Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

California Breakup?
BREAKING VIEWS ^ | 21 MAY 2009 | MARTIN HUTCHINSON

Posted on 05/23/2009 1:08:48 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist

READ ARTICLE HERE


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: california; statehood; stateofjefferson; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last
Sorry, the article wouldn't let me copy and paste. Also went to page source and it had too many of non-alpha characters in it.
1 posted on 05/23/2009 1:08:49 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Oh, THAT kind of breaking up! I thought this article was in reference to earthquakes breaking up the state or something! :-)


2 posted on 05/23/2009 1:10:44 PM PDT by pillut48 (CJ in TX --"God help us all, and God help America!!" --my new mantra for the next 4 years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

I was born and raised in CA. My whole life there has been talk of dividing the state. Used to be three parts now it four.
I don’t care as long as SF, Oakland and Marin counties are their own state, they deserve each other,


3 posted on 05/23/2009 1:12:35 PM PDT by svcw (The prerequisite for receiving the grace of God ... is knowing you need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pillut48

Me too. I thought the whole state had finally disappeared.


4 posted on 05/23/2009 1:13:15 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (The plan... 0 in power for life. At least that's what they told him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
"...on such a winters day..."
5 posted on 05/23/2009 1:14:53 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

A good tip off to that event occurring would be a lack of FR.


6 posted on 05/23/2009 1:14:56 PM PDT by happinesswithoutpeace (Hey there, White House Ha Ha Charade you are)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

California breakup: California’s ballot results highlight a simple fact: Californians like electing big-spending state representatives but hate paying the bills when they come due. This natural voter preference is universal, but is exacerbated by a wealthy polity of 37m inhabitants that is not fully self-governing, but subject to a distant central authority in Washington. Its discontents cannot be removed through restricting the right of referendum, which would further alienate voters from their government. More radical surgery is needed: splitting the state into more accountable government units.

The principal advantage of a federalist system is its ability to devolve local tax, spending and regulatory functions to government units small enough to respond to the wishes of local electorates who pay the bills. Policies thereby vary considerably across the federation, being tailored to the wishes of relatively modest electorates who share substantial lifestyle and economic interests. National governments are restrained from excess by their responsibility for maintaining plausible fiscal and monetary policies in a world where bailouts do not exist (the US and even California being too large for an IMF bailout.)

America’s Founding Fathers understood this. The US government never defaulted on its debt, in spite of several wars and the abolition (twice, in 1816 and 1836) of the central bank. State governments were initially less careful; of the 28 states existing in the depression of the 1840s, five (Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida) repudiated their debts completely while four more (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois) stopped paying interest for several years. A second wave of defaults came in the 1880s, when eight Southern states repudiated debts that had been assumed under the post-Civil War Reconstruction.

California in 1850 had a population of only 93,000, so its state government was fully accountable to its people, even though its vast size made communications difficult. Today California’s population at 37m is 50% larger than that of Texas, the second most populous state. Each of its 80 state legislators represents around 460,000 people and its electoral districts are gerrymandered along party lines.

Ethnically, economically and in terms of lifestyle California is more diverse than most countries (the largest EU country, Germany, has twice the population of California but 20% less land mass). State-wide public sector personnel structures and pay scales that are appropriate for high-cost coastal areas produce overpaid and under-employed state employees in rural areas, imposing regulations that may be poorly matched with those areas’ more traditional lifestyles and wishes. These higher costs result in conservative rural areas appearing to be subsidised by the liberal coasts (in terms of receiving more from the state budget than they pay) but in reality their excess “receipts” consist of salaries they should not need to pay and unnecessary services.

California’s budgetary spending tends to grow more rapidly than its economy because it is to some extent a “free lunch”— the increasing share of federal grants in state revenues allows the state government the luxury of using political pressure in Washington to cover budget gaps.

In 2007, California had only the sixth largest per capita tax burden of the 50 US states, the twelfth largest per capita spending burden and the 23rd largest per capita debt. It was also the seventh richest state per capita. Thus its budget problems should be economically manageable if its political systems functioned well. However the referendum process, introduced by the Progressive governor Hiram Johnson in 1911, allows the electorate to repudiate tax increases imposed by the state government to balance the state budget (which is itself a constitutional requirement). This happened in 1978, when Proposition 13 capped a rapidly rising property tax, and it happened again on May 19.

Removing the referendum possibility without reforming state government would help solve California’s current budget problem. However it would dangerously reduce the state government’s legitimacy and accountability, alienating voters further. More representative government might be achieved by quintupling the number of state representatives from 80 to 400, thus reducing each representative’s constituents from 460,000 to 92,000. However that would be very expensive, and would not solve the problem of coastal urban communities imposing costs and regulations on rural areas.

A more radical alternative would be to break up California into new states whose populations were more typical of other US states; splitting California into four could create states similar in size to Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina, for example. According to Article 4 Section 3 of the US constitution, such a split can be carried out with from the state legislature (which by the California constitution would require a two thirds majority) and Congress – in practice, a state constitutional convention would presumably be an appropriate mechanism.

A possible split of California into four states, each of which would be regionally coherent might be:

* San Diego/ Orange County /Inland Empire: 5 counties, population 10.4m in 2008, about 45% of Hispanic origin. Strong military presence; socially conservative and economically moderate. Politics maybe similar to New Mexico.
* Greater Los Angeles: 3 counties (Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara) population 11m, about 45% of Hispanic origin. Urban, with both ghettos and substantial wealthy Hollywood and media population. Socially and economically very liberal.
* San Francisco/ Sacramento/ Santa Cruz / Silicon Valley: 13 counties, population 9.9m. Socially liberal but highly educated and market-oriented, with global-leading tech sector. Politics maybe similar to Massachusetts
* Northern/Central valley: 37 counties, population 5.4m. Rural, vast area, lower costs. Conservative politics similar to Kansas.

Such a split would create four states with coherent boundaries, populations and economic bases. It would remove the bizarre current anomaly whereby the liberal big-spending coastal communities both subsidize the more conservative farm areas and impose unnecessary costs on them. The rural state could achieve substantial cost savings from lower salary scales for teachers and other state and local employees and a less complex bureaucracy and regulatory system.

Politically, three of the four states should quickly arrive at a satisfactory political and budgetary balance, with the amount and mix of state services provided differing substantially between them, but all remaining within the current US range of policy mixes.

The fourth new state, Los Angeles, would probably arrive at a political/economic policy balance well outside the current US norm. However its residents would retain the entire responsibility for finding a workable match between state sector growth and private sector viability without subjecting the entire state to their experiments.

In terms of national politics, a split should have little effect. As four states, California would have six extra Congressional seats, but Democrat gains from this would be balanced by the decennial redistricting process being less subject to manipulation in smaller states. The four states would have eight Senators instead of two, but the split would generally be around 5-3 Democrat, leaving the current balance unchanged.

California has become too diverse, culturally and economically, to work well within the constraints of its 1850 status and its modern democracy-on-steroids. Breaking it up on an amicable basis could create three highly successful and well managed medium-sized states of different types and one laboratory for the left.


7 posted on 05/23/2009 1:15:04 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 ("If this be treason, then make the most of it!" —Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

It really makes sense, if one thinks about it. I feel sorry for the traditionalists there.


8 posted on 05/23/2009 1:16:19 PM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Some of us have been ready for that for 50 years!

THE STATE OF JEFFERSON

[snip]A move to secede on California-Oregon border

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=State+of+Jefferson

Sunday, October 5, 2008

(10-05) 04:00 PDT Yreka, Siskiyou County — Some folks around here think the economic sky is falling and state lawmakers in Sacramento and Salem are ignoring their constituents in the hinterlands.

Guess the time is ripe to create a whole new state.

That’s the thinking up here along the border between California and Oregon, where 12 sparsely populated, thickly forested counties in both states want to break away and generate the 51st star on the nation’s flag - the state of Jefferson.

You can see the signs of discontent from Klamath Falls to Dunsmuir, where green double-X “Jefferson State” flags hang in scores of businesses. You can hear the talk of revolution at lunch counters and grocery lines, where people grumble that politicians to the north and south don’t care.

You can even hear the dissent on the radio, where 21 area FM stations broadcast from Oregon into California under the banner of “Jefferson Public Radio.”

“We have nothing in common with you people down south. Nothing,” said Randy Bashaw, manager of the Jefferson State Forest Products lumber mill in the Trinity County hamlet of Hayfork. “The sooner we’re done with all you people, the better.”


9 posted on 05/23/2009 1:18:16 PM PDT by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

8 Senators from California? No thanks.


10 posted on 05/23/2009 1:18:21 PM PDT by hometoroost (Torture? Would you rather do 5 years at Gitmo or 5 hours with the Muslims?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

Me too. I thought the whole state had finally disappeared.
***
Waiting on the BIG ONE! lol


11 posted on 05/23/2009 1:19:16 PM PDT by briarbey b (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

“* Northern/Central valley: 37 counties, population 5.4m. Rural, vast area, lower costs. Conservative politics similar to Kansas.”

Yep!


12 posted on 05/23/2009 1:20:31 PM PDT by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: briarbey b

Awe`come on now.


13 posted on 05/23/2009 1:20:57 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

California has no serious problem. Just cut spending to match income. Fire as many government employees as necessary to do so.


14 posted on 05/23/2009 1:20:59 PM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hometoroost
No.
There would be four states. Feinstein and Boxer would still be from SF and Marin. The new southern states and the new northern state would have conservative senators.
15 posted on 05/23/2009 1:22:05 PM PDT by svcw (The prerequisite for receiving the grace of God ... is knowing you need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

The great Obama predicted this! He is such a forward thinker! When he said we had 57 states, he was looking in the future!


16 posted on 05/23/2009 1:22:26 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000 (The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: happinesswithoutpeace

Oops, you’re correct. FR get more donations from CA then anywhere.
I forgot that. Sorry, I was being dumb and hateful. I will now go jump out the window.


17 posted on 05/23/2009 1:22:32 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (The plan... 0 in power for life. At least that's what they told him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

California’s ballot results highlight a simple fact: Californians like electing big-spending state representatives but hate paying the bills when they come due. This natural voter preference is universal, but is exacerbated by a wealthy polity of 37m inhabitants that is not fully self-governing, but subject to a distant central authority in Washington. Its discontents cannot be removed through restricting the right of referendum, which would further alienate voters from their government. More radical surgery is needed: splitting the state into more accountable government units.

The principal advantage of a federalist system is its ability to devolve local tax, spending and regulatory functions to government units small enough to respond to the wishes of local electorates who pay the bills. Policies thereby vary considerably across the federation, being tailored to the wishes of relatively modest electorates who share substantial lifestyle and economic interests. National governments are restrained from excess by their responsibility for maintaining plausible fiscal and monetary policies in a world where bailouts do not exist (the US and even California being too large for an IMF bailout.)


18 posted on 05/23/2009 1:23:09 PM PDT by Red_Devil 232 (VietVet - USMC All Ready On The Right? All Ready On The Left? All Ready On The Firing Line!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Article said, Los Angeles Co., Santa Barbara Co. and Ventura Co. were very liberal. That’s true for the first two but I live in Ventura Co. and it’s actually slightly more Conservative than liberal. There are more registered Republicans in Ventura Co. and my Congressman, state senator and state assembly person are all Republicans.


19 posted on 05/23/2009 1:23:12 PM PDT by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hometoroost

>> 8 Senators from California? No thanks. <<

Agreed. But now if there should be just TWO new Senators, both from the new state of Jefferson, the I think we could live with the outcome!


20 posted on 05/23/2009 1:23:16 PM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: svcw

How are the chances of getting 2 red states out of the four?


21 posted on 05/23/2009 1:23:32 PM PDT by omega4179 (Boycott government communist tractor factories!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

Good


22 posted on 05/23/2009 1:23:57 PM PDT by svcw (The prerequisite for receiving the grace of God ... is knowing you need it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
California has become too diverse, culturally and economically, to work well within the constraints of its 1850 status and its modern democracy-on-steroids.

You can say that again. It's long past time to recognize that Califoria needs to be reorganized into multiple states.

23 posted on 05/23/2009 1:25:15 PM PDT by Steel Wolf (Oh, well. Back to the drawing board....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: devere
California has no serious problem.
Just cut spending to match income. Fire as many government employees as necessary to do so.

That's a serious problem for California.

Obviously..

24 posted on 05/23/2009 1:25:25 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, Question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Boxer moved to Jack London Square in Oakland nearer to her husband’s law practice.


25 posted on 05/23/2009 1:27:02 PM PDT by byteback
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn

“Agreed. But now if there should be just TWO new Senators, both from the new state of Jefferson, the I think we could live with the outcome!”

I could! See post #9


26 posted on 05/23/2009 1:28:21 PM PDT by AuntB (The right to vote in America: Blacks 1870; Women 1920; Native Americans 1925; Foreigners 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: allmost
Well...I guess their needs to an exodus of moral God fearing people but other wise..there were no tears over Sodom or Gomorrah...God's gonna have to dig those 2 cities up and apologize if He puts up with much more moral corruption..not my call..its His. :)
27 posted on 05/23/2009 1:29:01 PM PDT by briarbey b (There is nothing new under the sun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

Can you say a “Yippie cayea mother- [blank]” On your way down? It would mean the world to these 7 yeare olds waitng for you to jump.


28 posted on 05/23/2009 1:35:27 PM PDT by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Their request to break up will be acceptable to me only if they don’t get any more senators.


29 posted on 05/23/2009 1:37:16 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

We could just give it back to Mexico. Maybe we could trade it for Mexico’s oil deposits. Naaaah. The Mexicans would not be that stupid.


30 posted on 05/23/2009 1:40:51 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: svcw
I don’t care as long as SF, Oakland and Marin counties are their own state, they deserve each other,

I'm opposed unless SF, Oakland and Marin promise to take the NYTimes, Chucky Schumer and Harry Reid with them.

31 posted on 05/23/2009 1:45:46 PM PDT by freespirited (Is this a nation of laws or a nation of Democrats? -- Charles Krauthammer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: omega4179

Hey, I like it.


32 posted on 05/23/2009 1:46:03 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (The plan... 0 in power for life. At least that's what they told him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385; backtothestreets; SierraWasp

Others on FR have proposed similar break-up alternatives in past years.

I’d be left in la-la-land. :-(


33 posted on 05/23/2009 1:46:14 PM PDT by calcowgirl (RECALL Abel Maldonado!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

*California breakup: *California’s ballot results highlight a simple
fact: Californians like electing big-spending state representatives but
hate paying the bills when they come due. This natural voter preference
is universal, but is exacerbated by a wealthy polity of 37m inhabitants
that is not fully self-governing, but subject to a distant central
authority in Washington. Its discontents cannot be removed through
restricting the right of referendum, which would further alienate voters
from their government. More radical surgery is needed: splitting the
state into more accountable government units.

The principal advantage of a federalist system is its ability to devolve
local tax, spending and regulatory functions to government units small
enough to respond to the wishes of local electorates who pay the bills.
Policies thereby vary considerably across the federation, being tailored
to the wishes of relatively modest electorates who share substantial
lifestyle and economic interests. National governments are restrained
from excess by their responsibility for maintaining plausible fiscal and
monetary policies in a world where bailouts do not exist (the US and
even California being too large for an IMF bailout.)

America’s Founding Fathers understood this. The US government never
defaulted on its debt, in spite of several wars and the abolition
(twice, in 1816 and 1836) of the central bank. State governments were
initially less careful; of the 28 states existing in the depression of
the 1840s, five (Michigan, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida)
repudiated their debts completely while four more (Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois) stopped paying interest for several
years. A second wave of defaults came in the 1880s, when eight Southern
states repudiated debts that had been assumed under the post-Civil War
Reconstruction.

California in 1850 had a population of only 93,000, so its state
government was fully accountable to its people, even though its vast
size made communications difficult. Today California’s population at 37m
is 50% larger than that of Texas, the second most populous state. Each
of its 80 state legislators represents around 460,000 people and its
electoral districts are gerrymandered along party lines.

Ethnically, economically and in terms of lifestyle California is more
diverse than most countries (the largest EU country, Germany, has twice
the population of California but 20% less land mass). State-wide public
sector personnel structures and pay scales that are appropriate for
high-cost coastal areas produce overpaid and under-employed state
employees in rural areas, imposing regulations that may be poorly
matched with those areas’ more traditional lifestyles and wishes. These
higher costs result in conservative rural areas appearing to be
subsidised by the liberal coasts (in terms of receiving more from the
state budget than they pay) but in reality their excess “receipts”
consist of salaries they should not need to pay and unnecessary services.

California’s budgetary spending tends to grow more rapidly than its
economy because it is to some extent a “free lunch”— the increasing
share of federal grants in state revenues allows the state government
the luxury of using political pressure in Washington to cover budget gaps.

In 2007, California had only the sixth largest per capita tax burden of
the 50 US states, the twelfth largest per capita spending burden and the
23rd largest per capita debt. It was also the seventh richest state per
capita. Thus its budget problems should be economically manageable if
its political systems functioned well. However the referendum process,
introduced by the Progressive governor Hiram Johnson in 1911, allows the
electorate to repudiate tax increases imposed by the state government to
balance the state budget (which is itself a constitutional requirement).
This happened in 1978, when Proposition 13 capped a rapidly rising
property tax, and it happened again on May 19.

Removing the referendum possibility without reforming state government
would help solve California’s current budget problem. However it would
dangerously reduce the state government’s legitimacy and accountability,
alienating voters further. More representative government might be
achieved by quintupling the number of state representatives from 80 to
400, thus reducing each representative’s constituents from 460,000 to
92,000. However that would be very expensive, and would not solve the
problem of coastal urban communities imposing costs and regulations on
rural areas.

A more radical alternative would be to break up California into new
states whose populations were more typical of other US states; splitting
California into four could create states similar in size to Michigan,
Georgia and North Carolina, for example. According to Article 4 Section
3 of the US constitution, such a split can be carried out with from the
state legislature (which by the California constitution would require a
two thirds majority) and Congress – in practice, a state constitutional
convention would presumably be an appropriate mechanism.

A possible split of California into four states, each of which would be
regionally coherent might be:

* San Diego/ Orange County /Inland Empire: 5 counties, population
10.4m in 2008, about 45% of Hispanic origin. Strong military
presence; socially conservative and economically moderate.
Politics maybe similar to New Mexico.
* Greater Los Angeles: 3 counties (Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa
Barbara) population 11m, about 45% of Hispanic origin. Urban, with
both ghettos and substantial wealthy Hollywood and media
population. Socially and economically very liberal.
* San Francisco/ Sacramento/ Santa Cruz / Silicon Valley: 13
counties, population 9.9m. Socially liberal but highly educated
and market-oriented, with global-leading tech sector. Politics
maybe similar to Massachusetts
* Northern/Central valley: 37 counties, population 5.4m. Rural, vast
area, lower costs. Conservative politics similar to Kansas.

Such a split would create four states with coherent boundaries,
populations and economic bases. It would remove the bizarre current
anomaly whereby the liberal big-spending coastal communities both
subsidize the more conservative farm areas and impose unnecessary costs
on them. The rural state could achieve substantial cost savings from
lower salary scales for teachers and other state and local employees and
a less complex bureaucracy and regulatory system.

Politically, three of the four states should quickly arrive at a
satisfactory political and budgetary balance, with the amount and mix of
state services provided differing substantially between them, but all
remaining within the current US range of policy mixes.

The fourth new state, Los Angeles, would probably arrive at a
political/economic policy balance well outside the current US norm.
However its residents would retain the entire responsibility for finding
a workable match between state sector growth and private sector
viability without subjecting the entire state to their experiments.

In terms of national politics, a split should have little effect. As
four states, California would have six extra Congressional seats, but
Democrat gains from this would be balanced by the decennial
redistricting process being less subject to manipulation in smaller
states. The four states would have eight Senators instead of two, but
the split would generally be around 5-3 Democrat, leaving the current
balance unchanged.

California has become too diverse, culturally and economically, to work
well within the constraints of its 1850 status and its modern
democracy-on-steroids. Breaking it up on an amicable basis could create
three highly successful and well managed medium-sized states of
different types and one laboratory for the left.


34 posted on 05/23/2009 2:00:18 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TribalPrincess2U

lawl


35 posted on 05/23/2009 2:04:22 PM PDT by happinesswithoutpeace (Hey there, White House Ha Ha Charade you are)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
“* Northern/Central valley: 37 counties, population 5.4m. Rural, vast area, lower costs. Conservative politics similar to Kansas.”

Yep!

As you know, most California bashers have never been here and have no idea of how vast, and conservative, our rural areas are.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

36 posted on 05/23/2009 2:13:13 PM PDT by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Once California breaks up, then other blue states that have a large conservative area like New York and Pennsylvania could do the same, and then there would be more new conservative senators.


37 posted on 05/23/2009 2:54:42 PM PDT by mjp (pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, independence, limited government, capitalism})
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

wonder what percentage of CA is illegal aliens?


38 posted on 05/23/2009 3:11:03 PM PDT by machogirl (not one of Rush's top-ten gal names)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

The division would be as much along political lines as along population and lifestyle lines, so the new senatorial composition would either be 4-4 (good news) or 5-3 (which is the same 2-dem lead that’s the current make-up). So there wouldn’t really be a downside to splitting the state. I’d welcome it to be able to get away from L.A. and the bay area.


39 posted on 05/23/2009 3:35:51 PM PDT by Two Kids' Dad (((( ))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: machogirl

High but still a small percent of their huge population.


40 posted on 05/23/2009 3:41:35 PM PDT by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

My only question is how would such a plan be feasible given CA’s oblong shape? If the state was as square as Wyoming then it would be a no-brainer.


41 posted on 05/23/2009 4:42:04 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist ("President Obama, your agenda is not new, it's not change, and it's not hope" - Rush Limbaugh 02/28)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: TaxPayer2000

He said 58 states.


42 posted on 05/23/2009 5:20:57 PM PDT by murron (Proud Marine Mom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Breaking the State up into 5 parts would be better then having DC bailout the state by devaluing the US dollar (printing more money and handing it to Kali). We should have broke up the Auto companies and the Big Financials. Might actually have some healthy smaller companies now instead of a massive impossible to pay debt load and future clown cars. At any rate, we all now have trillions of DC debt hanging over our heads. What the DC elites have failed to realize is that leaving the US is now a more fiscally solvent solution to DC’s debt load. Can you imagine if San Diego and the Inland Empire became a new nation. No debt baby.


43 posted on 05/23/2009 5:30:34 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

In order for this to occur (still would be a long shot), the partisan breakdown among the new Senators would have to cancel out. Otherwise, the party with the lesser number would flip out.


44 posted on 05/23/2009 5:31:01 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian; NormsRevenge; calcowgirl; ExTexasRedhead; doug from upland; SierraWasp; ElkGroveDan; ...

Here’s another solution that’s getting more attention.


45 posted on 05/23/2009 5:39:28 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (The McCain/Palin ticket was like a Kangaroo, stronger on the bottom than at the top)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

What’s the other solution? Should your comment have included a link?


46 posted on 05/23/2009 5:41:30 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17

Many solutions are being proposed for the state’s huge budget crisis. And they’re easy to find, provided you have a search engine.


47 posted on 05/23/2009 5:42:36 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (The McCain/Palin ticket was like a Kangaroo, stronger on the bottom than at the top)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Repeal 16-17
Otherwise, the party with the lesser number would flip out.

Thus the inherent failure of a 2 party corrupt system.

48 posted on 05/23/2009 5:43:30 PM PDT by justa-hairyape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I was in Ca. last Tuesday with a co-worker who lives there.
She had no idea that Tuesday was a voting day for the tax referendums and here this Tx guy (me) was very aware of props 1-A-F. Duh.....


49 posted on 05/23/2009 5:43:37 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: murron
He said 58 states.

Oh yeah, 57, with one more left to go.....

50 posted on 05/23/2009 6:04:53 PM PDT by TaxPayer2000 (The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-66 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson