House Chamber, Washington, D.C. June 26, 2009.  I had a strange sense of Deja Vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the house floor tonight, and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast.  Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, AB 32.  And I have spend the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession.   

 I had a strange sense of Deja Vu as I watched the self-congratulatory rhetoric on the house floor tonight, and I feel compelled to offer this warning from the Left Coast.

 Three years ago, I stood on the floor of the California Senate and watched a similar celebration over a similar bill, AB 32.  And I have spent the last three years watching as that law has dangerously deepened California’s recession.  It uses a different mechanism than Cap and Trade, but the objective is the same: to force a dramatic reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

 Up until that bill took effect, California’s unemployment numbers tracked very closely with the national unemployment rate.  But then in January of 2007, California’s unemployment rate began a steady upward divergence from the national jobless figures.  Today, California’s unemployment rate is more than two points above the national rate, and at its highest point since 1941. 

 What is it that happened in January of 2007?  AB 32 took effect and began shutting down entire segments of California’s economy.  Let me give you one example from my district.  The City of Truckee, California was about to sign a long-term power contract to get its electricity from a new, EPA-approved coal-fired electricity plant in Utah.  AB 32 and companion legislation caused them to abandon that contract.  The replacement power they acquired literally doubled their electricity costs.

So when economists warn that we can expect electricity prices to double under the cap and trade bill, I can tell you from bitter experience that in my district, that’s not a future prediction, that is an historical fact.

Gov. Schwarzenegger assured us that AB 32 would mean an explosion of new, green jobs -- exactly the same promises we’re hearing from cap and trade supporters.  In California, exactly the opposite has happened.  We have lost so many jobs that the UCSB economic forecast is now using the D-word – Depression – to discuss California’s job market.

M. Speaker, the Cap and Trade bill proposes what amounts to endlessly increasing taxes on any enterprises that produce carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gas emissions.  We need to understand what that means.  It has profound implications for agriculture, construction, cargo and passenger transportation, energy production, baking and brewing – all of which produce enormous quantities of this innocuous and ubiquitous compound.  In fact, every human being produces 2.2 pounds of carbon dioxide every day – just by breathing.

 So applying a tax to the economy designed to radically constrict carbon dioxide emissions means radically constricting the economy.

 And this brings us to the fine point of it.

When you discuss the folly of the Hoover Administration – how it turned the recession of 1929 into the depression of the 1930’s, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products.

Waxman Markey is our generation’s Smoot Hawley.  In fact, it’s worse because it imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. 

Let’s ignore for the moment the fact that the planet’s climate is constantly changing and that long term global warming has been going on since the last ice age.  Let’s ignore the fact that within recorded history we know of periods when the earth’s climate has been much warmer than it is today and others when it has been much cooler.  Let’s ignore the thousands of climate scientists and meteorologists who have concluded that human-produced greenhouse gases are a negligible factor in global warming or climate change.

Ignore all of that and still we are left with one lousy sense of timing.  In the most serious recession since the Great Depression – why would members of this house want to repeat the same mistakes that produced that Great Depression?  Watching how California has just wrecked its economy and destroyed its finances, why would they want to do the same thing to our nation?

M. Speaker, this is deadly serious stuff.  It transcends ideology and politics.  This House has just made the biggest economic mistake since the days of Herbert Hoover. 

 If this measure becomes law, two things are certain. 

First, our planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years. 

Second: Congress will have delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy at precisely that moment when that economy was the most vulnerable. 

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  June 26, 2009.  Madam Speaker:  When we discuss Herbert Hoover’s mishandling of the recession of 1929, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products.

The Waxman-Markey Bill is our generation’s Smoot-Hawley.  It imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. 

At least Hoover could argue that Smoot Hawley made domestic products more competitive with imports.  Waxman-Markey disadvantages American products.

When California adopted similar restrictions three years ago, we, too, were promised an explosion of green jobs.  Instead, California’s unemployment rate has skyrocketed to one of the highest in the country.

If this bill becomes law, I believe history guarantees us two things.

One: the planet will continue to warm and cool as it has been doing for billions of years. 

And two: Congress will have just delivered a staggering blow to our nation’s economy just at the moment when it’s the most vulnerable.     

See also Special Order Speech
 

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  June 26, 2009.  Madam Speaker:  When we discuss Herbert Hoover’s mishandling of the recession of 1929, the first thing that economists point to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that imposed new taxes on over 20,000 imported products.  The Waxman-Markey Bill is our generation’s Smoot-Hawley.  It imposes new taxes on an infinitely larger number of domestic products on a scale that utterly dwarfs Smoot-Hawley. 
 

July 2, 2009.  Congressman McClintock discusses 4th of July and the Cap and Trade / Energy Tax Legislation. 

July 8, 2009.  California Budget discussion, MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan Show.  Part 2 of 3.

July 8, 2009.  California Budget discussion, MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan Show.  Part 3 of 3.

July 8, 2009.  California budget discussion, MSNBC, Dylan Ratigan Show.  The multimedia page features part 2 and part 3 of this discussion.

 Congressman Tom McClintock has been chosen by Republican Leader John Boehner to select a Congressional Page for the Fall 2009 program.Applicants must be juniors or seniors in high school, and must be at least 16 years of age at the time employment begins, but may not have reached the age of 18 during any point of the term. Applicants must also have a cumulative grade point average of “B” (3.0) or higher in the following subjects: English, foreign language, mathematics, science, and social studies (excluding electives) with official supporting transcript documentation required. Applicants must complete the entire application, which also includes a resume detailing extra-curricular activities, an essay, and three letters of recommendation. Applications must be submitted by July 20th.

Congressional Page duties include filing the Congressional Record, delivering legislative materials to locations throughout Capitol Hill, and attending to Members’ needs on the House floor as directed. The fall session runs from August 30, 2009 to January 22, 2010. Currently sixty-six Pages serve in the U.S. House of Representatives, making this a distinct honor for young Americans who are selected.

Application information can be obtained by emailing page.program@mail.house.gov. Further questions may be directed to the Congressman’s Washington, D.C.  office by phone at 202-225-2511.

Editor; Roseville Press Tribune:

The Roseville Press Tribune recently published an article by Jon Brines that quotes a local official accusing me of hypocrisy for proposing critically needed highway projects in the district for inclusion in the annual transportation authorization bill after taking a strong stand against “earmarks.”

The practice I have strongly condemned and am fighting to stop in Congress is the insertion of appropriations without public vetting or competition and that typically directs those funds to specific recipients. 

The local projects that I have proposed for funding in the pending transportation bill – interchanges in Roseville, Placerville and Nevada City and the Lincoln bypass – bear no relation to this practice.  This bill sets aside a portion of the annual transportation authorization to assure that every Congressional district receives funding according to specific criteria.  I added additional standards in evaluating competing local government requests to assure they met the Citizens Against Government Waste earmark reform pledge that I signed during the 2008 campaign. The effect of a congressman not nominating projects in this act doesn’t reduce the bill’s spending one cent – it merely redistributes those funds to other districts.  I explained this in great detail to Mr. Brines.

The reporter goes on to quote Kathryn Mathews of the El Dorado Transportation Commission as saying that “We’ve been told McClintock would not entertain any project period.  Then two days before the requests were due to be submitted we got a call saying, ‘go ahead and submit them if you want.’”  I have never told Ms. Mathews or anyone else that I would not consider legitimate infrastructure projects and have accepted proposals from local agencies from the outset.  In fact, Ms. Mathews submitted her project requests more than two weeks before the projects were due.

Mr. Brine’s article illustrates the difference between the journalistic tradition of “All the news that’s fit to print,” and “All the news that fits.”

Representative Tom McClintock
Fourth District of California

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  June 12, 2009.  M. Speaker:  Many years ago, author and commentator Bruce Herschensohn made this point.   He said, for every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk.  I think that’s a universal truth: For every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk.  And he pointed out that it’s true that with enough taxes, laws, restrictions, regulations, penalties and lectures, government can produce a virtually risk-free society.  But it will also be one of the most colorless, pleasureless, tedious and miserable societies ever conceived by the mind of man.

House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  June 12, 2009.  M. Speaker:  Many years ago, author and commentator Bruce Herschensohn made this point.   He said, for every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk. 

 I think that’s a universal truth: For every pleasure in life, there is a corresponding risk.

 And he pointed out that it’s true that with enough taxes, laws, restrictions, regulations, penalties and lectures, government can produce a virtually risk-free society.  But it will also be one of the most colorless, pleasureless, tedious and miserable societies ever conceived by the mind of man.

 I believe that is the case. 

The health risks of smoking are real and they are well documented.  Our schools rightly make a concerted effort to inform every child of the health risks associated with tobacco products, and they do a good job of it.  Our government warns every adult of the risks associated with tobacco products, and they do a good job of it, too. 

 As a result, I don’t believe there is a single individual in the United States who doesn’t well and fully comprehend the health risks of tobacco. 

 But once those warnings are issued, how much further should government go to make individual decisions for rational adults as they weigh the risks of smoking for themselves?

 Personally, I think they’re making a bad decision.  But they probably think others make bad decisions when they decide to go skiing or bungee jumping or skydiving or thousands of other pleasures that incur corresponding and calculated risks.

 And I would ask today, whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility?  And whatever happened to the notion, as Jefferson put it, of a “a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another (but) shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement…”

Tough Love for California.  House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  June 11, 2009  M. Speaker:  Gov. Schwarzenegger of my home state of California has called for the federal government to underwrite as much as $15 billion of Revenue Anticipation Notes that the state has to issue to avoid insolvency.  I think that would be a colossal mistake, and that such an act would not only dig the nation deeper into the hole it is in, but would actually make California’s fiscal condition worse.

Tough Love for California.  House Chamber, Washington, D.C.  June 11, 2009  M. Speaker:  Gov. Schwarzenegger of my home state of California has called for the federal government to underwrite as much as $15 billion of Revenue Anticipation Notes that the state has to issue to avoid insolvency.

I think that would be a colossal mistake, and that such an act would not only dig the nation deeper into the hole it is in, but would actually make California’s fiscal condition worse.

 Today, California faces a paradox: despite record levels of spending and borrowing, it can no longer produce a decent road system, educate its children, or lock up its prisoners.

 Those who blame the recession for California’s budget crisis profoundly misunderstand the nature of that crisis.  Even before California’s revenue began to shrink, the state government was running a chronic $10 billion deficit and piling up unprecedented debt.

 The recession is merely the catalyst; the underlying cause is rampant mismanagement of the state’s resources.  California spends $43,000 per year to house a prisoner while many states spend just half that.  California spends over $11,000 per pupil, but only a fraction of that ever reaches the classroom.  California has one of the most expensive welfare systems in the country and yet one of the worst records of moving people off welfare. 

 And that’s never seemed to bother California’s governor and legislature.

 They are like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much.  Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks. 

Ultimately, he’ll reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse.  Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he’s running out of credit.  Raising prices causes his sales to decline.  And there’s only so much discretionary spending he can cut. 

 That’s California’s predicament in a nutshell.  California’s borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and the reason for the loan guarantee is that their credit is exhausted.  They have just imposed the biggest tax increase by any state in American history and it has actually reduced their revenues and made their budget gap wider.   

 Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can – and should – abolish, there aren’t enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California’s deficit without directly impacting basic services.

 Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions. 

 Simply stated, there is now no substitute for a fundamental restructuring of the state’s major service delivery systems and restoring the efficiencies that once produced a far higher level of service at far lower cost that what we see today.

 Restoring that efficiency will require the governor and the legislature:
• to wrestle control from the public employee unions,
• to dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level,
• to decentralize administration and decision making,
• to contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently,
• to rescind the recent tax increases that are actually costing the state money and
• to roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.

These are changes that cannot be implemented overnight and that will not begin producing results for some time. 

 This brings us to the fine point of the matter.  What Churchill called history’s “terrible, chilling words” are about to be pronounced on California’s failed leadership: “too late.”
 
A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California’s bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state’s crushing debt and looming obligations. 

Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California’s problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.

In short, if California won’t help itself, the federal government cannot and should not.    
 

Today’s closure of the Camino mill is one more blow to hard-working middle class Californians. At a time when government is spending unprecedented amounts of money it doesn’t have and taking over industry after industry, private sector jobs are disappearing. Camino now joins Quincy and Sonora as mountain towns that have each lost 150 direct and 350 indirect jobs due to litigation over forest thinning operations. As the sawmills disappear, the threat of catastrophic wild fires grows stronger.
In order to examine the regulatory and legal issues that have led to the closure of the mills, I held a community forum May 11 in Quincy with Rep. Wally Herger and Rep. Rob Bishop, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National Forests and Public Lands. That led to a June 11th Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands hearing in Washington where union officials, industry executives and foresters testified.
The information gathered will be used as the basis for legislation that we are developing to rein in the out-of-control lawsuits that decimated these communities. 

Photo of Last Day at SPI Camino Sawmill

News 10 Story On the Mill Closure
 

House Chamber, Washington, D.C. June 10, 2009.  M Speaker:

I rise today to honor Deputy Shawn Webb of the Plumas County Sheriff’s Department.

The entire Sheriff’s Department, joined by the people of Plumas County, are rallying behind this remarkable young man and his family as he battles a difficult illness.

You don’t see this kind of outpouring very often these days.  It’s a testament to the impact that Deputy Shawn Webb has had on his Department and his community.

Shawn’s Commander writes “we here in Plumas County are blessed to have a ‘grade A’ California-raised true blooded American Hero.” 

So I rise to salute the bravery and dedication that Deputy Shawn Webb has brought to his professional life in protecting our community – qualities now so conspicuous in the battle he is waging in his personal life.

And I also want to salute the people of Plumas County who have embraced and supported Shawn and his family in this difficult time.
 

House Chamber, Washington, D.C. June 10, 2009.  M Speaker:  I rise today to honor Deputy Shawn Webb of the Plumas County Sheriff’s Department.  The entire Sheriff’s Department, joined by the people of Plumas County, are rallying behind this remarkable young man and his family as he battles a difficult illness.  You don’t see this kind of outpouring very often these days.  It’s a testament to the impact that Deputy Shawn Webb has had on his Department and his community.

House Chamber, Washington, D.C. June 9, 2009. 

By Sen. David Vitter and Rep. Tom McClintock  Imagine working at a company that treats every employee exactly the same, irrespective of their individual effort. No matter how hard you work or how much your co-workers slack off, you get exactly the same pay. For millions of people, America's outdated labor laws and one-size-fits-all collective-bargaining agreements make this a reality.
Maybe this is why studies show union members are less satisfied with their jobs than are nonunion workers and many Americans simply refuse to work in union shops. Indeed, just 9 percent of nonunion workers tell pollsters they would like to join a union, and private-sector union membership has declined steadily for a generation.
Why is it that a bargaining process designed to improve workers' satisfaction and happiness collectively should produce such dissatisfaction and unhappiness individually?
Perhaps the simple answer rests in that unique human desire to excel in what we do and to be recognized and rewarded for that excellence. True, collective bargaining increases the ability of workers to take a position in negotiating terms of employment, thus raising the median position of all workers in the group. But the situation then leaves them in the unenviable position of abandoning any additional rewards for individual skill and achievement. More important, it ties employers' hands in rewarding exceptional employees in order to encourage that hard work and innovation.
For that reason, we have introduced the Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RAISE) Act to allow hardworking union members to escape the false choice between collective bargaining and individual reward that our outdated labor laws have forced upon them. Without this legislation, union workers end up trapped in a one-size-fits-all contract that denies them the opportunity to be rewarded for individual excellence and achievement. Under current law, it is impossible for the most determined achiever to be rewarded in any material way beyond the most complacent co-worker.
Why shouldn't employers be allowed to add individual rewards to the union-negotiated wage base? Why does the wage floor set through union contracts also have to be a wage ceiling for those union members who go the extra mile to get ahead?
Many owners of unionized businesses would gladly pay individual workers more if they could. Some have tried, but over the years, the National Labor Relations Board repeatedly has struck down individual raises and bonuses.
Any employer will say that the key to a successful business is to reward hard work and attract quality workers. Any worker will say that the key to job satisfaction is knowing that greater effort will produce greater reward. Neither is possible when union negotiators put a pay cap on employees regardless of individual merit or effort.
Under the RAISE Act, union members would retain all the collective-bargaining rights under current law, and employers would be bound to the wage-and-benefit schedules negotiated under those laws. But in addition to the floor established by the union contract, employers could add bonuses for those workers who go the extra mile - combining the benefits of collective bargaining with the rewards of individual achievement.
Years ago, Adm. Grace Hopper observed that in all her years in the U.S. Navy, she had determined that the greatest impediment to human progress was the phrase, "But we've always done it this way." That is the only answer we have heard in opposition to this simple reform, and in an era when change is in the air, that's no answer.

Representative Tom McClintock presented certificates to the winners of the Fourth Congressional District Congressional Arts Competition in Placerville May 29.  Eric Harrod, a senior at South Tahoe High School, was awarded first place with his entry, “Kokanee Salmon”. 

 “Kokanee Salmon”, was created on location at Taylor Creek, South Lake Tahoe, during salmon spawning.  Eric will receive three roundtrip airfares to attend the 2009 Congressional Arts Competition Ribbon Cutting Ceremony and Reception to be held in Washington, D.C. on June 24, 2009.

Shari Warden, who also attends South Tahoe High, took second place and April Dimmick of Auburn received third place.  Honorable Mention was given to Eneida Sanchez of South Lake Tahoe.

The competition was held at PlacerArts in Auburn under the guidance of Director Angela Tahti and Program Specialist Shawn Baldwin.  Judges Kevin Hanley, Auburn City Council; Deb Jensen, El Dorado Arts Council; Larry Ortiz of PlacerArts; and Penel Curtis of Nevada County Arts Council had the honor of selecting the winner.  “I genuinely appreciate the commitment, time and expertise that all of these capable people brought to this competition,” McClintock concluded.
 

June 4, 2009

Contact: Joel DiGrado (202) 224-4623
Jennifer Cressy (202) 503-7930

(Washington, D.C.) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter and U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock today introduced the Rewarding Achievement and Incentivizing Successful Employees (RAISE) Act, which would reform the collective bargaining process in an effort to help steer America’s economy back on track.  The bill would allow employers to give merit-based bonuses or other increases in compensation above and beyond any collective bargaining agreement in place. 
            “Under federal law, employers cannot pay individual workers more than their union contracts provide,” said Vitter.  “This restriction holds back higher-performing employees – preventing them from earning more than their unions have negotiated for them – while it protects less competent workers and guarantees them the same raises that every other worker receives.”
            The RAISE Act seeks to provide an alternative to the current labor policies being promoted by the Obama administration and Congress.  Currently, the National Labor Relations Board can strike down bonuses and merit pay that have not been negotiated by the unions.  The bill would afford unionized companies the opportunity to award raises and bonuses to high performing employees, rewarding those individuals who make the extra effort to achieve in the workplace.
            “This bill embodies one of the most important principles of our nation – that those who work hard are rewarded for their efforts,” Vitter said.  “Under current federal law, however, that principle is rendered obsolete. The RAISE Act would change that and allow employers to award appropriate merit raises and bonuses beyond those negotiated by the unions and their bosses.”
            “RAISE restores union members’ freedom to earn individual raises through their own efforts   a freedom that federal labor law currently denies,” McClintock said.

By Tom McClintock  Winston Churchill once said, “Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities.”  California’s leaders are now putting that maxim to the ultimate test.
 A generation ago, California government spent about half what it does today after adjusting for both inflation and population growth.  Yet it boasted the finest public services in the nation, including a free university education for every Californian who wanted one.   
 Today, California faces a paradox: despite record levels of spending and borrowing, it can no longer produce a decent road system, educate its children, or lock up its prisoners.
 Those who blame the recession for California’s budget crisis profoundly misunderstand the nature of that crisis.  Even before California’s revenue began to shrink, the state government was running a chronic $10 billion deficit and piling up unprecedented debt.
 The recession is merely the catalyst; the underlying cause is rampant mismanagement of the state’s resources.  California spends $43,000 to house a prisoner while many states spend just half that.  California spends over $11,000 per pupil, but only a fraction of that ever reaches the classroom.  California has one of the most expensive welfare systems in the country and yet one of the worst records of moving people off welfare. 
 And that’s never seemed to bother California’s governor and legislature.
 They are like the shopkeeper who leased out too much space, ordered too much inventory, hired too many people and paid them too much.  Every month the shopkeeper covers his shortfalls with borrowing and bookkeeping tricks.  Ultimately, he will reach a tipping point where anything he does makes his situation worse.  Borrowing costs are eating him alive and he’s running out of credit.  Raising prices causes his sales to decline.  And there’s only so much discretionary spending he can cut. 
 That’s the state’s predicament in a nutshell.  California’s borrowing costs now exceed the budget of the entire University of California and it is increasingly likely that it will fail to find lenders when it must borrow billions to pay its bills in July.
 Ignoring dire warnings, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislators from both parties earlier this year imposed the biggest state tax increase in American history, including a 14 percent increase in the statewide sales tax (by a penny per dollar).  The month before it took effect, sales tax revenues had declined by 19 percent.  The month following the sales tax increase, they plunged 51 percent.   
 Although there are many obsolete, duplicative or low priority programs and expenditures that the state can – and should – do without, there aren’t enough of them to come anywhere close to closing California’s deficit.
 Sadly, California has reached the terminal stage of a bureaucratic state, where government has become so large and so tangled that it can no longer perform even basic functions. 
 Fortunately, we have a model that we know works.  A generation ago, it produced a high quality of public service at a much lower cost.  It maximized management flexibility and it required accountability at the service delivery level.  It recognized that only when commerce and enterprise flourish can we finance the basic responsibilities of government. 
 Restoring this efficiency will require a governor and a legislature with the political will to wrestle control from the public employee unions, dismantle the enormous bureaucracies that have grown up over the service delivery level, decentralize administration and decision making, contract out services that the private sector can provide more efficiently, rescind the recent tax increases that are costing the state money and roll back the regulatory obstacles to productive enterprise.
Alas, we don’t have such leaders and even if we did, the systemic reorganization of the state government can’t be accomplished overnight.  Restructuring the public schools would take at least a year; prisons at least two; and health and welfare three to five years before serious savings could be realized.
 This brings us to the fine point of the matter.  What Churchill called history’s “terrible, chilling words” are about to be pronounced on California’s failed leadership: “too late.” 
A federal loan guarantee or bailout may be the only way to buy time for the restructuring of California’s bureaucracies to take effect, but the discussion remains academic until and unless the state actually adopts the replacement structures, unburdens its shrinking productive sector and presents a credible plan to redeem the state’s crushing debt and looming obligations.  Without these actions, federal intervention will only make California’s problems worse by postponing reform, continuing unsustainable spending and piling up still more debt.
In short, if California won’t help itself, the federal government can’t and shouldn’t.  
That’s called tough love, but sometimes it’s necessary when a prodigal child exhausts every other option and still obstinately refuses to do the right thing.
# # #

Congressman Tom McClintock represents California’s Fourth Congressional District.  His website address is http://www.mcclintock.house.gov.