Reason on the Tube: Tim Cavanaugh Talks Calipocalypse on Varney & Co.

Reason Senior Editor Tim Cavanaugh appeared on Fox Business Channel's Varney & Company this morning, discussing the Golden State's bad budget math, the state Democratic leader's challenge to spending cuts and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent accusation that his fellow Republicans are soft on unions.

Take a gander:

Correction: The $11,000 campaign-contribution figure cited for State Sen. Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) was incorrect. Dutton received $50,450 in campaign contributions from public sector unions.

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

$20 billion a year--and Cavanaugh's right, past performance is no indication of future results...

I saw a stat that said we have $327 billion in unfunded public pension liabilities!

http://reason.org/blog/show/st.....y-is-379-b

Given that, I think it's fair to assume the future will be much worse than the past.

$327 billion is roughly half the cost of the Iraq War! It's about the cost of the war in Afghanistan--we could have invaded Afghanistan for the cost of our unfunded public pension liabilities.

[fish]

A lavender shirt and tie with a suede jacket... somebody is confident in his manhood!

[Enough About Palin]

Or crying out for help.

[fish]

Or reenacting a Seinfeld episode.

[Invisible Finger]

Time needs jacket tips from Nick. Or maybe he did!

[Invisible Finger]

Tim, or Tim-E, if you are so inclined.

[Ken Shultz]

Wasn't it Welch who said something about how you know you've hit the big time once people start talking about what you wear?

[EJM]

Next time, start the interview off by shouting, "Hey, Vern!" I'm sure that Mr. Varney will really appreciate that.

[Jim]

I love how when Cavanaugh starts talking, it sounds like Varney is doing the "bullshit" cough. At least to me, it does.

[ChrisO]

My dad had that jacket. In 1975.

California's finances are scary, to say the least. Undoubtedly the Calif. gov't will be looking to Uncle Sam to make up the difference at some point.

[Ken Shultz]

Just for the record, considering that a chunk of our state budget goes to house, imprison, educate and treat federal responsibilities from whom we're constitutionally prohibited from refusing state services?

It isn't beyond my libertarian heart to think that if states can't discriminate against federal responsibilites by refusing them state services, then maybe it's the federal government that should be reimbursing the state for providing such services.

If I had my pick, I'd fire half the state's union workforce first, but forcing California's taxpayers to pay for what should be and is a federal responsibility isn't helping matters any.

[new laptop battery]

Personally I know a guy is gay when we meet and i feel the need to check my fly~hdf5645