Should California Get a Federal Bailout?

The Obama Administration says no.  Although California's economy is bigger than Canada's or Brazil's, it's "too big to fail" argument was rejected by the federal government.

Clearly Obama et al. have not been paying attention like we have to the shenanigans behind the teetering of the world's 8th largest economy.  Either that or piling the woes on the backs of the poor ain't no big thing to the folks in DC:

While its fiscal crisis is severe, experts say the state is unlikely to default on what it owes, even if it runs out of cash. It can raise money through taxes and other means to assure repayment of its debt. Most likely are massive cuts in public services.

My emphases.  You know, wevs.

But honestly, I'm trying to figure out exactly what parameters the govt is using to decide who gets a bailout vs. who doesn't (I know, aren't we all).  Calculated Risk (1st link) says it's California's fault - they got drunk on the housing bubbly and are now too dysfunctional and hungover to deserve a bailout.  Contrast that to Michigan, on an economic lifeline for decades now and newly the recipient of a $2B bond program for its public and private sectors.

Two states with Depression-Era unemployment in some places.  For now, California continues to twist in the wind.  (I should probably have come up with a catchy earthquake-y metaphor here...)

(Photo of the State Capitol in California by Kevin Krejci.  Note the flags at half mast.  For its economy?)