Robert Scheer: We Saved Banks, But at What Cost to Hungry Kids?

We bailed out our nation's banks, but programs that serve the poorest children in our state soon will be dismantled

By Robert Scheer | Published on 05.27.2009

  • E-mail
  • Print this page Print
  • Comments (5)
    • Share

All sorts of startling conclusions are being drawn about the failure of California’s ballot funding initiatives last week. Newt Gingrich hailed it as another Boston Tea Party, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman insisted that it condemns California, one of the world’s largest economies, to banana republic status. But if it was such a big deal, how come the voter turnout was so low?

Robert Scheer
Robert Scheer

Maybe because the statewide ballot initiatives were a bit of a political practical joke played by a Republican governor and leading Democrats pretending to be dealing on a statewide basis with the consequences of a national economic crisis that can be solved only through massive federal intervention. There is no way that the people of any state will vote to increase their taxes in the midst of a deep recession, and certainly not when the funding demands seem to have little to do with solving the problem at hand. As a subheading in the ever-sober Economist magazine put it, “Voters reject a ballot they could not comprehend.”

I tried, and after reading the opposing argument in the literature supplied at my nearly empty polling station, I voted for the ballot propositions that our governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, had requested. I assumed that this would help our vastly underfunded inner-city schools. Later, my son Chris, who teaches in one of those schools, told me that I might have been wrong and that the convoluted paragraphs of the all too typically obtuse California propositions could not improve matters much at all.

So, filled with doubt and guilt, I took solace in the fact that in terms of the money involved it wasn’t that big a deal, and that surely the feds, to whom we Californians send more in revenue than any other state, would bail us out, as they have the banks. Heck, the entire projected California budget shortfall comes to only $21 billion, a tiny fraction of the banking bailout.

Yes, only — what is $21 billion in federal loan guarantees for California to skirt bankruptcy compared with the $45 billion given to Citigroup, along with $300 billion more in guarantees for that company’s toxic paper? Or how about the $185 billion doled out to AIG? If Citigroup is too big to fail, isn’t the state of California? Does anyone seriously believe that the national economy can snap back to health if California is in the dump?

The cause of California’s, and almost every other state’s, predicament is an economy ruined by deregulation policies that were secured by the lobbying efforts of Wall Street, led most prominently by Citigroup. So, I expected a federal government that has spent trillions salvaging the banks that got us into this mess to find the relatively minor sums needed to bail out California and other states that have been the victims of Wall Street’s dangerous games.

But I didn’t count on the tough-love steeliness of President Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod, who told Californians that “there’s a limit to what the government can do” when it comes to bailing out our state (as opposed to the banks). Or of White House press secretary Robert Gibbs: “Obviously, the state has to make some very tough fiscal decisions ... (given) the budgetary constraints that they have.”

Tough for whom? Not the politicians of either party. The results of such decisions are tough for the poor of America, two-thirds of whom are kids, left to the tender mercy of the states, thanks to the sweeping “welfare reform” and other programs put into place by the Clinton White House in one of that Democratic administration’s wondrous triangulation ploys.

The Los Angeles Times summarized the direction of those difficult choices in a story headlined, “Poor would be hard hit by proposed California budget cuts,” which stated that Schwarzenegger “is considering a plan to slash California’s safety net for the poor by eliminating the state’s main welfare program, health insurance for low-income families and cash grants to college students.”

Bail out the banks, but not the 500,000 poor families with children served by the CalWorks program, which will be dismantled, or the 928,000 children covered by the Healthy Families program, slated for oblivion.

At a time when the feds are spending with such abandon in an effort to stimulate the economy, why is it tolerable to leave states in a position where they are forced to fire teachers? As the Los Angeles Times reported, “Schwarzenegger has proposed slashing state spending on education by $3 billion to help close the budget gap, and the state would pay dearly for canceling classes, firing instructors, cutting class days and shortening the school year, experts said.”

How can there be federal funds readily available for banker bonuses but not to keep teachers in the classroom with their students? It must have been the kids who caused the meltdown.

— TruthDig.com editor in chief Robert Scheer‘s new book is The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America. Click here for more information. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

You must be a registered user to comment. Create a user account

Log in




Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

» DAVE in UT on 05.29.09 @ 07:19 AM

To paraphrase a “cold war” maxim familiar to some among us ‘of a certain age’: WHAT IF THE FEDS HAD BANK SALES, BUT NO ONE CAME?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Publius on 05.29.09 @ 10:30 AM

Tsk, tsk, tsk, Mr. Scheer. How many millions did “hungry kids” donate to the major
political parties last year? Isn’t that why Paulson-Bush and Geithner-Obama are doing
all they can to help bail out banks and AIG, first?

To get federal (i.e. our tax) money, Obama ordered Chrysler to merge, or die, and he replaced GM’s CEO with someone who moves and thinks a bit faster.

So, to get a federal debt guarantee for the Golden State, what if Obama replaced our
governor (and, at random draw, half the legislature), and ordered the State to lose its two-thirds Budget voting rule, and/or Prop. 13, or die?

Would Arnold and the mental Pygmies in SAC go for it? Would you and your son?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Scheer is a fool on 05.29.09 @ 01:02 PM

“dealing on a statewide basis with the consequences of a national economic crisis that can be solved only through massive federal intervention.”

This crisis was CAUSED by massive federal intervention fool!Forcing banks to make bad loans to save the hungry kids! Forcing banks to approve mortgages for those who could least afford them! Stop intervening and the economy will fix itself!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» I agree on 05.29.09 @ 01:04 PM

Stop the bailouts! AND cut the welfare programs! Cut the welfare programs and cut taxes so companies can afford to HIRE these poor people!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Give it up on 05.29.09 @ 02:45 PM

So tired of the now obvious political arm twisting using “hungry children”. Omg who wants to see children starve or take away their schoolbooks. Anytime the libs want something opposed or passed the children are marched out as a tool. This is tired. Get a new schtick. Nobody is going to let children starve first.

However Calworks, WIC, and Healthy Families are exactly the illegal immigrant serving programs that have broken the budget because they tempt more and more illegals into California. Drop the programs, cut taxes so businesses can afford to give them jobs instead of handouts! Its better for the immigrants (legal ones)  not to make them forever dependent on the government and give them the opportunities that all immigrants have benefited from since the dawn of our country (before welfare was the norm).

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

More Local News »

Robert Scheer: The Democrats Who Unleashed Wall Street and Got Away With It

Bill Clinton and Lawrence Summers are still in denial about their role in the financial meltdown

Robert Scheer: Obama’s Faux Populism Sounds Like Bill Clinton

Speech yields little to suggest he would chart a much-needed new course in a second term

Robert Scheer: There’s Hope for Republicans Yet

GOP has become more blue-collar and more populist, and it's working wonders

Robert Scheer: Marginalizing Ron Paul as Presidential Candidate

He deserves credit as a principled contributor to a much-needed debate on limiting federal power

Robert Scheer: Christopher Hitchens Was Reason in Revolt

The late writer leaves behind a brilliant body of work, an indomitable spirit and an unquenched thirst for truth

Weather: Fair 44.0º


© Malamute Ventures LLC 2007-2012 | ISSN No. 1947-6086

Web Design & Development by PixelFive