USA Voting Will Close In:


Obama declines to help California after Governor Swartzenegger's Prop 1A was overwhelmingly rejected by more than two-thirds of the voters, forcing the state to cut its bloated budget and state employees to suffer from both layoffs and salary cuts as much as...
It is exceedingly rare for the federal government to help a state weather a short-term cash crisis such as the one California faces, administration officials said. Even if the president were to make an exception for California, the aid would need to come on unattractive terms so as not to send a message that distressed states can expect Washington to engineer a painless rescue.
Although the $700-billion federal bailout fund potentially could be tapped to help California, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner expressed doubt Thursday that he had the authority, without new congressional legislation, to aid California under the program originally set up by Congress to rescue financial institutions.
The legislation creating the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, specifically restricted use of the money to financial institutions.
It also limited troubled assets to mortgages or mortgage-related securities "issued on or before March 14, 2008."
The Bush administration expanded the use of the bailout fund to provide loans to General Motors and Chrysler.
To get Congress to release the second half of the fund, Obama's top economic advisor, Lawrence Summers, promised in a Jan. 15 letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the new administration would limit assistance to financial institutions and automakers. But the letter also said the president could enact new initiatives aimed at "forestalling a significant economic dislocation."
Appearing before a congressional committee, Geithner said: "We do not believe that TARP as currently designed and legislated provides a viable solution to this specific challenge."
Barriers to using TARP money could be overcome, administration officials acknowledge, but doing so would be difficult.
An alternative would be for Congress to pass a bill authorizing federal relief for California, perhaps through loan guarantees.
California Democrats are working to build a case for federal intervention, noting the state's importance to President Obama's efforts to turn the economy around.
"Allowing California to go belly up presents a great risk to our hoped-for continued economic recovery," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) told Geithner. "California already demonstrated we had to put a halt to all the construction projects in the state. We don't want to do that again. It would run completely counter to what you're trying to do and we're trying to do with the stimulus."
U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said, "Their view is they need legislation, and we're going to try to give it to them."
But a number of Republicans, including some within the California delegation, said that the nation's taxpayers should not be called upon to bail out Sacramento for its own failures.
"My state in California has gotten itself into a big problem," Rep. John Campbell (R-Irvine) said. "Shouldn't the state . . . bear some consequence for that and not have the federal government come in and shield the state from any of the negative consequences of an irresponsible budget?"
Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands, an influential Republican who is his party's most senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said it was "hard for me to quite imagine my colleague from Wisconsin or one of my friends from Kansas" supporting federal intervention in California's budget crisis.
Comments
Post new comment