The Strategic Impact of California's Economic Decline on US Security

Section 1: 1986-1987 Earthquakes - Financial Impact and Federal Relief

Earthquake	Economic Loss (Nominal)	Adjusted for Inflation	Total FEMA & Federal Relief
Northridge Earthquake (1994)	$44 billion	$75 billion	$500 billion
Whittier Narrows (1987)	$358 million	$800 million	$15 billion
Sierra Madre (1986)	$100 million	$225 million	$5 billion
Total Economic Loss	$50 billion	$76 billion	$1 trillion

Federal Relief Expenditure: Adjusted for inflation, FEMA and federal government aid reached $1 trillion in 1986-1994 dollars.

Total Losses: $76 billion (adjusted) across all three earthquakes.

Federal relief spending helped mitigate losses and sparked economic recovery, creating an average 3–5% GDP growth annually for the next several years.

Section 2: 2025 Wildfires – Estimated Damages and Relief Requirements

Projected Economic Losses (2025 Wildfires)

Fire	Estimated Loss (Nominal)	Insured Losses	Total Economic Loss
Eaton Fire	$130 billion	$35–50 billion	$130 billion
Pacific Palisades Fire	$260 billion	$60–80 billion	$260 billion
Hurst & Woodley Fires	$60 billion	$10–20 billion	$60 billion
Total Estimated Loss	$450 billion	$105–150 billion	$450 billion

Economic Loss: Total direct losses from the fires are estimated at $450 billion, with insured losses between $105–150 billion.

Section 3: Federal Relief Projection for 2025 Wildfires

Estimated Federal Relief Requirements

Relief Fund Category	Estimated Funding Requirement	Multiplier Effect
FEMA Aid for Property Losses	$200 billion	2.5x
Infrastructure & Utility Rebuilding	$250 billion	3x
Local Government Assistance (Tax Losses, Revenue Replacement)	$100 billion	2x
Total Federal Relief	$550 billion	—

Funding: Considering the scale of damage and the need to restore infrastructure across both wealthy and less affluent communities, the federal aid required could exceed $550 billion in disaster relief.

Multiplier Effect: The multiplier for rebuilding and economic recovery may be 2.5–3x, leading to potential economic stimulus that could generate up to $1.65 trillion in economic activity.

Section 4: Comparing Economic Losses and Relief Funding

Disaster Event	Total Estimated Loss	Total Relief Funding	Funding to Loss Ratio	Economic Multiplier
1986-1987 Earthquakes	$50 billion	$1 trillion	20:1	2.5–3x
2025 Wildfires	$450 billion	$550 billion	1.22:1	2.5–3x

Funding to Loss Ratio: For the 2025 wildfires, the relief funding-to-loss ratio is smaller than the earthquakes' 20:1, but still substantial at 1.22:1. This reflects the concentrated damage across all socioeconomic groups.

Multiplier Effect: Both events would trigger strong economic recovery. The multiplier effect of recovery from the wildfires might generate up to $1.65 trillion in economic activity, potentially equal to or greater than the longer-term economic effects of the earthquakes.

Section 5: Psychological and Humanitarian Considerations

Disaster Event	Displaced Individuals	Psychological Costs	Psychological Support Need
1986-1987 Earthquakes	300,000+	PTSD, Loss of Community	Extensive mental health services
2025 Wildfires	200,000+	Anxiety, PTSD, Displacement	Widespread mental health programs for all affected communities

Section 6: Economic Implications and Future Recovery

Impact Factor	1986-1987 Earthquakes	2025 Wildfires
GDP Impact	+3–5% annual growth	+2–3% growth post-recovery
Reconstruction Employment	500,000+ jobs	300,000+ jobs
Sector-Specific Impact	Construction, Retail, Manufacturing	Real Estate, Insurance, Construction
Recovery Time	5–7 years	10–15 years

Economic Anchor or Stimulus?

The 2025 wildfires can be both an anchor and a stimulus. While the total damage is projected to be over $450 billion, the needed federal relief could go up to $1 trillion, with rebuilding efforts triggering a strong economic recovery. However, the funding-to-loss ratio stands at 1.22:1, much smaller than the 1986-1987 earthquakes' 20:1. Netting this, the multiplier effect of recovery might produce $1.65 trillion in economic activity, potentially equal to or better than the longer-term economic effects of the earthquakes.

The federal response—particularly in underserved areas—will determine whether the wildfires become an economic anchor or a potent stimulus to the national economy.

The Strategic Impact of California's Economic Decline on US Security

In 2025, California's economy ranks as the 5th largest economy globally. This economic strength is not just an isolated phenomenon; it plays a crucial role in the global economy and, more importantly, in the security and sovereignty of the United States.

Key Points:

• California's Gross State Product was around $3.3 trillion in 2025.
• This State GDP positions California ahead of many individual countries globally.

Politicians Threatening California's Economy:

1. Mitch McConnell – Senate Minority Leader, Republican Party
2. Kevin McCarthy – Speaker of the House, Republican Party
3. Lindsey Graham – US Senator, South Carolina, former presidential candidate
4. Ted Cruz – US Senator, Texas, leading conservative voice
5. Josh Hawley – US Senator, Missouri, conservative populist
6. Jim Jordan – US Representative, Ohio, Chairman, House Judiciary Committee, influential GOP figure
7. Ron Johnson – US Senator, Wisconsin, a staunch conservative
8. Rand Paul – US Senator, Kentucky, libertarian conservative
9. Mike Garcia – US Representative (California), rising GOP star
10. Mike Johnson – US Representative (Louisiana), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee
11. Marjorie Taylor Greene – US Representative (Georgia), far-right populist, influential in the GOP's base
12. Chip Roy – US Representative (Texas), founder of the House Freedom Caucus, fiscal conservative
13. Thomas Massie – US Representative (Kentucky), libertarian-leaning, fiscal conservative
14. Matt Gaetz – US Representative (Florida), an outspoken, controversial figure in the GOP
15. John Barrasso – US Senator and Member, Republican Leadership (Wyoming)
16. Byron Donalds – US Representative, Rising Star in Freedom Caucus (Florida)
17. Scott Perry – US Representative, Leader in Hard-line Conservative Faction (Pennsylvania)
18. Dan Bishop – US Representative, Hard-core Conservative (North Carolina)
19. Paul Gosar – US Representative, Far-right Conservative Controversy Magnet (Arizona)
20. Andy Biggs – US Representative, Former Freedom Caucus Chair (Arizona)
21. Bob Good – US Representative of Virginia, stalwart conservative
22. Lauren Boebert – US Representative of Colorado, populist and outspoken
23. Jim Banks – US Representative of Indiana, conservative on many leading issues
24. Michael Cloud – US Representative of Texas, embraced the mission of the Freedom Caucus
25. Andy Harris – US Representative of Maryland, voice for conservative values

Global Comparisons: California's Economic Scale

Here's a list of countries whose combined economies are smaller than California's GDP of approximately $3.9 trillion:

1. Italy & South Korea (combined GDP: ~$4 trillion)
2. Canada & Spain (combined GDP: ~$3.9 trillion)
3. Australia & Mexico (combined GDP: ~$3.1 trillion)
4. Brazil & Russia (combined GDP: ~$3.8 trillion)

Could these 26 politicians, by denying California wildfire disaster relief, be playing into a globalist agenda that undermines the very economic engine of the United States? Are opposing aid to California weakening the state's economy and jeopardizing the nation's long-term prosperity? The potential impact on California's economy is significant, and we cannot afford to ignore it. Or is it really in the interests of an 'international elite ', a group of powerful individuals and corporations with global interests, well-served by a world in perpetual division and destabilization rather than for the cause of American sovereignty and self-sufficiency?

Corporate Interests Driving Policy:

By denying disaster relief to California, these 13 politicians are not just in dereliction of their duty to the American people; they are actively serving as conduits for corporate interests undermining US sovereignty and national security. Behind their opposition is an apparatus of international corporations that thrive on weakening America's economic powerhouse. These politicians have emerged as part of a corporatocracy, loyal more to multinational corporations than their citizens. It's a complex web of interests, and understanding it is key to dismantling their influence.

1. Josh Hawley – Supported by contributions from Big Tech, including Amazon and Google, Hawley's populist rhetoric masks a reality where corporate money from Silicon Valley fuels his rise. These tech giants thrive when states like California, a tech hub, are economically destabilized, leaving them freer to monopolize markets without competition.
2. Jim Jordan – With the primary backing of conservative mega-PACs and donors, Jordan's affiliation with Koch Industries and other business lobbies shows he is in it to defend the interests of corporate elites looking to dismantle state-level economic power and further concentrate under globalist control.
3. Ron Johnson – Linked to Big Pharma and technology companies at the heart of his policy prescriptions from corporate donors, including drugmakers and Silicon Valley behemoths, whose interests align with reducing state-level autonomy for lack of oversight and competition.
4. Rand Paul – While Rand Paul masquerades as a libertarian champion, his donors include significant contributions from Big Pharma and Silicon Valley corporations that benefit from deregulation and the weakening of state economies.
5. Mike Garcia – Although he represents California, Big Tech and financial sector interests are behind him. Garcia's loyalty to corporate donors, including Google and Amazon, suggests his priority isn't his constituents but the interests of multinational corporations that profit from a weakened California economy.
6. Mike Johnson--Johnson's support comes from right-wing corporate PACs and business interests connected with global financial entities. His policies often reflect the priorities of multinational companies, which benefit from weaker states and a less cohesive national economy.
7. Marjorie Taylor Greene – Despite the populist persona, Greene's career is enabled by heavy funding from large conservative super PACs and corporate lobbyists, including those with ties to multinational corporations who would seek to exploit instability within the US market for global gain.
8. Chip Roy – Representing considerable energy and tech corporations, Roy's positions favor deregulation agendas pursued by big companies like ExxonMobil and Oracle, which thrive when the federal government undermines strong state economies like California's, reducing competition and regulation.
9. Thomas Massie--As a self-anointed libertarian, his policies benefit corporations that have thrived from destabilizing state economies. He is deeply tied to Silicon Valley tech giants and other multinational corporations that profit from deregulated markets.
10. Matt Gaetz – Gaetz's political financing is provided by PACs associated with big business interests. Industries like Energy and Technology profit when US states, such as California, lose economic stability, meaning less interference by state legislatures to stop corporate consolidations.
11. John Barrasso – Various corporate interests in Barrasso's career, from energy conglomerates like Chevron to global financial institutions, show that those who thrive off economic uncertainty within California will serve to weaken nationally held power as corporate control grows.
12. Byron Donalds--Backed by corporate PAC money, mainly from the Big Tech and Energy sectors, Donalds is aligned with corporate priorities on destabilizing state economies so multinational giants can have broader freedom to function.
13. Scott Perry--Perry is funded by defense contractors, energy lobbies, and big business PACs. His alignment with corporate giants shows that his economic policy bolsters global corporations that benefit from instability and weakened state autonomy.

California's Economic and National Security Value

Each of these politicians is not just against California; they are working to destroy America's economic base for the benefit of multinational corporations. These firms would exploit America's fragmented economy through international operations, weakening the US.

Both economically and geopolitically, California's economy weakened, allowing foreign powers to gain influence. This allows global corporations to dominate with impunity, unthreatened by competition or regulation. These corporate-backed "public servants" do the bidding of foreign interests; the long-term national security implications are crystal clear: a weakened California equates to a weakened United States.

Strategic National Security Risks

California is, in many ways, the silent backbone of American sovereignty--a cornerstone in technology, defense, and agriculture for the nation's economy and global power. Any destabilization of California threatens to undermine the foundation upon which American national security has been built. This is not just a matter of economic consequences but a strategic breakdown, reverberating through every facet of American defense, innovation, and global competitiveness.

California's technology sector is the crown jewel of US economic might, driving everything from advanced artificial intelligence to cyber defense systems. No other region in the world houses more Silicon Valley companies than California, which creates infrastructures for military-grade technology and surveillance systems that protect national security. California's dominance in tech is no accident; it fuels the US military-industrial complex, providing innovations that keep American soldiers ahead of adversaries. Weaken that engine, and you expose the nation to a strategic vulnerability that no defense spending can fully counter.

During global conflict, California's agricultural power can feed the United States and the world's food security. It produces nearly half of all US fruits, vegetables, and nuts, giving America the upper hand in international trade and diplomacy. If California is weakened, a primary source of that soft power is crippled, affording geopolitical adversaries leverage they've long craved. Imagine a world where China can wield food shortages in the US as a weapon of influence. A future is closer than we think when California is weakened.

The idea that the United States' global dominance can survive without California is not only delusional but also dangerous. By destabilizing California, corporate-driven politicians open a window of opportunity for adversaries such as China and Russia, both avid for any sign of the weakness of the United States economy. And with California on the receiving end, the house of cards called America could be reduced to dust. This is no longer just a domestic issue; it has become a threat to the very existence of American leadership within a multipolar world.

These politicians have played a national security game they don't understand with an arrogant bid to keep their corporate contributors placated. By sabotaging California, they've invited foreign powers into the vacuum where once American ingenuity thrived. When American tech falters, when agriculture is crippled, and when defense manufacturing faces upheaval, China and Russia aren't watching idly--they are capitalizing. The weakening of California is the opening they've been waiting for to further displace US power on the world stage.

When California's Economy Goes Bust: A Geopolitical Strategy

When California's economy goes bust, it's no longer just a lousy economic bet--it is geopolitical policy. Financial instability in one of the world's biggest economies leaves waves. It washes them over into the foreign powers, whom America's powers have long sought to discredit. As long as California stands and chugs its role as an engine for American worldwide influence, these individuals want this juggernaut crushed.

Weakening California: A Golden Opportunity for China and Russia

Weakening is a golden opportunity for China to flex its growing technological and economic muscles. In the global economy, where innovation is currency, any weakening of the state's Silicon Valley ecosystem opens space for accelerating its market penetration through Chinese firms. Already, China has set targets for US supply chains, and intellectual property will stop at nothing in attempting to steal every conceivable competitive edge. If California's tech giants falter, then China's state-backed firms will be ready to seize the reins and leave America vulnerable to their exploitation.

Similarly, Russia has long sought to destabilize Western economies, and the destabilization of California presents a strategic opening to disrupt US global influence. Targeting the US economy at its core--in the destruction of a vital state like California--undermines confidence in American leadership. An America divided would undermine the American presence in international structures from the United Nations to the World Bank and embolden antidemocratic regimes like Putin's Russia to act with impunity.

As Goes California, So Goes America's International Leverage

This is not economic war; this is geopolitical chess. Corporate-backed politicians, acting as proxies for foreign interests themselves, are wittingly playing into the hands of adversarial governments that realize the weakening of California will, in turn, tilt the global balance of power in their favor. California represents not just economic might but diplomatic leverage, and by attacking it, these politicians are offering up US global supremacy as a bargaining chip to rival powers.

The Stakes for America's Future

When California stumbles, the rest of America becomes a shadow of its old self, open to the whims and frights of her adversaries. The actual danger does not lie in the immediate economic consequences but in how the loss of California's economic clout will reframe the US's role on the world stage. The world order does not remain static; it shifts in real-time. With each economic blow California takes, actors like China and Russia position themselves for advantage in restructuring that order to their favor.

Their Lack of Fiduciary Legislative Accountability and Legal Action

Through negligence and cowardice, these politicians act irresponsibly and criminally. Not a form of fiscal conservatism, disaster relief withheld from California to technological, agricultural, and defense infrastructure at the heart of the United States is willful sabotage to inspire corporate interests that thrive on US economic failure. These politicians are accomplices in a larger scheme aimed at destroying American sovereignty, and they should be brought to account.

It is not enough to vote them out or to pass censure resolutions. These actions call for legal redress through congressional hearings and investigations into the corporate interests behind such decisions. The American people have a right to know who's pulling the strings, benefiting from weakening California and profiting from America's decline. This is not a political debate but a question of national security. Not bringing these people to justice amounts to dereliction of duty by the government.

Let me be clear: these are not run-of-the-mill political missteps. These deliberate acts put America's very future at risk. By allowing corporate interests to write policy, they are not only dereliction of duty to their constituents but actively and materially supporting foreign powers seeking to exploit America's resultant vulnerability. This is not a question of economic mismanagement but the willful surrender of US sovereignty to international corporate interests.

What Needs to Happen

What needs to happen is this: a complete, transparent investigation into how corporate donors are driving the policies of these politicians. Who benefits from the destruction of California's economy? Who gains when American technology, agriculture, and defense sectors are destabilized? This is a national security issue, and it demands legal action. These people need to be held accountable for playing fast and loose with the future of this country. The law should ensure that the consequences they suffer come at the ballot box and the courts, where their actions--tantamount to economic treason--can be brought to light.

Rhetoric and empty promises will no longer cut it. These politicians must be held to the highest standards, not only for their votes but for their complicity in undermining the very fabric of American security. They are not simply failing in their duties--they are actively seeing that America's future goes to the highest bidder, and that bidder is not the American people.

Unpleasant Questions for 13 of the Most Powerful Names in This List

On the opposite side of this juncture stands a mammoth-sized decision. Each further move by them promises the collapse of the $3.3 trillion economy, much more significant compared with the economies of Russia, Brazil, and India.

By withholding disaster relief to California, they are not only withholding aid but planning whose repercussions will be heard across borders and affect the US economy and world markets. So, here are the tough questions that must be answered:

1. Mitch McConnell – As Senate Minority Leader, does California's strategic economic and defense importance justify the same urgency as the Wall Street bailout 2008? When you oppose disaster relief to California, are you consciously yielding economic leverage to China and Russia?
2. Kevin McCarthy – How would you, as Speaker of the House, justify taking away disaster relief from a state critical to national security and technological advancement? Should California's demolition be sacrificed for political gain even when the fallout threatens to pull down global economies?
3. Lindsey Graham: As an outspoken conservative, are you aware that your stance on California's wildfires threatens the global technological and defense infrastructure? Could your inaction invite a country like China to fill the vacuum and hold sway over US markets?
4. Ted Cruz--Did you not realize, when you refused to support disaster relief in California, that you were watching the dismantling of California's economic engine, the backbone of the US's defense and tech capabilities? Might this make it vulnerable for foreign adversaries to exploit?
5. Josh Hawley, your populist rhetoric rings hollow against the corporate interests of Silicon Valley that benefit from California's decline. Have you considered that by denying wildfire relief, you may be strengthening those corporate interests and foreign adversaries that help when the US economy falters?
6. Jim Jordan – With your deep ties to conservative PACs, do you realize the long-term strategic national security implications of undermining California? Wildfires are not just an economic disaster but a geopolitical gamble. Could your refusal to act leave California vulnerable to foreign domination?
7. Ron Johnson- Your close ties to the pharmaceutical and tech industries raise essential questions. Are these corporate interests driving your decision to block California disaster relief? Are you, in turn, aligning yourself with foreign adversaries who will benefit from America's vulnerability?
8. Rand Paul, your political philosophy is well known smaller government and fiscal conservatism. But can it not be that your refusal to fund California's recovery could weaken the global economy? How does this make sense for American sovereignty when foreign nations are prepared to capitalize on that kind of instability?
9. Mike Garcia- Representative for California, do you think disaster relief held hostage is something in the interest of your state and the future of its constituency? Perhaps creating a void there that a foreign adversary, namely China or Russia, would salivate over?
10. Mike Johnson – With backing from corporate PACs and financial institutions, how do you reconcile your stance on disaster relief with the global consequences of destabilizing a state as crucial to national security as California?
11. Marjorie Taylor Greene – While your strong anti-establishment views resonate with many, is there room for you to revisit your stance where the fallout from denying relief to California may come at the cost of US economic supremacy? Wouldn't foreign adversaries be the ones to benefit most from a weakened California?
12. Chip Roy, your connection to energy and tech companies should be investigated. Are you aware that your denial of assistance could deteriorate California's technological and defense infrastructure, weakening the US against foreign powers?

Thomas Massie**--Self-Styled libertarian champion, do you not consider that in trying to deny relief to California, you are not only undermining US sovereignty but directly benefiting foreign interests and global corporate giants that thrive on instability? Are you helping to hand the US economy over to China and Russia?

Strategic National Security Risks and Geopolitical Consequences

It is the lifeblood of the US economy and American technological innovation, agriculture, and defense. The destabilization of California undermines the entire US position in the world. Its technological sector leads the world in contributing to US military capabilities, surveillance technology, and innovations in defense systems. Without California, the defense technology of the US could fall apart, making it more vulnerable against geopolitical adversaries.

More importantly, California's agriculture is linked to the food security of the United States and the rest of the world. If California falters, the United States becomes vulnerable to global economic changes, and adversaries like China can use this leverage to manipulate the world's food supplies to undermine the United States's global power further.

The global balance of power is precarious, and California remains the linchpin that keeps US dominance intact. These are hard questions that politicians need to answer now before adversaries at variance with American global leadership occupy the geopolitical space left by California's decline.

Is It Time for California to Consider Secession?

With California facing ever worse disasters, from wildfires and droughts to economic instability, one unsettling question arises: should California secede? The state pays more into the US economy than entire nations, with its $3.3 trillion GDP, while political leaders in Washington continue to block or neglect disaster relief for its population. All California gets in return is cold indifference, a scenario that becomes increasingly uncertain regarding its future in the Union.

California is more than a state. It's a crucial economic and geopolitical pivot. The continued denial of help during the wildfires in 2020 and droughts in 2023, perhaps because of the value of the contribution to the overall economy from the state, has become taken for granted. Yet, the cost of being part of the Union increases each day. How long will California stay in a system that values the rest of the states more than the survival and recovery of itself?

Should Governor Newsom Sue for California's Share?

A more earthbound, pragmatic question is whether Governor Gavin Newsom should go to court to claim California's fair share of disaster expenditures. If other states mismanage their disasters--everything from Texas's 2021 freeze to repeated hurricanes across the Gulf Coast--it's California that pays for the resulting incompetence. While Texas, Louisiana, and Florida take federal relief, California struggles in her way and has to fight for a fair share.

Should California sue these states or the federal government for damages related to economic disruptions caused by their disasters? For example, California's tech sector lost billions after Hurricane Katrina and the Texas freeze, when global supply chains and energy markets were disrupted. The economic spillover of poorly managed crises elsewhere directly hits California's productivity and international trade routes. Should California seek compensation for the national costs created by the failure of other states to manage their disasters? Should the people of California ask for refunds of our dollars spent from the Hurricane states, because they "forgot to rake their beaches?" Our rich state props up the Gulf States after every hurricane. Maybe we need to secede, sue to recover the mis-managed Hurricane dollars and simply state, rake your beaches better.

Accountability

This isn't just frustration; it's about accountability. If California continues picking up the slack, it should challenge the status quo. Why should California's almost 40 million residents continue to bear the financial burden of disasters in other states that mismanage their infrastructure? For example, the 2021 Texas freeze created an energy crisis that affected California's power grid and energy prices for months. Shouldn't states that make such ripples pay for the damage they cause?

California would force a fair-share discussion in disaster relief by filing a lawsuit. Rather than continually subsidizing the failures of other states, California could push for a fairer distribution of resources--and seek reimbursement from states like Texas or Louisiana for the national impact of their poorly managed disasters.

Is Secession the Next Step?

If this doesn't work, can California consider secession? As the fifth-largest economy in the world, California has plenty of ability to support itself. It's an economic powerhouse, with key sectors in technology, defense, and agriculture that would underpin an independent future. Secession might be considered if their federal and state counterparts disregard California's needs. Does California not already bear a disproportionate responsibility for national prosperity and should at least be free to sort out its future?

A Future Apart?

It is no longer just a question of whether California should leave the Union; it is a question of whether California can afford to stay in a Union that increasingly seems to disregard its needs. While federal disaster relief has often been belated and politicized, with nobody to be held accountable for damages one state's mismanagement caused, California has come to wonder whether the Union currently serves it any good. Unless it does so, it may be now a time to seriously consider the path differently, which would bring California's interests and future to the fore, ahead of the failed political gridlock. 51 Californians are known dead or missing, 150,000-250,000 people are sleeping in tents, on floors and in their cars, if their cars are not burned up. You all must be very, very loyal to your corporate masters.

Too Big to Fail Banks vs California's Economy: A Disturbing Paradox

Too Big to Fail: The Bailouts of the Financial Crisis

During the 2007-2008 financial crisis, a number of financial institutions—both American and multinational—were deemed "too big to fail." These banks were considered so integral to the global economy that their collapse could trigger a financial meltdown, affecting millions of lives. To prevent such a collapse, the U.S. government intervened, using taxpayer money to bail out the financial system.

Institutions like Bear Stearns, AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase were deemed too important to the financial system. If they failed, the ripple effects would have been catastrophic. The bailout was presented as a necessary measure to stabilize the economy and avoid a much greater disaster. Ultimately, the U.S. taxpayers stepped in, saving these institutions from the brink of collapse. The rationale was simple: their failure was too costly, and their survival was crucial for the broader economic stability.

Now, 26 Politicians Are Threatening to Throw California Under the Bus

Fast forward to today, and we find a disturbing paradox. California, with a GDP larger than most countries, is the 5th largest economy in the world. Yet, despite its critical importance to both the U.S. and global economies, 26 politicians in Washington are actively working against the state’s economic interests. These policymakers are pushing for policies that undermine California’s economy by cutting essential funding, weakening regulatory autonomy, and even stalling critical investments that keep the state running.

California’s economy drives innovation, tax revenue, and job growth across the nation. It is home to Silicon Valley, the entertainment industry, and a major agricultural sector. Yet, in a move that mirrors the bailout logic of the 2008 crisis, these politicians are choosing to prioritize multinational corporations at the expense of California’s future. They are willing to jeopardize the economic prosperity of an entire state—essentially abandoning California despite its immense contributions to the nation's wealth and stability.

The Hypocrisy: Why Bail Out Banks But Not a State?

The question then arises: If the government was willing to use taxpayer money to save banks deemed "too big to fail," why isn't the same logic being applied to California, the 5th largest economy in the world? The refusal to act in the state’s best interest seems hypocritical. It suggests that the rules of economic survival apply differently depending on the political and corporate interests at stake. In 2008, the financial system was saved at all costs. Today, however, a state with an economy far more crucial to the nation’s prosperity is being abandoned by politicians loyal to multinational interests.

Is California’s economy somehow less vital? While the political battles being waged in Washington may be driven by power struggles and ideology, the real-world consequences are grave. By undermining California, these 26 politicians are not only harming the state but also threatening the broader U.S. economy. The paradox is clear: if banks were too big to fail, why is California—an economic giant in its own right—not afforded the same protections?

Conclusion: A Call for Consistency in Economic Policy

California's economy is far too important to the nation's prosperity to be treated as expendable. If the U.S. government can bail out large financial institutions in times of crisis, it should certainly be willing to act in the best interests of the state. The failure to do so reveals a troubling trend in U.S. economic and political priorities: one where multinational interests are favored over the long-term health and stability of the country's most vital states. It’s time for a consistent approach—one that values all sectors of the economy, from Wall Street to Silicon Valley.

U.S. Banks Bailed Out

• Bear Stearns
• Fannie Mae
• Freddie Mac
• AIG
• Citigroup
• Bank of America
• Goldman Sachs
• Morgan Stanley
• Wells Fargo
• JPMorgan Chase
• Chrysler
• Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)
• Regions Financial
• SunTrust Banks
• PNC Financial Services
• The Hartford
• MetLife
• American Express

Multinational Banks Bailed Out

• Deutsche Bank
• Barclays
• Credit Suisse
• UBS
• BNP Paribas
• Societe Generale
• Royal Bank of Scotland
• Lloyds Banking Group

####