Secession Petitions, the Election, and the News.

[shoju]

I've been cruising the net today, and seeing a fair share of news about Secession petitions. Apparently, on the White House's "We The People" There are now petitions from groups in all 50 states to secede from the U.S. in the wake of the Elections.

Now, with most places, I know that this is just... a freak out to the election process. No place seems to have been left untouched, there was even some of it within the lounge.

But the one place that does intrigue me, is Texas. Americans know there is something different about Texas.

They were once their own nation, from 1836, to 1846, and there is a "decent size" movement (I say decent size, because it's not just a few old geezers, it's well known) to return Texas to it's own government. (their petition at last check was nearing 100,000 signatures)

I'm not looking to argue with people, but I'm really curious at hearing what people think about the.... "What if" Texas became it's own country type deal? If they were able to pull together the resources to go at it full force, what do you think it would to do North America?

[Jester]

I'm not looking to argue with people, but I'm really curious at hearing what people think about the.... "What if" Texas became it's own country type deal? If they were able to pull together the resources to go at it full force, what do you think it would to do North America?

What scenario are you envisioning? A referendum in Texas that garners a majority for secession? An armed revolt by the state of Texas?

-Jester

[shoju]

Well, the Texas Nationalist Movement (a real deal), and their Leader want to do it peacefully.

http://www.texasnationalist.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57...st-states/

I don't think it would ever happen violently.

[Jester]

Well, the Texas Nationalist Movement (a real deal), and their Leader want to do it peacefully.

http://www.texasnationalist.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57...st-states/

I don't think it would ever happen violently.

I think these people are a bunch of cranks, and I don't think their movement has any chance of success.

However, to take it at least slightly seriously for a moment, there are certainly comparable movements in many countries. Canada and Quebecois separatism is the obvious analogy, but one could also look at the UK and Scotland, Span and the Basque Country, or Belgium and, well, all of Belgium except Brussels.

The economic impact would be substantial. Leaving the United States means leaving the 2nd largest currency and customs union in the world, and the largest regulatory union. You'd suddenly have to internalize all the administrative and diplomatic functions, and even start policing your own borders, which for Texas would not be a trivial expense.

Maybe more important, though, would be the social backlash. Suddenly, Texas would find itself in a bit of a pickle, with a large and growing hispanic population whom, unless I am greatly mistaken, are not secessionists. The balance between hispanic and non-hispanic Texas would be a difficult thing to balance without the rest of the United States to provide a counterbalancing force. The kind of absurd laws we have seen in Arizona might take over. Certainly, if the kinds of people writing those websites are to be the new Sam Houstons and Stephen Austins, then the whole project is going to go straight down the crapper.

I doubt the result would be apocalyptically bad. I think people exaggerate the downsides. But not as much as secessionists vastly exaggerate the (mostly theoretical) upsides. I think it's a stupid idea that will go nowhere.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Maybe more important, though, would be the social backlash. Suddenly, Texas would find itself in a bit of a pickle, with a large and growing hispanic population whom, unless I am greatly mistaken, are not secessionists.

You really are in over your head here.

Stick to what you know.

The problem with Texas secession has nothing to do with Messkins. It has to do with resolving the disposition of the non trivial acreage of federal property all over the state. Fort Hood just doesn't pack up and leave in a day, for example.

Fort Sumter was a fart compared to a hurricane.

[FireIceTalon]

I think these people are a bunch of cranks, and I don't think their movement has any chance of success.

Yep. And you know it is an epic fail when one of their own biggest spokespersons who goes by the name of GLENN BECK denounces it:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/11/13/more...584_178593

These people are beyond reactionary. Buncha damn Confederate kooks. Though granting them their wish could actually be a good thing, since upon their secession the collective average IQ of Americans would probably jump by triple digits, instantly.

[DeeBye]

Canada and Quebecois separatism is the obvious analogy

That one came really close to being an actual thing in 1995, when a provincial referendum took place. The motion to decide whether Quebec should secede from Canada was defeated by a very narrow margin of 49.42% "Yes" to 50.58% "No".

I think that a state or province that wished to secede from their country needs to consider the fact that by doing so they will be cutting themselves off from all things provided at a Federal level. It's things that we all take for granted like postal delivery, currency, transfer payments from the Federal level to the state/province, and so forth. All of that would be gone.

I'm not educated enough about this, but has there been any successful secessions from a first world nation in recent history?

[Jester]

You really are in over your head here.

Stick to what you know.

The problem with Texas secession has nothing to do with Messkins. It has to do with resolving the disposition of the non trivial acreage of federal property all over the state. Fort Hood just doesn't pack up and leave in a day, for example.

Fort Sumter was a fart compared to a hurricane.

I asked whether we were talking about a peaceful or violent secession. If it comes down to fighting, everything would go pear shaped rather quickly.

Which are you suggesting - that the administrative issues of secession would be impossible to resolve? Or that the United States would be very unlikely to leave its military bases? There's always the Guantanamo solution, if necessary.

However, I'm pretty sure there is more than one problem with secession. Do you not think that ethnic tensions would be a serious issue with an independent Texas?

-Jester

---

I'm not educated enough about this, but has there been any successful secessions from a first world nation in recent history?

Czechoslovakia?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think these people are a bunch of cranks, and I don't think their movement has any chance of success.

Minority fringe, yes. I don't know what you mean by crank. This news topic surfaces once in awhile, and dies quickly. It's going nowhere.

[Jester]

Minority fringe, yes. I don't know what you mean by crank. This news topic surfaces once in awhile, and dies quickly. It's going nowhere.

To say they are minority fringe means that not a lot of people share their opinion - they are unlikely to take power.

To say they are cranks means that not a lot of people *should* share their opinion - they're talking rubbish, as we say over here. They're trying to sell snake oil to gullible people, either because they have an angle, or because they're every bit as stupid as the people they're likely to attract.

-Jester

[Mavfin]

I just look at the presence of the petitions as highlighting the current issues over states' rights vs federal rights.

I doubt that any of them are serious about actual secession, but they don't like unfunded mandates being forced on them, either, and putting those up almost guarantees publicity.

[Jester]

I just look at the presence of the petitions as highlighting the current issues over states' rights vs federal rights.

I doubt that any of them are serious about actual secession, but they don't like unfunded mandates being forced on them, either, and putting those up almost guarantees publicity.

Would funding help? I don't hear much clamor for tax hikes, even from those supposedly concerned about the deficit...

-Jester

[Mavfin]

I just look at the presence of the petitions as highlighting the current issues over states' rights vs federal rights.

I doubt that any of them are serious about actual secession, but they don't like unfunded mandates being forced on them, either, and putting those up almost guarantees publicity.

Would funding help? I don't hear much clamor for tax hikes, even from those supposedly concerned about the deficit...

-Jester

Well, it's a federal program being pushed down to the states, w/o the federal government necessarily supplying the money it's going to cost to implement. That's the issue the states are having, once you clear away all the political us vs them talk. They're being told "do this and pay for X amount of it, too", w/o being consulted, really.

[shoju]

One of the reasons why I sited Texas instead of the other 49 as the one that "interested me" is because the other 49 don't really have a history the way that Texas does. It has had a nationalist movement almost since it became a state. While they are "in the grand scheme of things" a minority fringe group, they are a pretty decently sized minority fringe group.

Couple that with the limited reading that I have done with Quebec, and that they have come "close" to secession, I do think that there is more of a chance of a Texas Secession than any other state, but I wouldn't (at least not yet) quantify it as having even the same amount of traction as Quebec.

Problems that I would see facing a "nation" of Texas.

1.) The Social / Racial tensions. I'm not from Texas, I've not spent a "lot" of time in Texas, but like it has been pointed out, there is a growing hispanic population. There would be backlash. It might not be "huge" but in a nation that would have somewhere around 30 million people when it "became" a nation, those problems would be magnified.

2.) Along with #1, you would have the border. The Texas / Mexico border is a substantial land area, and based on the little that I've read, there would be a serious push to shore it up. With a population of 30 million, do you have the infrastructure to do so?

3.) As has been noted, you now have to deal with the "Federal Level" at a "State Level" The amount of federally run programs is astronomical. Coupled with the current lack of "State" Income Tax, and you will now have to worry about procurring funding for things that were previously funded by Federal Income Tax. One of the main reasons that Texas was agreeable to becoming a state int he first place, was the the U.S. government agreed to absorb the $10 Million in debt that the RoT had racked up. (To put that in today's numbers according to a nifty inflation calculator I found, that's $246,806,173.04. That's a pretty impressive amount of debt to rack up in 10 years, in the mid 1800's with a smaller population.

4.) Military. Do you allow the U.S. to maintain Military Bases? Do you kick them out? How do you build your own military? What do you do to keep your borders safe?

I don't think that it would ever happen, but I think that if it were to ever happen to a state in the U.S., it would be Texas.

[kandrathe]

I don't hear much clamor for tax hikes, even from those supposedly concerned about the deficit...

The US has the most progressive tax system of the entire OECD.

The top 10% of US earners pay 45% of the income taxes. Italy is the next highest at 42%. Switzerland is lowest at 20%. France is 28%, Germany is 31.2%, and UK is 38.6%.

In the US, the share of market income of the top 10% is 33.5%. Italy is 35.8%, Switzerland is 23.5%, France is 25.5, Germany is 29.2, and the UK is 32.3. So the top 10% don't have that much different control of market income than other OECD nations.

If you then compare the ratio of income taxes paid (by the top 10%) to the share of income earned (by the same 10%); The US is 1.35, Italy is 1.18, Switzerland in 0.89, France is 1.2, Germany is 1.07, and the UK is 1.2. So, clearly the top 10% in the US bear a much greater burden than any other OECD nation. Only Australia (1.29) and The Netherlands (1.28) come very close.

In 2012, for Federal, State, and local governments, the estimated amount of spending is $6,271,881 (in millions). There are about 312 million people in the US, so government spending is about $62,691 per capita.

Estimated tax revenues from all levels is $5,181,216 (in millions) 35% is income tax, 21% is SSI, 22% is property tax, 8% are fees, 14% is from taxing business revenue.

There are about 138 million tax filers, of which, only 1/2 actually pay in. Spreading the revenue then to them, we are raising an average of $75,090 per tax payer who is supporting 4.53 people worth of government spending ($284,184). The amount difference at the Federal level is just about 1 trillion dollars (requiring a 42% increase in revenue).

So, do you think we can tax our way out of this? If we raise taxes, it will need to be broadly done. The current ("fiscal cliff") plan would go back to the Clinton era tax rates and will do very little ( less than 1/10th of a trillion).

My view is that the problem is 4 fold,
1) We spend too much money at all levels on stuff we don't need.
2) that the bottom 50% earn too little (< 33,048 ) per year,
3) we don't have enough tax payers in general to support the 4.53 non-taxpayers, and
4) that we use the same flat numbers regardless of cost of living applied geographically equally to rural Alabama, and Manhattan.

For #1, A) people consume services locally, and so pay local prices, and local or state governments are better able to manage geographical differences in pricing. If you live in Manhattan, you will pay high prices, and you will earn more, and pay a higher amount of taxes. But, maybe not higher rates of taxes. But, it makes no sense to tax workers in rural Alabama to pay for the high prices of someone who chooses to live in Manhattan who pays no taxes. We need to move the taxes and revenues for human services to the local level (health, education, welfare, agriculture, etc.). B) we need to form a plan that gets the US out of the business of policing the world. It can't be done suddenly, but it needs to be done. We have 47 military bases in the domestic US, and ~560 more bases across the remainder of the globe. ( http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175338/ ) We spend too much on defense, and for the Dept. of Homeland Security. We need to reign in the fascism and save ourselves some money in the process.

For #2, we need to create jobs (not government jobs). We do this by properly regulating what needs to be regulated, but otherwise getting out of the way. I'd also consider some substantial tax incentive (5 year plan) for businesses where they pay less if they hire more.

For #3, we need to drastically increase legal immigration for skilled and non-skilled laborers. We can start with legalizing the illegal ones here who already have jobs, and are well integrated into our culture.

For #4, the best solution is to push what can be done to the State and local level, and let the States figure out how to raise the revenue to cover their local costs.

[Jester]

The US has the most progressive tax system of the entire OECD.

1) What on earth does this have to do with what I said? All I said was that if you want to fund unfunded liabilities, you need to raise taxes, and nobody seems to be clamouring for that.

2) The US also has by the most unequal income distribution of the comparable OECD countries. (Not as bad as Turkey, Mexico or Chile. Congratulations!)

3) The US also has by far the least generous redistributive programs.

The net effect of 2 and 3 is that, despite having higher strict progressiveness, both the net redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, and the total income equality, are much less in the US.

The top 10% of US earners pay 45% of the income taxes. Italy is the next highest at 42%. Switzerland is lowest at 20%. France is 28%, Germany is 31.2%, and UK is 38.6%.

In the US, the share of market income of the top 10% is 33.5%.

No. It hasn't been that low since the 1970s. The current US share is more like 46%. Which makes the rest of your calculations, not to speak of your conclusions, incorrect.

So, do you think we can tax our way out of this?

No, that would be suicidal, so long as unemployment is still north of 5%. Tax increases should only follow once the economy recovers, and even then, the key is to contain health care spending, which accounts for practically all of the future debt problem.

However, we are now very far afield. Although I guess we've more or less consigned ourselves to limitless topical wandering over here on the lounge...

-Jester

Afterthought: I'm assuming this is your source?

[Occhidiangela]

Jester, there are ethnic tensions with or without talk of secession. You might be surprised, or not, to find out who makes the most erroneous complaints about black police officers in Southern Texas.

Care to guess?

As to the plethora of unfunded federal mandates ... that is what the small government crew have been making their cause since about FDR.

[shoju]

Occhi,

I believe his point that was the racial tensions would increase in a seceded, lone star republic. If this is what he meant, I agree. I don't see a seceded Texas as being very united on the front of Immigration, and "foreigners", since it seems to be a plan in their platform of distaste for the federal government, and it's lack of control of "their" border.

Back on the topic at hand, (God I knew this topic would get sent off the deep end... why did I try?) I found an amusing article about the topic of Texas and Secession. The closing made me giggle

Or maybe the solution is simply to give Texas and other secessionist-conservatives what they really want: free passage to the land of all their conservative fantasies. Send them all off with gratis one-way tickets (I’m happy to earmark some of my socialist tax dollars for the effort) to a country with: a small federal government with limited power and meager influence over the private lives of its citizens; extremely weak trade unions routinely sabotaged by the federal government (i.e., a “pro-business environment”); negligible income tax; few immigrants, legal or otherwise; a dominant Christian population, accounting for some 70 percent of the people; no mandatory health insurance or concept of universal health care; a strong social taboo surrounding homosexuality and a constitution that already states, “All individuals have the right to marry a person of their choice of the opposite sex”; and a gun culture so ubiquitous that you can find automatic weaponry displayed openly on the streets of its capital city and in many households.

Sound like a Texan secessionist’s dream? Well, it’s no dream. This country already exists. It’s called the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The article was humorous, and the closing made me giggle. I don't know how accurate it is, but it definitely made me chuckle.

[vor_lord]

Just for grins:

[FireIceTalon]

You'd have to put Rush in there I think, Beck already denounced the whole thing. But yea other than that, sounds about right heh.