Dick Morris Is Right: Why Should Other States Bail Out Nevada Or Other States

First, I would like to thank the good people of North Dakota, Montana, Wisconsin and Minnesota for helping out Nevada in our foreclosure crisis. Even though 99.9% of North Dakotans don't have anything to do with our foreclosure problem, we have gotten hundreds of millions of Federal bailout money from States who did not have anything to with the greed and incompetence of the people and banks of Nevada that spawned our crisis.
Dick Morris sees the big picture: As Congress reconvenes next week to pass a $26 billion bailout of state and local governments entombed in their own deficits, we witness a foretaste of the crisis that will be the central event of the first half of next year: the collapse of state governments.

As long as the Democrats control Congress, they will continue to rubber-stamp Obama’s requests for bailouts of profligate states. But when the Republicans take control, they will be less than forthcoming. Republicans will ask the central question: Why should taxpayers from states that have cut their budgets and observed spending restraint, pay for the extravagances of the other states? Why should forty-seven states have to pay for California, New York, and Michigan?...
When a Republican Congress turns off the spigot of federal bailouts, the municipal and state bond markets are going to take the hint and stop buying state paper at any interest rate. California will find its debt has become unmarketable and will come begging Congress for relief. First it will seek federal money and then its demands will escalate into a federal guarantee of its state debt.

The Greek financial crisis will come to our shores in the form of state bankruptcies.

Hopefully, Republicans will not be so weak-kneed as they are in the face of the current shortfall and next week’s demand for aid. With two Senators caving in, the Democrats were able to pass their aid bill and send it to the House next week.

The Republican solution to state financial distress should be simple: The Party should insist on a change in the federal bankruptcy law providing for a procedure for state bankruptcy (none now exists). This process must call for abrogation of all state and local public employee union contracts as is usually done in private sector bankruptcies. By freeing states and local governments (including school boards) of their union obligations on wages, work rules, staffing, and pensions, they have a chance to survive and, indeed, to prosper. But merely subsidizing these massive expenditures just prolongs the misery of the states in question.
http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2010/08/05/the-coming-catastrophe-state-governments/
The Democrats are about to spend $26,000,000,000 more money to bailout states and to pay for public employees. Screw private employees, we have to save public employees. The $26,000,000,000 will go for teachers (most of which will protect administrators and experts), police and firefighters.
I think it can be argued that we already have too many police officers and firefighters. As we have seen in Clark County, we do have an abundance of firefighters in the CCFD and if they allowed cross training, we could use fewer firefighters. As far as Metro is concerned, I think is it safe to say, we could lose about 5% of uniformed police officers and we will still be safe.
But in time, when we will say enough is enough? There is going to be a revolt, either at the ballot box, on the streets or both and will because the have nots- the States that waste money will demand more from the haves- the one's who save money and act prudently.
the Democrats don't care- they love class warfare and encourage it but it will lead to major problems in the very, very near future.