No doubt. And CA ain't gonna get $100 billion (you meant billion). There an issue is whether the Gov should allocate money according to fiscal incompetence, raising a moral hazard issue. Hey we're doing it for the banks.
Basically we are doomed. On CNN at lunch I saw a segment where they discussed the number 1 trillion (like Rodney Dangerfield asking 'how big is it') and had a mathematician on to opine on the stimulus package. But it was Frederika Von Whitfield, so I didn't mind. She can say any nonsense she likes, I'm all ears. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Max Sawicky wrote: >> State governments are likely to spend what they get to prop up >> services that otherwise would take a hit due to falling tax revenue. >> In that respect aid to states is one of the most efficient types of >> stimulus, though there are limits to the amount that states could >> absorb, and the distribution of aid makes a difference. > > In fact, if the Federal Government gave $100 million to California, > our state government would spend _more_ than that. > -- > Jim Devine / "Disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing > in government and business." -- Tom Robbins > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
