Did anyone really think that California's plan to massively increase welfare benefits would work to the benefit of the populace? If you make it easy to be unemployed, will more or less people find a way to be 'employed?' What if you make it hard to start/own/run a business, and (relatively) easy to be unemployed - would you predict that you would have more or less investors and entrepreneurs, or less? Would your actions produce a harvest of more 'unemployed' people or fewer? It reminds me of a line from a Jimmie Buffet song, "It was so simple, like the Jitterbug, but it plumb evaded me." Apparently, it 'evaded' a bunch of California do-gooders, too.
"The website Pension Tsunami recently noted several articles of interest related to union pension funds. "Hidden Pension Fiasco May Foment Another $1 Trillion Bailout" summarizes how public employee pension funds have cooked their books for years. This has gotten worse in recent years, as public sector employee unions have, "consolidated their power in state and local governments by controlling elections [and] demanded unsustainable increases to the benefit packages of their members - often retroactively - from politicians whose survival depended on their obedience.""
"The facts are indisputable: Blue States are melting down. California is an ominous preview into America's future. Perhaps an enterprising progressive (or is that an oxymoron?) could explain why we should follow
the Obama-Pelosi-Reid brain-trust into certain oblivion."
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/09/blues-state.html
