This Time piece seems to be all ad-hominem snark, and no content. Nowhere in it does he explain why breaking California up would be a bad idea. He also seems to lack a sense of irony. He seems to be one of those fools who thinks that libertarians are going to “run your life” by leaving you alone.
37 thoughts on “Six Californias”
Comments are closed.
if it makes sense to split up california, would it also make sense to merge the Dakotas?
I don’t know, I haven’t given it any thought.
As opposed to the village idiot, who is incapable of doing so.
The author, Matt Vella, does seem to be a strange little fellow with a chip on his shoulder.
Gosh, who knew that SpaceX was in Silicon Valley? Or that Elon Musk was a libertarian?
This reads like a college-newspaper editorial.
Well, Tesla and Solar City are. Elon lives in LA, but he spends a lot of time up there.
What are you, an idiot? Letting the free-market be free is a way of running someones life.
This would create 5X the overhead costs in state government.
you need 5 new statehouses.
you need 5 new supreme courts,
you need 5 new governors.
you need 5 new cabinet secretaries.
you need 5 new sets of state law.
you need 5 new sets of interstate compacts.
What a stupid argument.
Are you proposing 5 new states without a state government?
That would then make it a territory.
No, we’re proposing five new states, with state governments, you moron.
So 5 new state governments, 5 times the cost.
Is it your life goal to prove yourself an idiot with every single comment on this blog? State governments cost what the people of that state decide they’ll cost. Almost any sane state government will cost much less than the current one in California.
“State governments cost what the people of that state decide they’ll cost. ”
Things oftentimes cost what they cost.
and unless you can get the cost down by 80%, you will just be spending more.
It would be easy to get the cost down much more than that. You are apparently ignorant of how insane California’s current government is.
Here you go, genius. Yeah, all state budgets are the same.
What an idiot.
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/per-capita-state-spending/
A much more useful measure for scientifically trained people would
be spending per capita.
When you look at that, you see California right at the middle of the road
and what’s at the high end? Alaska and Wyoming?
Even at the low end, it’s only saving 40%.
So, unless you can come up with a way to have 70% less government spending then Nevada, it’s still going to cost more money.
Why don’t you try and bring your conservative efficiency to Wyoming?
What would you know about “scientifically trained people”?
It’s a little known fact that the cost of state government is driven primarily by the cost of building statehouses.
In fact, Deny Guy may be the only person on Earth who “knows” that. 🙂
Aside from snarky commentary, edward, do you have any idea how much
a court system, or legislature costs to run?
Some states have a legislature that only meets a couple times a year, you moron.
Edward
It’s a little known fact that building 6 of something usually costs more then building 1.
Not when it’s a different something, you moron.
Which state government costs more, you moron? New York’s, or Wyoming’s?
Per Capita, Wyoming spends more. It’s funny you would ask that very question
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/per-capita-state-spending/
Wyoming spends 70% per capita then NY. Which is not particularly surprising.
And yet it seems to afford it very well, with no income tax.
Idiot.
I think it’s worth the price. In the long run, you have more efficient government that will offset the costs of a few buildings.
You know how you keep telling us that spending billions in renewable energy will eventually pay off? It’s the same thing.
except if you look at the data, small states tend to spend more per-capita
on government then large states.
Wyoming is spending way more per capita then California.
And yet no one in Wyoming complains about it, you moron. Because it has no income tax.
I agree that it is rather silly that California is SO poorly run that splitting it into smaller organizations (where only one or two would be as poorly run) actually makes sense. That is some pretty massive fail, there.
Of course that assumes that all 5 new states have to spend as much as California does now, even though they serve less population.
You see needless replication of governments, I see more opportunities for gridlock as competing interests cancel one another out. As Will Rogers famously said, “Thank god we don’t get all the government we pay for.”
Let’s see:
Democrats are firmly in control of California.
Breaking the state up would result in some portion of the resulting entities being conservative.
That in turn would reduce Democrat’s expected electoral college tally from the former California.
So it will, like, totally happen, man.
They could make one of the sections the Republic of Stupidia, which would give dn-guy a chance to get off the dole and run for president.
There seem to be a bunch of different motives at play. Tim Draper, who’s funding the referendum, seems to want senators and a state government that’s more responsive to Silicon Valley. California Republicans like the idea of putting a lot of the state’s Democrats into two new states, so the GOP could be competitive in the other four. National Republicans like the idea of getting a shot at some electoral votes that currently go to the Democrats.
I like the idea of giving California’s voters more senators, to remedy their current underrepresentation relative to other states (like mine, which has 2 senators for only 1.3m people). But otherwise Draper’s plan doesn’t have anything to offer Democrats, which makes it unlikely that it’ll get through the California legislature and Congress.
like mine, which has 2 senators for only 1.3m people
It’s apparent you’ve never read anything remotely relevant to the creating of the Constitution. The Senate was designed to give smaller states a block against more popular states. Same goes for the Electoral College.
I think I learned that in 7th grade.
Jim has no idea what the purpose of the Senate even is.
I’m not a legal scholar like our President, but I think the 1964 Supreme Court decision Reynolds vs Sims ruined the whole point of the bicameral legislature for the states. I think this is why you now have cities dominating state legislatures.
From Wikipedia: The eight justices who struck down state senate inequality based their decision on the principle of “one person, one vote”. In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests.”
What a fiasco, all these white guys telling the states how to write their constitutions. Where are the feminists?