Living within one's means is worthy goal, sometimes it works sometime not for individuals as well as governemnts.
When in the red, I would try to cut spending. That is easier said than done, since one has to choose what spending to cut.

I think it is naive to think that a govenment budget can be managed like a household or even a business budget (for which there are usually more tools which can be used to handle spending/borrowing than for a household).
.

Hint: unless you propose a continual transfer of wealth from the Federal government to Ohio, all you do with the "bailout" is put off the day of fiscal reckoning. It is a bit like those silly sin taxes that some states lay out for dual purposes, such as a cigarette tax to fund child health programs and get people to quit smoking — if the second goal is successful, where will the money to fund future years of this entitlement come from?

You're far better at trying to rubbish other people's opinions than expressing your own. In times of fiscal trouble, the government should have operate like everyone else — within their means. Ergo, the choices the states have are clear — borrow money and accept the future drain on their budgets, raise taxes and accept the economic downside risks, cut spending and live within the current tax income or cut taxes to stimulate economic activity. They can mix and match, of course, but it boils down to these elements.

You, in either your belligerence or naivete, want a silver bullet, which you seem to believe the bailout to be. While dumping federal money on the state would patch a hole in the current budget, it does nothing to solve the real problem — Ohio's government is spending beyond their revenue. If the economy doesn't immediately rebound, what will they do next year? Better yet, if their mismanagement of their budgets drives Ohio into the level of mess of the state of Michigan and the recovery *does* happen, but by-passes Ohio, what will they do then — come back to DC with a tin cup?

Pan-handling the government is not a useful answer.

Besides, the day job does get in the way.

Yes and no — the bill is due and we're already in the process of paying through the nose… but, yes, the current bail-out isn't the best answer and will try to put-off the final reckoning of the whole mess. We'd have been better off letting the existing system — including bankruptcy — handle it. Free the market from the social engineering / gov't manipulation.

db: "Not your state, not your problem: very good answer, NIMBY…"

db, my state has more than enough problems. I know what is going on here because I'm here. I know the taxes because I pay the taxes, etc. Ohio is another set of facts, ones I am not as familiar with, ergo the more generalized answers.

as for Gary, like I said, you should have been here for the first act. He's a socialist, despite the failure of socialism around the world as an economic basis of operation — if you think that the unemployment rate here in the States is bad now, why embrace the policies that have institutionalized higher rates in, say, Spain, at 10%+, or France at 8.1%? Even those places where it worked, due to demographic advantages, such as Denmark and Sweden, are finding that liberal immigration policies are undermining the system. Socialism has a "free rider" problem — there are always members of the population willing to make do on the work of others.

Of course, my main problem is that Gary doesn't answer questions, he just hammers his shoe on the table in a semi-literate fashion.

No dodges, db — but is your thesis that the responsibility for a long-standing problem is the guy whose watch the problem finally boils over? A little strange — it validates the "kick the can" approach, rather than actually solving problems.

db: "As for OH, you offer 3 choices and pick none."

Not my state, not my problem. I'd likely lean towards a combination of the latter two, but that's a preference. If you believe in static modeling (i.e. nothing economic decisions change as a result of a tax hike), go ahead and raise taxes.

db: "Cutting taxes makes the hole deeper ( at least for a while) don’t you think?"

That would depend on which taxes and how deeply you cut. Reagen and Bush's capital gains tax cuts increased revenue, as the reduced Federal percentage increased the willingness of those holding capital gains to take those gains, the result being that the lower rate, when combined with an increase in market activity, created more revenue.

db: "Keep picking on Gary, too; you get great points for that."

I'm not "picking" of Gary. You'd have to have been here for the first act. I'm simply tired of a high-school drop out trying to explain economic theory to me.

db: "And, God you must know a lot to give lessons on so many subjects."

The advantages of a well-rounded education, db, including the school of hard-knocks.