National Divorce - What Are The Options?

There seems to be increasing talk about a "national divorce" or "civil war" or "secession" lately, and it is something I've thought about for years. 

The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation in which the average person didn't have to think much about the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, or various federal agencies. The Federal government was to be limited, with the states having powers to govern in diverse ways from each other. People referred to "the United States" in the plural. If things were still like that, we wouldn't be talking about a national divorce, civil war, or secession. But things aren't like that. The Federal government has grown enormously and usurped many powers, and people are trying to use that force to coerce everyone else into doing whatever it is they want.

When I mentioned what the Founding Fathers envisioned, any Leftist reading this thought "I don't give a s--- what the Founding Fathers envisioned. They kept people enslaved." This is part of our problem. Yes, slavery as it was in the USA was a terrible evil, and I'm thankful it's long gone.

Flawed as they were, the Founding Fathers created the best system of governance fallen people could. It is one the main reasons the USA quickly rose to be a world superpower.

Now we're at a point in history in which we have a bitterly divided nation again. It's not cleanly delineated into "North and South." Instead, it is between Deep Blue States (particularly, the large cities within them) and Deep Red States. The divisions involve things like elective abortion, private gun possession, immigration and border control, identity politics, religious freedom, the Electoral College, the structure of the Senate, and more.

What are the options? Let's examine each of them.

1. Peaceful Surrender - One side simply gives up. 

2. Violent Oppression - One side violently enforces its will on the whole country.

3. Wild Pendulum Swings - One side gets what it wants, but when the other side is back in power per elections, the pendulum will swing wildly to their side, over and over. An example: Elective abortion being legal nationwide with no restrictions for several years, then being severely restricted nationwide for several years, then repeat the cycle. These wild swings could be every two, four, or eight years, depending.

4. Constant Struggles - Kind of like what we have now, only growing more intense. Court battles, legislation, media campaigns; demonstrations, acts of vandalism, rioting, and terror; corporations picking sides; more and more of the "average person" having to spend their day thinking about national policy and what they can do to try to tip things their way, where they can work, where they can spend their money, etc.

5. Compromise - The two sides make some grand compromises to largely eliminate the contentious culture.

6. Violent Separation - Some states decide to leave and the rest of the states try to stop them. This was attempted with what is commonly known as the Civil War.

7. Peaceful Separation - Some states decide to leave and the rest of the states don't try to stop them.

8. Two Or More Sub-Unions - Rather than full secession, states are allowed to form sub-Federal unions that act almost like a new federal government, with the Federal government still retaining all states.

Number 1 would be the best, if it was the Left surrendering. Either way, it isn't going to happen.

Number 2 is what some on the Left are publicly saying is happening right now, because SCOTUS... is allowing states to determine abortion laws in their states rather than SCOTUS imposing it on everyone. We are not living in the same realities. Many on the Left want to violently oppress everyone else. It's a terrible thought, but if it happens it would be better if the Right won. Except that the Right favors federalism, so... the Right wouldn't do this.

Number 3 is a terrible way to live and will result in more corruption of elections and less confidence in elections.

Number 4 is also a terrible way to live, but it is encouraged by those who make money off it: politicians, lawyers, lobbyists, political scientists, campaign managers, activist organizations, media, etc.

Number 5 is something people profiting off of Number 4 won't allow, and a "compromise" won't work on many things.

Number 6 would be terrible, but could be better than aptly numbered Number 2.

Number 7 could be great, right behind "Number 1 with the Left being the side to surrender." However, it would be extremely complicated to pull off, and again, plenty of people are profiting off of Number 4 and will resist this.

Number 8, at first glance, looks like it could be the second-best choice behind "Number 1 with the Left being the side to surrender," but it probably wouldn't work out, because it would essentially add yet another layer of government (no doubt requiring major Constitutional Amendments) and there would still be irreconcilable differences at the federal level.

Do I want to see a breakup of the United States? No. But what are the alternatives?

The Left wants to do away with the Electoral College, two Senators per state, and the Second Amendment. There are also many other irreconcilable differences federalism won't alleviate. The Left doesn't want federalism anyway. There's no compromise on these. What's the compromise on the Electoral College? Any "compromise" will shift more power from the states with lower population. How can there be compromise on the Senate? By making PR and DC states? No thanks!

What can we do right now? Here's one possibility.

Turning Washington, D.C. Into a State?

So some people in D.C., the seat of our federal government and the place that elects crackheads as mayor (mere coincidence?), want the District to become our union's 51st state.

That would ensure two more Democrats in the Senate, so we can expect support for this to come from the Left. (Interesting how their ideas for gaining/retaining control always involve changing the rules... making voter fraud easier, making new states out of Democrat areas, getting more felons to vote, lowering the voting age, giving current illegal aliens the vote).

How about an old-fashioned compromise that allows Orange County, California (and perhaps a larger center-right area) to become the 52nd state simultaneously? If not The OC, how about some other conservative area in the western area? I'd like Orange County to escape the control of San Francisco and Los Angeles for personal reasons, and California Senators are likely going to be Democrats for the forseeable future. I'm open to other ideas, though.

One Reason Why California Needs a Part-Time Legislature

Erika Johnsen has this at the Townhall.com Tipsheet: "Guess Which State Leads the Way in the Number of New Laws Taking Effect in the New Year?"

Ideally, our laws would all boil down to:

1. Do not assault or murder.
2. Do not do not steal.
3. Do not damage what someone else owns against their will.
4. Do not be negligent in guardianship over dependents.
5. Do the time if you do the crime.

What am I forgetting?

California not only has an ever-growing and highly complex set of laws, but the state government backs a patchwork of special districts that, in addition to state laws and county and city ordinances, micromanage our business and personal lives... the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Air Quality Managment District, the California Coastal Commission... on and on it goes. The California Air Resources Board is especially problematic.

Our state legislature should be officially part-time.

Also, why do we have a bicameral state legislature? Congress is bicameral because Senators were originally supposed to represent state interests (thich was changed by the 17th Amendment, which I'd like to see repealed), and the Representatives are supposed to directly represent the people. The Union is comprised of fifty individual states. California is not a union of semi-autonomous states, as Counties are essentially contructs of the state government. We should not only make the legislature officially part-time, but we should make it unicameral and and reduce the overall number of state legislators.

Letters on So-Called Poverty

The Los Angeles Times ran a story on "poverty" levels for the union as a whole, and in California. They printed some of the responding letters.

Lucia Dzwonczyk of San Pedro wrote:

Poverty in the United States hits a 50-year high, children are homeless, our educational system is deteriorating and our healthcare is expensive. All this has become possible because power and greed are now the norm.

The problem here may indeed power and greed - that desire for power and greed that has gotten the federal government to wage a failed "war on poverty" and meddle in education.

Would it be too much to ask for a CEO to take home a little less pay so he would not have to lay off workers?

I believe that some CEOs may be paid too much, but that is a matter for the owners of the company to decide. Businesses should not, generally, keep jobs for the sake of keeping jobs. Absent a contract, nobody owes anyone a job.

Would it be too much to ask wealthy individuals and corporations to pay more in taxes?

The "wealthy" already pay most of the tax burden. How about asking more people to pay, given that those people are being served?

Would it be asking too much to help those who have suffered natural disasters?

We do.

Would it be too much for Congress to use a little common sense?

There's more common send in the House of Representatives now than there has been in a long time.

Would it be too much to create jobs now?

A job is created by demand. Someone can provide a good or service more efficiently than someone can do it themselves. That is what makes a job.

A country that does not care for its citizens, especially its children, cannot survive.

Is there a country with more charities than ours?

Annie Caroline Schuler of West Hollywood has too much sense to be living in West Hollywood:

If you now find yourself poor, before you blame the government, ask yourself these questions:

Did I have children that I cannot afford without taxpayer-financed handouts? Did I buy a house for which I knew I could not pay? Did I max out my credit cards, then sign up for more? Instead of buying a modest vehicle that will meet my needs, did I treat myself to a top-of-the-line one? Does my family own all of the "must have" electronic gadgets? Do I feel entitled to all of these things and demand that those doing better contribute their "fair share"?

Very good questions.

We who have been responsible can no longer be punished by being forced to pay for the safety net for those who choose to be irresponsible. What happens when the government gravy train of entitlements gets derailed because there's nobody left who can pay for it?

Perfect.

Craig P. Fagan of San Diego pointed out one of the obvious things a about California:

More than 16% of people in California live below the poverty line. Unemployment is near 13%. Democrats have dominated the Legislature for more than a decade, and California continues to reelect them.

Which is one reason why we need to split California.

How can anyone be considered poor when they are fat, have a wardrobe, have code-strong housing, utilities, have Internet and pay television, medical care, transportation, parks, libraries, and education?

Down By the Riverside

Phil Willon has the latest Los Angeles Times coverage of the proposal to split California.

Accusing Sacramento of pillaging local governments to feed its runaway spending and left-wing policies, a Riverside County politician is proposing a solution: He wants 13 mostly inland, conservative counties to break away to form a separate state of "South California."

Accusation nothing. It's demonstrable fact.

Supervisor Jeff Stone, a Republican pharmacist from Temecula, called California an "ungovernable" financial catastrophe from which businesses are fleeing and where taxpayers are being crushed by the burden of caring for welfare recipients and illegal immigrants.

Yeah, that's largely it.

A spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, called Stone's proposal a laughable political stunt, saying the Riverside County supervisors should be more concerned about closing that county's expected $130-million revenue shortfall in the next budget year and possible cutbacks to public safety.

Out of all of the things in California, especially with Jerry Brown, they are calling this a laughable political stunt?

"It's a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody's time," said spokesman Gil Duran.

Uh, look, California Democrats shouldn't be talking about what is a ridiculous waste of everybody's time.

"If you want to live in a Republican state with very conservative right-wing laws, then there's a place called Arizona."

And a lot of people are doing that, genius.

The article goes on to point out that there have been hundreds of attempts to break up California before, and since they all failed, this has little chance of working. Unfortunately, it is next to impossible. But something big must happen. California simply can't continue the way it is going. Only so many unskilled, dependent and career criminal illegal aliens and their citizen offspring can be accommodated. The state government can only grow so large before the private sector will literally be unable to support it. The social engineering can only go so far before too many of the normal people are driven away. The nanny state regulations can only get so restrictive before widespread civil disobedience and exodus paralyzes the state.

Splitting California, Gaining Independence?

I have dreamed of splitting up my home state of California for years now. Ain't gonna happen. But it is a nice dream. Now it turns out Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone has gone public with pretty much the same dream. I was first alerted to this by Robert J. Lopez blogging at LATimes.com.

Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone is proposing that about a dozen counties break away from California to form the new "State of South California."

Uh, wouldn't that be... Baja California?

The split, Stone said Thursday, would allow officials in the new state to concentrate on securing borders, balancing budgets, improving schools and creating a vibrant economy.

And it would allow the rest of the state to go ahead and neuter marriage licensing again and become even more of a Big Labor Leftist Nanny State Utopia.

Stone suggested that Riverside, Imperial, San Diego, San Bernardino, Kings, Kern, Tulare, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa and Mono counties band together to form the new state.

What, no Orange?

Among the things the new state should consider, he said, are having a part-time Legislature, shifting more power to local governments and adopting a reasonable sales tax.

We should have a part-time unicameral legislature.

There are many reasons why this won't happen. Too many people don't even understand why we have state governments, other than to give more politicians jobs. The Senate is not going to want to seat to more Senators who are likely to be Republicans. Too many people have built their careers on the status quo. The Leftists in Los Angeles and San Francisco love being able to control the people in the rest of the state - and their money.

But my dream would involve letting the Counties of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and the coastal counties and any contiguous counties that want to stick with those counties stay together. The rest of the counties should annex to Oregon, Nevada, or Arizona. That way, the Senate would not need to add any members. Or, there had been recent talk of carving out a liberal state out of part of Arizona. Let them do that if a new conservative California state can be formed

It is ridiculous for Orange County to have to suffer being in the same state as San Francisco. I'm sure there are people in San Francisco who feel the same way, in reverse.

See my previous messages on splitting California on the old blog.