It's not a safety net if you're broke

Today, Governor Schwarzenegger revealed shock-and-awe cuts for the California state budget:

The governor's proposal to whack an additional $5.5 billion from state programs stunned even longtime Capitol-watchers with its blunt force. Ending cash assistance for 1.3 million impoverished state residents, for example, would make California the only state with no welfare program.

"Every single first-world nation has a safety net program for children," said Will Lightbourne, Santa Clara County's social services director. "This would return us to the era of Dickens — you'd have to go back to the 19th century to find a comparable proposal."

I don't disagree. And yet California takes in more revenue (per capita) than 42 other states -- we don't lack income. We lack the ability not to spend money that doesn't exist.

The extraordinary new spending over the last 8 years -- about 3 times the rate of inflation -- was intended to improve quality of life, no? To provide a safety net, yes?

It's truly ironic, but not surprising. There is nothing charitable about overspending. In fact, it's a triumph of political ambition and narcissism. Our politicians get elected for these promises, their allies get funded by the pork, and they brag about their sense of charity. The citizens, by extension, do the same.

Buying your kids expensive Christmas gifts is pretty cruel if they are hungry in January. But California didn't just do that. We also bought expensive gifts for the hot secretary and our poker buddies.