CA: The bad-news budget

OC Register ^ | 7/25/05 | Esmael Adibi

[afnamvet]

I like your idea. I would surmise that Placer county would carry this imitative for the conservative state.

[afnamvet]

I like your idea. I would surmise that Placer county would carry this imitative for the conservative state.

[afnamvet]

imitative=initiative plus double post. My bad.

[FOG724]

With a dem in office, there is no way the Republican legislature would have allowed the outrageous spending and borrowing Arnold has endorsed.

Reminds me of that old liberal song "Blowing in the wind".

"How many times can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn't see, the answer my friend is blowing in the wind..."

[backtothestreets]

You've raised many very important points. There is a lot of revenue generated from the more populated counties.

The proposal may initially seem to separate the more populated counties from the less populated counties, but that is not the case. It may also have the appearance of separating wealthy counties from less affluent counties, but again that is not the case.

The divide is actually almost purely political and demographic. Orange County and San Diego Counties are among the most populated in the state, and would be in the larger of the two states. These two counties plus Monterey County, Napa County, San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County and Ventura County are among the wealthiest counties in the state.

The eight counties that would form the smaller state share two common traits. The first is the most easily recognizable, and that is political. These are the eight most liberal counties. These eight counties represent 7,356,000 million voters. The remaining 50 counties represent 8,773,000 million voters. The eight counties also share another trait that is less obvious, but very important. These eight counties have very high population densities.  There would be a substantial cross-over vote by Democrats in the 50 counties because they will likely benefit from lower taxes.  There will also be unexpected, but welcomed support from liberal leaning conservation groups, like the Sierra Club, wanting to conserve the Sierra natural resources.

Here are three links that help present the facts on population, revenue, and voters.  California Quick Facts is presented by the US Census Department and can be easily searched to get details on each individual county.  Beyond the population numbers, many other interesting facts are included, such as median individual incomes, retail sales, housing starts, Federal funds and grants, land area, population density, and much more.  The other two links are to the California Secretary of State Elections and Voter Information.  The first presents the results from elections that have taken place since 1992.  The second offers voter registration statistics.

I'm glad you mentioned water systems.  City and county owned systems like Hetch Hetchy, which is owned by the City and County of San Francisco would not change ownership.  Water resources under federal control would not change.  Water under state control would be controlled by the state it originates in.  Sale of state fresh water would be within existing federal guidelines.  Electricity generated by dams would be controlled by the state it is generated in, and sale of that electricity would follow federal laws.  These two resources, water and electricity would help assure the economic stability of the larger state as they can be sold to the smaller state at market value without federal intervention.

The highways and waterways are another important issue.  The larger state would be positioned to implement fair commercial fees on all highways under its jurisdiction, including Interstate Highways.  The larger state would also be positioned to increase port activities along the coast that have been under utilized to date.  The San Francisco Bay and its waterways would be governed under federal law as the waters are shared by both states.

Only the larger state would be poised to attract substantial new manufacturing and business as land use in the smaller state is already maximized.  Persistent current state issues, from redistricting of legislative districts, voter registration, the issuing of driver's licenses, Worker's Compensation, schools, and unionized government workforces can be addressed with a state Constitutional Convention.  The new state would be best suited to balance the concerns between rural and urban areas.  Approximately 4.5 million voters reside in the more populated counties of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego, with the remaining 4.3 million voters residing in the less populated,  more rural counties.  The larger state would have a decidedly stron conservative Congressional delegation to augment a conservative state government.

Another facet that needs mentioning is borders.  It must be noted that Imperial County is very liberal, but sparsely populated.  This county would be included with the larger state to assure control along the border with Mexico.  Another county, Santa Barbara is slightly liberal leaning.  It is included with the larger state because it has jurisdiction over some Channel Islands areas, and the oil and gas reserves in those offshore areas can best be managed by the larger state.  It must be noted here that Governor Schwarzenegger is working diligently on limiting offshore oil and gas production.

As you noted, the smaller state would have JPL, AMES and Caltech, but the larger state would have Edwards Air Force Base, Lemoore Naval Air Base, Camp Pendleton, and the San Diego Naval Base, home of the Southern Pacific Fleet.

I hope I supplied adequate sources to some of the information you were looking for.  I purposely provided links to information so anyone reading this could see the numbers were not the product of my hopes, or imagination.

As for a four mile move, I believe it will be financially beneficial to you.  I honestly believe the larger state will have substantially lower taxes then the small state.

[backtothestreets]

Placer is guaranteed to vote favorably for such an initiative. In 1992 (or 1994, I don't recall which) California State Assemblyman Stan Statham (R) worked out a deal with Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D) that placed a non-binding question of separating the state on the ballot of a handful of rural northern counties. It question easily passed, but it was nothing more than tokenism since it was non-binding, and the counties question would have never had the votes necessary to carry an initiative statewide.

I don't know the full details of the deal worked out between the two assemblymen, but do believe it included a provision the Republicans would never raise the issue again in the state legislature. While I've received overwhelming interest from many key state Republicans, and even a nice reply from California State Senator Tom McClintock (my personal favorite to be the first Governor of the new large state), there has been hesitation, on the part of the state Republican Party and Chapters to get involved.

I can't speak for the state Republican Party, nor any other political organization, but I've no question how the voters in the 50 counties will vote regardless of party affiliation. The results would best mirror the populist results of the Special Election that tossed Grey Davis out of office due to the energy fiasco and crisis. The 50 counties that would form the larger state is a careful mixture of counties that can easily deliver the votes necessary to pass an initiative splitting the state to create a conservative state that would recognize the concerns of counties like Placer.

[So Cal Rocket]

I'm unaware of the two state provision when California was admitted to the union. Do you have any information on this? It seems to contradict the Constitution, Article IV:

Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

[Syncro]

So LA county would be like China and all the Northern counties would represent Taiwan.

I could live with that, as long as we could get "Taiwan" to declare Independence from "China" and then become part of Northern California.

No way am I in favor of giving the coastline of Santa Cruz and Marin counties to the commies!

But on the plus side, we could go back to drilling for oil off of Santa Barbara county.

[Old Seadog]

I don't know about the legality of CA splitting into two states, but when I was growing up, it was just one of those things that you know. Texas could split into five states and Calif. into two. Just a fact ?????????

[backtothestreets]

"I'm unaware of the two state provision when California was admitted to the union. Do you have any information on this? It seems to contradict the Constitution, Article IV:"

I will have to check further with the sources within the California Republican Assembly that provided this information.  As a former CRA member, I have great trust in the information the CRA leadership has provided to me.  You may have the ability to actually discuss this locally as the CRA is very strong in Orange County where you reside.  The actual document is titled "Act for the admission of California into the Union", but I am unable to find it on the Internet for the sake of reference.

It may also be beneficial to note California voters had once approved the splitting of the state into two states.  Assemblyman Andres Pico from Los Angeles, introduced a bill in 1859 to divide California into two states at the Tehachapi mountain range. The Pico bill passed both the Assembly and the State Senate and was signed by Governor John Weller. After a public vote in the south in which southerners voted to divide the state, Governor Weller informed the U.S. House of Representatives that the state had authorized the division. A bill was then introduced before the House, but it never came to a vote. The Civil War had begun.

As for the Constitution, Article IV:

Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV; Section 1 of California Constitution states:

The legislative power of this State is vested in the California Legislature which consists of the Senate and Assembly, but the people reserve to themselves the powers of initiative and referendum.

The citizens of California have, by this provision, the right to the initiative process that circumvents the state legislature.  Additionally, such a initiative splitting the state would give rise to candidates wanting to split the state, further assuring the split is consensual.

I'd also like to juice things up a bit by quoting a statement from an extremely prestigious document, The Declaration of Independence.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

I earnestly believe the time has come to dissolve the political bonds which have connected the State of California as a single state.

[backtothestreets]

I honestly understand your desire to keep control of the shorelines of Santa Cruz and San Mateo. Some portions of the eight counties might opt to join the larger state, but this would have to be submitted to the voters of those individual counties for approval. I know there are some conservative pockets of voters within the eight counties. It is hoped the conservative pockets can forge the necessary alliances to break their bonds with those counties and join the larger state, but this would be a county, not state matter.

It should be noted that between your "Taiwan" and "China", the "Taiwan" region is far and away the more liberal of the two, and would likely never want a part of a state where issues of marriage, abortion and union influences will be addressed by a more conservative state.

[HKMk23]

I'll throw my hat in the ring for this idea.

I've though for years that the old North/South split was wrongheaded because it would leave each new state diseased with the same cancer that precipitaetd the move to split in the first place.

No, an East/West split -- excising the cancerous counties from the rest of the state and forcing them to inherit their consequences -- makes the most sense of all.

[pogo101]

All the more reason we need to one day have Governor Tom McClintock.

Amen. Because Tom currently is running "only" for LT. Gov., it's my hope that Arnold will get re-elected, that Tom will get elected, and that, shortly afterwards, Arnold will retire to private life, proudly putting Tom in the governor's seat. Arnold is probably a little better than Davis (esp. in appointing more non-leftist judges and such), but Tom SURELY will be better.

[backtothestreets]

Glad to have you on board!

It's almost an east-west split, but there are some important differences. A true east-west split had been proposed before, but was flawed in that it required the majority of state citizens where most of the population is concentrated along the coast to voluntarily give up their control of the resources located in the eastern part of the state, primarily the fresh water.

Likewise, there have been recent proposals to split the state north and south driven by water concerns in the northern part of the state where most fresh water originates. This was a failed effort because it required the more populated southern part of the state to vote to cut the water supply. It was never going to happen.

More recently, the discussions to divide the state north and south were purely political, and as you have so aptly noted, it would not have resolved the political divides, but doubled them.

This proposal keeps the rural coastal areas intact with inland rural areas, and the conservative southland. It is crafted to give the larger state as best a Republican form of government possible. It is uniquely balanced between rural and urban areas, and northern and southern populations.

Aside from controlling natural resources, the new larger state would be much more likely to create a state border control along the Mexican border. There would be little chance of future illegal aliens reaching destinations in the Los Angeles or San Francisco regions. Such a border control could also be deployed around the border of the smaller state to assure illegal aliens already residing there stay there.

Here's an interesting tidbit to toss around. The majority of state prisons are located outside the eight counties that would create the small state. The small state would be faced with three choices.

They can choose to have the prisoners from their regions released into their general population. Such a decision would automatically create a more conservative swing in the voters of the small state as crime rises.

Second, they could pay the larger state to warehouse their prisoners, which would create an additional revenue source for the large state.

The last choice would be to construct new prisons within the populated areas of the small state. This too could well make the citizens of the small state take a more conservative stance within those areas.

The initiative I'd like to see put forth to voters would have state lands and building remain in the control of the state in which they are located.

It must also provide for the division of any budget deficit. Ideally, the deficit would be split equally among the two state. This would favor the larger state as 55% of the population is located in those areas, plus the new state would have a fiscally conservative government apt to cut pay off the debt immediately.

The smaller state would not have as easy a time paying down their debt. They'll be too busy borrowing money to purchase land and build prisons or hire police!

[So Cal Rocket]

I still believe the Constitution prohibits it, take a close look at the punctuation in Section 3, which I've emphasized in the paragraph below:

Section. 3.

Clause 1: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

So, we have 3 parts of the clause:

1. States can be added
2. You can't make a new State out of part of an existing State
3. You can't make a new State out of parts or the whole of two or more States

And we have 1 exclusion:

1. "Something" is allowed if you get State Legislature & Congress to agree to it. (But what is that "something"?)

The three parts of the clause are separated by semi-colons, not commas. The exclusionary language appears in the section of the clause pertaining to "combining" two or more States to make a new one. It doesn't apply to the first two parts of the clause (in fact it doesn't make any sense at all when applied to the first part).

Based on my interpretation, we're tilting at windmills trying to get this through.

[backtothestreets]

I believe you'll find I am correct in the interpretation of the US Constitution when you check the American history and see that Maine was formed from Massachusetts, and Vermont was formed from New York. It should be noted that these two states were formed at a time many of the delegates that authored the US Constitution were still living, serving in Congress, and they had no problem interpreting what the Constitution required.

Here's a link to a map that shows the original thirteen colonies: http://library.thinkquest.org/10966/map.shtml?tqskip1=1

Vermont statehood: 1791
Maine statehood: 1820

I see no reason we would want to interpret the Constitution any differently than those that originated the document.

[backtothestreets]

One additional thought about the Congressional approval requirement necessitated by the US Constitution. I mentioned Congress had approved such a split when statehood was granted California, but I hadn't mentioned our current national political situation which also favors statehood, and would make that prior approval a moot point.

There is a Republican majority in both the Houses of Representatives and the Senate. Can you imagine either of these two chambers not approving a split that would increase their numbers in both chambers, and thus increase their majority?

[So Cal Rocket]

I would, however, expect the Democrats to filibuster such a bill in the Senate so that it never gets to a vote.

[backtothestreets]

I think a filibuster on the part of the Democrats to prevent statehood would mark their absolute political demise across the nation as it would equate to keeping free people enslaved.

You are correct to point to all the entanglements that could arise in Congress. I've already been told such an initiative as the proposed state split would likely be the most expensive state initiative in the history of our entire nation because it would alter the balance of the entire nation.

It could also lay the foundation for other states plagued with liberal government to form additional conservative states. An outright rebellion would be enjoined at the polls if the Democrats acted to prevent the new state from being formed.

The Democratic Party would be faced with the most critical situation they have faced as a political party since the Civil War.

[45Auto]

So we must do it for them

The only way to do it in the short run is through the initiative process; the RATs will only laugh at that since they control the corrupt state judiciary. It only takes one commie judge (and there are many in the state) to overturn an otherwise constitutionally legal ballot measure. I think the only cure for California is a massive quake or a jump over the cliff into bankruptcy. The politicians seem bent on the latter.