Drastic times call for (at least talking about considering) drastic measures.
“I looked as hard as I could at how states could declare bankruptcy,” said Michael Genest, director of the California Department of Finance who is stepping down at the end of the year. “I literally looked at the federal constitution to see if there was a way for states to return to territory status.”
There were no bankruptcy options, and the legislature chose to cut back sharply on education and health care to fill the gap.
Perhaps California could secede, and then hope that as part of the inevitable defeat and reconstruction that the federal government would force us to write a proper constitution! Have we considered that?
Seriously, though, what does it mean—this is not a rhetorical question, I’d really like to know and don’t have an answer—when it seems more plausible to engage in constitutional shenanigans than to, for example, restore the vehicle licensing fee to its full former level, and other measures of that sort?
14 comments
November 14, 2009 at 10:50 am
Minivet
I think it simply means that political inflexibilities (including earlier constitutional shenanigans like Prop 13) combine with the current Republican allergy to governance, forming a systemic problem which makes such no-brainer solutions virtually impossible. One of those two must be removed — and I don’t see the Republicans coming around until we reanimate Ayn Rand and let her write a new constitution.
November 14, 2009 at 10:51 am
Minivet
For “political inflexibilities” above read “institutional inflexibilities”.
November 14, 2009 at 11:09 am
CharleyCarp
A constitutional amendment that eliminates all supermajority requirements — calling it the Restore Democracy Act. Start collecting signatures now.
November 14, 2009 at 12:38 pm
stevenattewell
Charley – George Lakoff’s already there.
And just hypothetically, wasn’t Confederate debt abrogated? I’m just saying…
November 14, 2009 at 1:04 pm
kevin
I hope you all can figure something out, because Congress has essentially borrowed the California model of democracy inaction and it really doesn’t bode well.
November 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Nick
There’s other problems – like how the majority of people paying the vehicle licensing fee can ill afford it at this time.
Also, I’ve heard that California has something like 30% of the nation’s welfare recipients (as opposed to 10% of the nation’s population).
Instead of expanding our mass transit, we expand highways needed for long distance commutes (brought on by rising property prices) – commutes that are no longer happening because people either A) got laid off or B) moved back because commuting sucks and property prices dropped.
But hey, at least you can drive on 3 lanes through Tracy now!
November 14, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Louis
Well, we could slash the welfare budget and really dump all those poor kids – – and it’s kids we’re talking about. Take a look at this interesting post from the California Budget Project:
http://californiabudgetbites.org/2009/08/06/reality-check-iii-the-governor%E2%80%99s-view-of-calworks/
For a bracing look at how California finances really work, and how much we extract from the poorest people to run things for the not-so-poor or even the rich-as-Croesus, see Michael Hiltzik’s column at
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik12-2009oct12,0,4419598.column
November 14, 2009 at 1:45 pm
jim
Secession need not lead to war. The modern example is the velvet divorce between the Czechs and the Slovaks. Indeed, from the point of view of the United States, the mechanism for one of its States to (negotiatedly, if there’s such a word) secede is fairly simple: the State declares itself independent, the President signs a treaty with it and the Senate ratifies. The ratified treaty takes precedence over ordinary Acts of Congress, including the Act which admitted the State in the first place. The treaty would, of course, have been prenegotiated. In the case of California, I assume the Navy would want to keep its base in San Diego, for example.
The hard part of California secession would be internal to California. Declaring itself independent would undoubtedly be a major change to the California constitution (unlike such minor changes as what constitutes marriage). To make such a change is at least as hard as raising taxes.
November 14, 2009 at 3:20 pm
DaKooch
To say nothing of the fact that than Northern California would want to secede or Southern, whatever.
November 14, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Josh
Meanwhile, Meg Whitman is running radio ads advocating the idea that just as households have to cut back spending in bad times, so should the state. (And, in the same ads, arguing that we need to improve our schools.)
Sometimes I wonder if this is what it was like living in the Third or Fourth Republic.
November 14, 2009 at 6:49 pm
kathy a.
louis, great links, especially the second. thanks.
November 15, 2009 at 7:46 pm
TF Smith
The Hiltzik column is well done.
Might be worth considering whether selling $11 billion in bonds to – essentially – keep the Westlands Irrigation District in cheap water is a wise decision; perhaps a better one would be to let the western San Joaquin go back to use as grazing land.
Whitman, like every other Republican “business executive/candidate”, is an idiot.
November 17, 2009 at 2:56 am
ajay
Perhaps California could secede, and then hope that as part of the inevitable defeat and reconstruction that the federal government would force us to write a proper constitution! Have we considered that?
No, California would end up getting hold of the Q-Bomb by accident and forcing the rest of the country to surrender.
November 17, 2009 at 6:14 pm
snarkout
And then Merkin Muffley will have to surrender, possibly with a deep bow!