The way I read it, and regardless of the truth of what happened in the Iranian election, all this attention in the U.S. media to Iranian politics is a net loser for the "Bomb Iran" contingent.

Even if it's proven that Mosavi lost fairly (doubtful, based on what I've read so far), all the turmoil and protest is an indication that there's a large demographic of Iranian society that wants reform and at least modest liberalization. Such complication plays poorly for U.S. right-wingers, who want to portray every last Iranian as a mouth-breathing, Jew-hating, fanatical threat to Israel - a dehumanization necessary before the neocons' long-sought bombing campaign can begin.

Either way, they lose. If a miracle occurs, and Mosavi triumphs, great. If Ahmadinajad/Khamenei remain in power, people in the West can and should argue that it's best to encourage the substantial minority of reformers, which is not accomplished through belligerent behavior.

I hope your reading skills aren't an indicator of the public educational system in California, because you're trying to debate me on a point I never tried to make.

My question, specifically, was why other donor states could balance their budgets but not California. The question of donor v. recipient states for federal tax purposes is separate.

Again, California is not unique in this regard. Apparently it's only unique in its level of fiscal dysfunction, and in its willingness to insist that the other 49 states subsidize its profligacy.

California is not unique in paying more to the federal government than it receives back. There's a whole laundry list of so-called "donor states". How is it that all the others have been able to manage their budgets? Answer: they have made painful decisions about raising taxes and cutting services - the very decisions that California won't make.

Why should Californians be spared the same pain, at the expense of taxpayers in the other 49 states? Don't those states have needs of their own?

According to the principles of federalism, states are not mere wards of the federal government; they are distinct entities unto themselves that, although junior to the federal government, have a right to do things as they please as long as they don't run afoul of federal laws. With those rights come responsibilities: run your state well or pay the consequences.

For many decades now, both for good reasons (civil rights in the South) and bad (power-hungry federal officials and big corporations), this concept has been under assault, to the point where I doubt most Americans can even grasp it.

For a refresher: it's not the responsibility of the federal government to come to the aid of a state, especially when the state's problems are mostly self-inflicted. If some sort of federal bailout does occur, forcing taxpayers in the rest of the country to subsidize California's profligacy, my own belief is that California's very legal identity as a state should be up for grabs. That means the federal government should have the power to treat it like Washington, D.C., and impose whatever taxes or rules it deems necessary to make the state function again.

So Californians, which would you prefer? Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. You don't get the right to force the rest of the country on the hook for your dysfunctional system in perpetuity.

To those who are arguing that, because California is a net donor to the federal government, the federal government has an obligation to help the state with its debt, are you willing to extend that privilege to other net donor states? I guess it doesn't really matter; if you're not willing to balance your own budget, you can hardly help anyone else.

My state (Minnesota) is also a net donor, and although our fiscal situation is hardly admirable these days, it has not reached the abysmal depths of California's (yet). We have a deficit this year, though. So when are you going to transfer some of your tax dollars from Sacramento to St. Paul?

That's the whole point, of course. State debt is the responsibility of residents of that state, and no one else's. If the federal government guarantees an unsustainable fiscal system in California, you're essentially taxing everyone else in the country to subsidize the services you're unwilling to pay for. That's fair?

I'm not unsympathetic to California's problems, because they're all too reminiscent of Americans' attitudes as whole, but the bottom line is that all these wonderful amenities cost a lot of money, and we as a society just aren't willing to pay what it takes to fund them.

This article addresses the taxation side of the equation, but I don't see any details about how California compares with the other states in the level of services it provides. Perhaps the problem is that, even with significant levels of taxation, Californians have voted themselves benefits that outstrip their tax commitments.

One thing I adamantly oppose is any guarantee of California's debt by the federal government, and I'd bet the lobbying for that effort is just beginning. It simply is not the problem of Americans in the other 49 states that Californians have chosen to make a mess of their finances. And if the federal government bails out California, that will provide an enormous disincentive toward thrift in all the other states. Get ready for a 50-state bailout if that happens. And who will pay for that, given the crushing debt the U.S. is already assuming for itself?

Sorry, but Californians need to solve this one for themselves.

The person who answered my congressman's phone asked for that, but I didn't see it anywhere in Glenn's post or the FDL link.