide 10,000 jobs or more.

j) Public finance for state political campaigns for candidates from minority parties (e.g., Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom) that match the funds raised by majority party (Republican, Democratic) candidates to increase diversity of ideas in state government leadership.

Mind you, I’d be open to any ideas you have, as I’m still impressed by the President’s willingness to forego his new helicopter fleet and actively eliminate pork from the federal budget. I am willing to consider as terms for this bailout any of the terms imposed by the administration on the receipt of funds by similarly failing institutions such as GM or Chrysler.

California is in dire straights. Despite being one of the largest economic engines of not only the United States but the world, through a confluence of economic and politic events, we find ourselves on the precipice of default. The state that gave the world Apple Computers (Mr. President, remember the IPod you gave Queen Elizabeth?), Yahoo!, Google, Genentech, Levi's and Disneyland still has the potential to reinvent itself. With your assistance, it can.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you both.

Yours very truly,

Black Woman Blogging


Popular posts from this blog

When You Leave The Ghetto, Don't Bring It With You

NBA player Gilbert Arenas brings a gun to an NBA locker room. NBA player Ron Artest lets his pit bulls run wild and free in Loomis, California while playing for the Sacramento Kings. NFL player Michael Vick did time for fighting dogs. And NFL player Plaxico Burress is doing time for shooting his damn self.

What do all these men have in common? BMNB would say an inability to make a profound paradigm shift. I’m less eloquent than BMNB is, so I’ll say it differently: The inability to leave the ghetto behind.

Yes, call me saditty, bourgie, elitist, stuck-up, whatever. I don’t care. Until you’ve had a tweaker ruin your Thanksgiving turkey, you don’t even know (more on that later), and I’m not trying to hear you.

Living in Western Placer County, my husband and I continue to hear stories from folks like us who had to flee “those who can’t leave the ghetto behind.” You know these people, and they come in all races. In our case, we had returned to Sacramento in 2004 and 2005, respective…

Hillary Clinton Can Stop Trump -- If She Releases Her Electors

Hillary Clinton isn't going to be President of the United States.  At least not yet.  And not in 2017.

But she can possibly stop Donald Trump from being President by releasing her pledged electors  in the Electoral College to vote for a compromise Republican candidate.

This is part of the strategy of the Hamilton Electors, members of the Electoral College who see that Donald Trump is not qualified to be President.  They argue that the Electoral College's role is not to rubber-stamp the popular vote -- which, in this case, would belong to Clinton -- but to serve as a check on the popular vote to make sure that no one who is unfit assumes the office of President.

According to the Hamilton Electors, named for Founding Father Alexander Hamilton (Yes, he of the very popular musical for which I can't get tickets) Hamilton stated that the Electoral College's test for fitness to be the President was as follows (and I'm quoting):

Election of a Qualified Person: As Hamilton s…

Malia's Hair is Off Limits! So is Sasha's!

I read a snippet of a New York Times article in which there was criticism of the hairstyle Malia Obama wore to Italy. Twists, to be precise. Said twists were criticized as not befitting someone representing the United States abroad.

Hold up. Slow your roll, America. You don't get a say in this. Neither Malia nor Sasha "chose" to represent the United States in any way, shape, or form. And their hair, and how they wear it, is off limits. Back the eff off.

I was hotter than a hornet reading this. The whole black woman's hair thing? That's personal with me. We black women have more than enough issues and neuroses about our hair and how we wear it. It is not open to debate within wider circles, especially when there's a child involved. The choices we have, other than wearing our hair in its natural state in twists, dreads, braids, cornrows or afros, are painful -- chemical relaxers, also called "creamy crack," and searing hot straightening combs. If Malia …