Oh, THAT kind of breaking up! I thought this article was in reference to earthquakes breaking up the state or something! :-)
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,
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.
It really makes sense, if one thinks about it. I feel sorry for the traditionalists there.
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.”
8 Senators from California? No thanks.
California has no serious problem. Just cut spending to match income. Fire as many government employees as necessary to do so.
The great Obama predicted this! He is such a forward thinker! When he said we had 57 states, he was looking in the future!
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.)
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.
Their request to break up will be acceptable to me only if they don’t get any more senators.
*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.
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.
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.
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.
Here’s another solution that’s getting more attention.
But there is also a values component to it, with residents of conservative areas sick of having SanFran values shoved down its throat.