California tech leaders call for seccession?

[dragoncar]

Dealing with the military base situation would definitely be tricky, and would almost certainly depress certain areas where the local economy relies on them. That said, California is not "reliant" on federal funding for its continued success. We are a net loser in the tax and spend game, with us getting less back in services than we send to Washington, so in that respect CA would come out ahead.

I don't think California is reliant in that money is sent to them, but there are A LOT of federal jobs there- it's a huge state, so agencies have offices, national parks etc.  People in those offices would either have to move to the "United States" or would lose their jobs.

There would easily be an equivalent job in the CA government.  Remember, all the former Federal income tax would likely be diverted as CA income tax, tripling the budget.

[dragoncar]

Metric Mouse, I think you are assuming that no country would play ball?  Trump is a businessman and thus everything is negotiable:

I think everyone is underestimating how much California is dependent upon the USA. Let us list some things that would go away:

Military Bases. - They are ours now.  Remember in 1846 when the California Republic was forcibly annexed by the USA?  Well now we annex ur nukes.
Electricity that comes from any other state. - I think CA imports maybe 20%, this is easily rectified although nothing prevents us from importing from USA or Mexico 
Vast majorities of the trade that comes into its ports - these goods are not going to California, they are going to America. Obviously we will allow you to continue using our ports for a nominal fee
Vast majorities of the trade that leaves its ports - These goods are produced in America, not California. same
Water from any other state. We have enough rainfall, we may need more reservoirs.  Regardless, agriculture which is a mere 2% of our GDP can be dialed back or made more water efficient.
Construction materials would now be imported from another country - would there be any limits or tariffs on these? Which construction materials?  CA is a net exporter of lumber, and a lot of construction materials these days come from China.  If only we had a good way to import things from China...
Large Companies - any benefits any company gets from being in America would be gone. Any technology that was deemed important to national security would need to be brought stateside; it would not be feasible to have sensitive research and development hosted in a foreign country. - yeah I heard there are no large companies in CA
Trade agreements - anything produced in California that needed to be sold elsewhere would need to be renegotiated with other countries - maybe a problem, but possibly not. - sure
Travel - Californians would require permission to enter the USA, or any other country. These permissions would have to be re-negotiated with each country. - This is already true, and did you forget CA tourism?

America would lose:

Avacados.
Almonds.
The laughing cows.
Best State in Union

[mwulff]

There is an interesting question here though:

Can a US state leave the Union?

In the EU there is an article if a member state wishes to leave (think brexit). This provides the legal framework for secession from the EU.

Could California or Iowa invoke "Article ??" and declare their intention for leaving to the federal government?

Is there some legal framework for leaving the union?

BTW I agree that California would be just fine. I vote "New California Republic" as the name. Water, power and other stuff could be sorted out with trade agreements. Much like Denmark and Germany trade power, utilities and other resources across a state border.

Of course California would have to buy it's power and water from Nevada and Arizona but that could handled at the negotiation table.

I don't see any risk of civil war though.

[RetiredAt63]

I'm reading this and laughing - we have gone through all this discussion with Quebec and the ROC.  So far we are still together.  From sea to sea to sea.

Those who are saying join with Canada - are you ready for the mind changes?  We are a Parliamentary democracy, so you will become Provinces and be subjects of Queen Elizabeth II.  A former academic is her representative in Canada.  Can you live with that?   Members of the House of Commons are elected, but the Senate is appointed, so you can join in the fun of discussing the merits of the Senate (should it be abolished or just changed) and the Senators (the members of the Senate, not the hockey team, but you will also be expected to accept hockey as the national religion).

We are a country that cheered when the long form census went back to being mandatory.  We are officially bilingual (sorry, French not Spanish, and English).  We have 50% women in the federal cabinet, and 2 Sikhs who wear their turbans proudly - one is Harjit Sajjan, the Minister of National Defence.  Oh, and are you ready for Timbits?  Also adding "eh" to your vocabulary?  And the influx of Snowbirds every winter (more than you already get) who will be happy to escape winter in a Canadian province?  We never did manage to talk the Turks and Caicos into joining us.

Not much change to LA, years ago people pointed out it was the 5th largest Canadian city.

[Metric Mouse]

Metric Mouse, I think you are assuming that no country would play ball?  Trump is a businessman and thus everything is negotiable:

I think everyone is underestimating how much California is dependent upon the USA. Let us list some things that would go away:

Military Bases. - They are ours now.  Remember in 1846 when the California Republic was forcibly annexed by the USA?  Well now we annex ur nukes.
Electricity that comes from any other state. - I think CA imports maybe 20%, this is easily rectified although nothing prevents us from importing from USA or Mexico 
Vast majorities of the trade that comes into its ports - these goods are not going to California, they are going to America. Obviously we will allow you to continue using our ports for a nominal fee
Vast majorities of the trade that leaves its ports - These goods are produced in America, not California. same
Water from any other state. We have enough rainfall, we may need more reservoirs.  Regardless, agriculture which is a mere 2% of our GDP can be dialed back or made more water efficient.
Construction materials would now be imported from another country - would there be any limits or tariffs on these? Which construction materials?  CA is a net exporter of lumber, and a lot of construction materials these days come from China.  If only we had a good way to import things from China...
Large Companies - any benefits any company gets from being in America would be gone. Any technology that was deemed important to national security would need to be brought stateside; it would not be feasible to have sensitive research and development hosted in a foreign country. - yeah I heard there are no large companies in CA
Trade agreements - anything produced in California that needed to be sold elsewhere would need to be renegotiated with other countries - maybe a problem, but possibly not. - sure
Travel - Californians would require permission to enter the USA, or any other country. These permissions would have to be re-negotiated with each country. - This is already true, and did you forget CA tourism?

America would lose:

Avacados.
Almonds.
The laughing cows.
Best State in Union

Of course things would be negotiable, but that would mean fees for the poor Republic of kalifornia.  I guess the bases would probably  stay; just no soldiers or equipment in them. :) and all those large companies might find themselves short of workers who wish to live in America. :) 

The point wasn't that California couldn't make it on its own, just that severing ties with The United States gets much messier than implied by the supporters of such a move.

[accolay]

Nah. I'll keep CA. I'd rather see Texas secede.

[dividendman]

I'm reading this and laughing - we have gone through all this discussion with Quebec and the ROC.  So far we are still together.  From sea to sea to sea.

Those who are saying join with Canada - are you ready for the mind changes?  We are a Parliamentary democracy, so you will become Provinces and be subjects of Queen Elizabeth II.  A former academic is her representative in Canada.  Can you live with that?   Members of the House of Commons are elected, but the Senate is appointed, so you can join in the fun of discussing the merits of the Senate (should it be abolished or just changed) and the Senators (the members of the Senate, not the hockey team, but you will also be expected to accept hockey as the national religion).

We are a country that cheered when the long form census went back to being mandatory.  We are officially bilingual (sorry, French not Spanish, and English).  We have 50% women in the federal cabinet, and 2 Sikhs who wear their turbans proudly - one is Harjit Sajjan, the Minister of National Defence.  Oh, and are you ready for Timbits?  Also adding "eh" to your vocabulary?  And the influx of Snowbirds every winter (more than you already get) who will be happy to escape winter in a Canadian province?  We never did manage to talk the Turks and Caicos into joining us.

Not much change to LA, years ago people pointed out it was the 5th largest Canadian city.

I live in Cali and am from Toronto. I do miss me some Timmies :(

[No Name Guy]

Funny how Democrats want to start another Civil War over succession.  Didn't work too well last time. 

[RetiredAt63]

Funny how Democrats want to start another Civil War over succession.  Didn't work too well last time.

No, no - you do it the civilized way.  You discuss it, you set terms, you do a referendum.  We are technically a Dominion, you are a union of States - it should be easier for a state to leave a union than for a Province to leave a Dominion.

Spoiler: show

Don't be so gun-happy and ready to start a shooting war - so uncouth.

[chad]

A call for succession is obviously a call for violence, and I for one find it despicable.

If California wishes more independence from the federal government, then join the conservative movement which has always wished for states to be more autonomous. In fact, if Trump puts a few more folks like Thomas on the court, they'll revisit the correct interpretation of the commerce clause and most of what the Federal Govt does will be declared unconstitutional. That's the American way to pursue this sort of goal.

[Lagom]

A call for succession is obviously a call for violence, and I for one find it despicable.

If California wishes more independence from the federal government, then join the conservative movement which has always wished for states to be more autonomous. In fact, if Trump puts a few more folks like Thomas on the court, they'll revisit the correct interpretation of the commerce clause and most of what the Federal Govt does will be declared unconstitutional. That's the American way to pursue this sort of goal.

Dude, you're not even trying. Secession =/= civil war, as anyone who gave it more than a millisecond of thought would realize. And your arrogance about the supreme court is rather breathtaking, as is your naive trust in the "conservative movement," which has done even worse than the democrats over the past few decades in growing the federal government.

As a fiscally conservative liberal, I actually want a smaller federal government and more state autonomy as well, but I would only vote republican if someone like Ron Paul (not his son, however) were leading the ticket. As in, someone who believes in small government but not kowtowing to nationalists and religious extremists to get into office. Most Republicans are nothing but a pack of opportunistic hypocrites, just like most Democrats who, at least, make some nominal effort to protect liberty and individual freedoms (albeit poorly). There is no party that represents my beliefs. Maybe if the conservative movement actually followed it's own disingenuous rhetoric it would be worth joining, but alas, it does not.

The "American way" is to adopt your worldview completely? Hate to break it to you but that's the fascist way.

[dragoncar]

Dude, you're not even trying. Secession =/= civil war, as anyone who gave it more than a millisecond of thought would realize.

Totally.  It's no more a call for violence, than Prop 59 (which instructed California legislature to introduce legislation changing the US constitution) is a call for violence.

[chad]

Lagom, do you seriously think I believe that succession and civil war are literally identical?

Also, what do you suppose a SC dominated by such as Thomas would do? Why is it arrogant to say that he wishes to return to the old interpretation of the commerce clause? I honestly can't even figure out what you're trying to say here. It's just true that this is what judges like Thomas want. Facts aren't arrogant.

Did I say anything about the Republican party? What was it that I said about them? I'm not a fan of the republican party, and largely I do not trust them at all. So why are you suggesting that I would trust the republicans? Again, I'm just not following.

Finally, yes, I do think it is anti-American to call for the breakup of the union. Perhaps we just disagree about that.

[Metric Mouse]

Funny how Democrats want to start another Civil War over succession.  Didn't work too well last time.

No, no - you do it the civilized way.  You discuss it, you set terms, you do a referendum.  We are technically a Dominion, you are a union of States - it should be easier for a state to leave a union than for a Province to leave a Dominion.

Spoiler: show

Don't be so gun-happy and ready to start a shooting war - so uncouth.

I think this is ignorant of current law. Canadian law specifically states a province can secede; American law states specifically that a state cannot.

[Lagom]

Lagom, do you seriously think I believe that succession and civil war are literally identical?

Also, what do you suppose a SC dominated by such as Thomas would do? Why is it arrogant to say that he wishes to return to the old interpretation of the commerce clause? I honestly can't even figure out what you're trying to say here. It's just true that this is what judges like Thomas want. Facts aren't arrogant.

Did I say anything about the Republican party? What was it that I said about them? I'm not a fan of the republican party, and largely I do not trust them at all. So why are you suggesting that I would trust the republicans? Again, I'm just not following.

Finally, yes, I do think it is anti-American to call for the breakup of the union. Perhaps we just disagree about that.

I'm feeling magnanimous so I'll play ball. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but what I saw as arrogant was claiming you know the "correct interpretation" of the constitution. Obviously Justice Thomas wants things a certain way, but that hardly means it's the "correct" way.

Not sure what you mean by the "conservative movement," then. Apologies for apparently misunderstanding but your post implied allegiance with the Republican party. There is no conservative movement I'm aware of that promotes traditional conservative economic values that doesn't also have an extremist element, especially with regards to tolerating the freedoms of others. The closest is libertarianism, which still has a great many unsavory elements among its membership.

It is literally anti-American to call for the break up of the union, obviously, but that is not the same as wanting violence. Your strident post did indeed imply you think secession and civil war were synonymous, yes.

[chad]

Nope, I never said Thomas's approach to the constitution was right or expressed an opinion about how to interpret the constitution. I said that supporting appointments like his was a sure way to a dramatic reduction of federal intrusion into the state governments. My point was that this is the way one should work for such a goal (if one has this goal) within the existing system and without violence. But I didn't say it should be your goal.

Now you may be able to tell that in fact I am a conservative, and I do support something like Thomas's approach to the constitution. But that wasn't my point, I gave none of my reasons for being a conservative or for believing in this approach to the constitution, nor did I advocate it. I was merely saying that, if you wish for California to have more independence, then, ironically, (assuming you don't wish to risk terrible violence) you should agree with Clarence Thomas of all people. That way of approaching things is non-violent and not nearly so recklessly dangerous as succession.

I don't see anything arrogant or fascist about this point. I'm sorry if I was somehow unclear, although I do not really believe I was unclear.

Finally, I stand by my claim that a call for succession is a call to violence. The expression 'a call for x is a call for y' can mean that a call for x is very likely to lead to y. That's what I meant here. Obviously. And I stand by it. The American Government will clearly not allow anti-Americans advocating the breakup of the union to peacefully take California from America. Knowing that, to advocate that course of action is to advocate a course of action that is very likely to lead to violence.

Here's a hopefully more constructive question: why prefer succession, and the attendant risk of violence, rather than the Thomas approach to the constitution, which would allow California to more or less govern itself in almost every way?

[RetiredAt63]

Funny how Democrats want to start another Civil War over succession.  Didn't work too well last time.

No, no - you do it the civilized way.  You discuss it, you set terms, you do a referendum.  We are technically a Dominion, you are a union of States - it should be easier for a state to leave a union than for a Province to leave a Dominion.

Spoiler: show

Don't be so gun-happy and ready to start a shooting war - so uncouth.

I think this is ignorant of current law. Canadian law specifically states a province can secede; American law states specifically that a state cannot.

Well it's your law, not mine, and I did say "should be", not "is" - but it does seem strange that states can't secede.  We are also a confederation of previously independent states - Newfoundland and Labrador only joined Confederation in 1949.  We had to sort out all the legal ramifications when Quebec started thinking about leaving, it wasn't really written into the BNA Act or any updates.  I need Cathy for the legal commentary.

So when you say American laws specifically say that a state cannot secede - where is that?  Part of the constitution?  An amendment? Amendments can be amended.  A law?  Laws can be revised.  Given that the last time some states wanted to secede you ended up with a nasty civil war (which was a real push for the various Canadian Colonies to unite) it seems a bit shortsighted to say no state can leave.  Canadian Provinces have a lot of autonomy but it would seem that States should have even more.

Not that I am advocating that a state should secede, you understand, you can all do what you want.  Just sort of a deja vue thing from here.

[jim555]

I wonder what happens with the national debt for a state that leaves.  Will they take a percentage of the debt on before they leave?

[gerardc]

There's an electoral college thread going on this board arguing that we need to maintain the electoral college because apparently the only options are allowing rural citizens a disproportionate number of votes, or having urban districts run roughshod over rural ones. If those are the only two options as a United States, maybe just having multiple smaller countries wouldn't be a bad idea. If we wanted, we could have some sort of multi-national collaboration, but it would be strictly on an opt-in rather than majority rules basis.

Yes! If only there was a way to arrange these "mini-countries" into a larger, stable union, that would be perfect. How could we name those mini-countries and the larger multi-national united collaboration? "The United Mini-Countries of America" sounds good to me.

[dividendman]

So when you say American laws specifically say that a state cannot secede - where is that?  Part of the constitution?  An amendment? Amendments can be amended.  A law?  Laws can be revised.  Given that the last time some states wanted to secede you ended up with a nasty civil war (which was a real push for the various Canadian Colonies to unite) it seems a bit shortsighted to say no state can leave.  Canadian Provinces have a lot of autonomy but it would seem that States should have even more.

Not that I am advocating that a state should secede, you understand, you can all do what you want.  Just sort of a deja vue thing from here.

Well, I think it's based on Texas v. White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White. A state definitely can't unilaterally secede, and maybe can only secede through a Constitutional amendment.

[Metric Mouse]

That's my understanding dividend man.

[RetiredAt63]

So when you say American laws specifically say that a state cannot secede - where is that?  Part of the constitution?  An amendment? Amendments can be amended.  A law?  Laws can be revised.  Given that the last time some states wanted to secede you ended up with a nasty civil war (which was a real push for the various Canadian Colonies to unite) it seems a bit shortsighted to say no state can leave.  Canadian Provinces have a lot of autonomy but it would seem that States should have even more.

Not that I am advocating that a state should secede, you understand, you can all do what you want.  Just sort of a deja vue thing from here.

Well, I think it's based on Texas v. White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White. A state definitely can't unilaterally secede, and maybe can only secede through a Constitutional amendment.

So if everyone works out an acceptable agreement, and everyone votes to accept it, it could happen.  Although by the time everyone talks about it and start to look at all the boring and complicated details, it is likely to die a natural death.

I mean, things like this do happen.  Look at the Basques.  Look at the FLQ.  Bombs in mail boxes, kidnappings, death, and Quebec is still part of Canada.

[Metric Mouse]

Quebec is still part of Canada because of billions of federal transfer payments every year. Not exactly the same situation as California is in.

[RetiredAt63]

Quebec is still part of Canada because of billions of federal transfer payments every year. Not exactly the same situation as California is in.

No Quebec is still part of Canada (for now) because everyone talked things out (ROC clarified the potential terms of separation, which were not the same as the hard-core separatists wanted them to be) and calmed down and made changes.

You do know that for an outsider, this fast leap from "want to separate" to armed insurrection" is very strange and and disturbing?  Very non-rational, violent mind set.  And given that so many Americans seem to massively distrust their government (is this State as well, or just Federal?) it might be understandable that some States might want to try a different setup.

[Metric Mouse]

Quebec is still part of Canada because of billions of federal transfer payments every year. Not exactly the same situation as California is in.

No Quebec is still part of Canada (for now) because everyone talked things out (ROC clarified the potential terms of separation, which were not the same as the hard-core separatists wanted them to be) and calmed down and made changes.

You do know that for an outsider, this fast leap from "want to separate" to armed insurrection" is very strange and and disturbing?  Very non-rational, violent mind set.  And given that so many Americans seem to massively distrust their government (is this State as well, or just Federal?) it might be understandable that some States might want to try a different setup.

Perhaps people who feel that violence is a likely outcome of separation of a political entity from a larger political entity that is shares boarders with are using history as their guide? Are there many examples of this occurring peacefully? It seems that the vast majority of such separations have been violent, and while it would not be strictly necessary for violence to occur, it seems that it is more likely than not.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Quebec is still part of Canada because of billions of federal transfer payments every year. Not exactly the same situation as California is in.

No Quebec is still part of Canada (for now) because everyone talked things out (ROC clarified the potential terms of separation, which were not the same as the hard-core separatists wanted them to be) and calmed down and made changes.

You do know that for an outsider, this fast leap from "want to separate" to armed insurrection" is very strange and and disturbing?  Very non-rational, violent mind set.  And given that so many Americans seem to massively distrust their government (is this State as well, or just Federal?) it might be understandable that some States might want to try a different setup.

Perhaps people who feel that violence is a likely outcome of separation of a political entity from a larger political entity that is shares boarders with are using history as their guide? Are there many examples of this occurring peacefully? It seems that the vast majority of such separations have been violent, and while it would not be strictly necessary for violence to occur, it seems that it is more likely than not.

Had Scotland voted for independence in 2014, would you have expected England to use their military to enforce unity? A lot has changed in the world since 1861, in case you weren't watching. (Allow me to reiterate that I think this is a silly argument, but dangerous? Violent? Pssh. It's just talk.)

[Metric Mouse]

Had Scotland voted for independence in 2014, would you have expected England to use their military to enforce unity? A lot has changed in the world since 1861, in case you weren't watching. (Allow me to reiterate that I think this is a silly argument, but dangerous? Violent? Pssh. It's just talk.)

I don't know what I would have expected. I know the separatist movement in Ireland was hardly peaceful.  I know many of the nations in Africa are a mess of violent civil war as groups try to separate. Eastern European countries have been fighting for decades to redraw their boundaries. It's only for a very short and incredibly recent period in history that peaceful splitting has occurred. I'm not sure that this should be expected to continue when all evidence and experience shows otherwise.

I'm not saying that the secession movement is anything but talk; of course that's what it is. I don't think anyone, anywhere, is suggesting that the movement be quashed by anything other than honest discussion. But most of the uneasiness comes from the situation that California decides to secede and the U.S. Gov. says "No."; what happens then? Unlikely, but interesting to think about, in my opinion.

[tooqk4u22]

hmmm maybe instead of an exit we should just drop federal taxation and spending to near zero and let the states figure it out.  That way all those red states that rely on federal money to exist would feel some pain of their decisions and the blue states that give more money to the government than receive in benefits would get a tax break.

Yes, this.  I'm not clear why the people in the red states vote so much against their own self interest, but contrary to many people's beliefs that it's "welfare queens" in blue states that are the issue, the blue states support the nation by contributing more than they receive back. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

It's ridiculous to propose, because it's largely fueled by frustration and the actual mechanics of an exit would be incredibly difficult.  But hopefully it does make the point to Trump that there are many wealthy and powerful people/businesses that are watching what he does.

The problem is that the methodology from Wallet Hub is not about net benefit/deficit, it is more about net dependency with the following weightings:

1)   37.5 points - Return on Taxes Paid to the Federal Government
2)   12.5 points - Share of federal jobs
3)   50.0 points - Federal Funding as a Percentage of State Revenue

#1 is really the only one that matters - CA was definitely the largest contributor of all the states but about average on a per capita basis.  The reality is that absolute $ in vs. $ out is what matters.....CA actually gets back more dollars than it gives.  Also it is in the middle of the pack of states on a per capita basis. In 2013, $292 billion tax payments (net of refunds) vs. $344 billion back to CA for benefits, grants, contracts, salaries/wages. 

#2  not sure why this is even a factor in the analysis.

#3  this is the liberal skewing lever to make it look better.   So if you take a state like CA/NY/NJ that have ridiculously high taxes and spending and proportion out fed tax dollars relatively ratably on a per capita basis then of course this number will look good....so the highest weight in the analysis goes to the most spendypants states.....and that is considered good.

[Lagom]

What are you talking about? I have never seen a source saying CA gets back more than it gives. I'll look into it more later, but I suspect you are cherry picking data here.

[tooqk4u22]

What are you talking about? I have never seen a source saying CA gets back more than it gives. I'll look into it more later, but I suspect you are cherry picking data here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

p13 for collections - p19 for refunds
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13databk.pdf

[Lagom]

Yes, I see you have added up some numbers and compared them to other numbers. Would like to see a more nuanced analysis than that. There are plenty of articles discussing this topic and all of the ones I've personally seen show California as a net loser in taxes out versus money coming back. Plus, much of the federal money coming into California wouldn't be relevant to an independent state, which widens the gap even more in this hypothetical.

Nevertheless, even if I were to accept your premise (which I am far from doing), that doesn't mean the world's 6th largest economy would suddenly collapse, or even stall, absent a few extra government subsidies.

[tooqk4u22]

Yes, I see you have added up some numbers and compared them to other numbers. Would like to see a more nuanced analysis than that. There are plenty of articles discussing this topic and all of the ones I've personally seen show California as a net loser in taxes out versus money coming back. Plus, much of the federal money coming into California wouldn't be relevant to an independent state, which widens the gap even more in this hypothetical.

Most of the articles that come up are similar to the one linked in the sense of dependency and shy away from the absolute dollars, but other states do get more benefits on a per dollar in/out basis than CA like Mississippi that is almost entirely dependent on federal dollars because it has no economy. 

Nevertheless, even if I were to accept your premise (which I am far from doing), that doesn't mean the world's 6th largest economy would suddenly collapse, or even stall, absent a few extra government subsidies.

I agree on the federal $ in vs $ out not being a real factor as it is basically a wash, any collapse would be the other elements being discussed.  Trade, borders, population retention, company retention, governance,etc

[Lagom]

It would be fascinating to see how things worked out  from the company retention standpoint. I suppose a free trade agreement would be pretty important. Beyond that, would CA have to drop some of it's aggressive taxation to make sure they wanted to stay? Or would the reasons those companies are here in the first place keep the status quo? I wonder if there's ever been a serious analysis done on something like this, either for California, or Texas, or whatever. Would love to see a theoretical breakdown of how a peaceful transition could realistically work.

[GuitarStv]

While I'm not sure that California jumping out is the best approach, there's such a large divide between parts of the US that I can see how the idea of splitting it up would be appealing to a large number of people.

[katsiki]

Every time this comes up, I am intrigued and reminded of Revolution (tv show).

[Metric Mouse]

What are you talking about? I have never seen a source saying CA gets back more than it gives. I'll look into it more later, but I suspect you are cherry picking data here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_taxation_and_spending_by_state

p13 for collections - p19 for refunds
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/13databk.pdf

Thank you for this. It's great to see real numbers showing that California does receive more money from the Federal Government than it gives in taxes.

[AlanStache]

http://imgur.com/a/SVH4T

Ratio of taxes paid to fed spending per state and over all average.   looks like Ca is about normal.  Also remember that the feds spend more than they take in on average.

raw formatted data from above linked sources. 

Alabama   56762000000         Alabama    23765764000
Alaska   10568000000         Alaska    5292703000
Arizona   67306000000         Arizona    36769050000
Arkansas   28514000000         Arkansas    28772265000
California   3.43725E+11         California    3.34425E+11
Colorado   48664000000         Colorado    46538866000
Connecticut   41452000000         Connecticut    53703341000
Delaware   9047000000         Delaware    20061828000
DC    47785000000         DC    24464351000
Florida   1.90831E+11         Florida    1.41178E+11
Georgia   88532000000         Georgia    74301190000
Hawaii   19309000000         Hawaii    7139728000
Idaho   15139000000         Idaho    8669150000
Illinois   1.05483E+11         Illinois    1.37068E+11
Indiana   55496000000         Indiana    50994462000
Iowa   25883000000         Iowa    21189459000
Kansas   24243000000         Kansas    24728746000
Kentucky   48027000000         Kentucky    27744155000
Louisiana   44701000000         Louisiana    40184965000
Maine   16078000000         Maine    6744654000
Maryland   92987000000         Maryland    56332485000
Massachusetts   75631000000         Massachusetts    90463675000
Michigan   94014000000         Michigan    68914818000
Minnesota   44304000000         Minnesota    90703773000
Mississippi   34308000000         Mississippi    10430224000
Missouri   65452000000         Missouri    54412418000
Montana   10148000000         Montana    4996692000
Nebraska   15636000000         Nebraska    23801959000
Nevada   23181000000         Nevada    15858254000
New Hampshire   12414000000         New Hampshire    10001989000
New Jersey   82573000000         New Jersey    1.28052E+11
New Mexico   27554000000         New Mexico    8546759000
New York   1.95334E+11         New York    2.3188E+11
North Carolina   93907000000         North Carolina    66102487000
North Dakota   6805000000         North Dakota    7561551000
Ohio   1.01573E+11         Ohio    1.24731E+11
Oklahoma   37851000000         Oklahoma    30056818000
Oregon   32713000000         Oregon    25715856000
Pennsylvania   1.34989E+11         Pennsylvania    1.20398E+11
Rhode Island    11549000000         Rhode Island    13011125000
South Carolina    48784000000         South Carolina    20445822000
South Dakota    8025000000         South Dakota    6317489000
Tennessee   64508000000         Tennessee    53909218000
Texas   2.34459E+11         Texas    2.49912E+11
Utah   20620000000         Utah    17657760000
Vermont   6915000000         Vermont    4045852000
Virginia   1.38029E+11         Virginia    71365278000
Washington   72937000000         Washington    59880170000
West VA   21317000000         West Virginia    6799408000
Wisconsin   47735000000         Wisconsin    46380549000
Wyoming   5177000000         Wyoming    5305301000
average   3.14897E+12         Average   2.83773E+12

If you see any mistakes let me know and I will edit the post.

[gimp]

I love it when the numbers are so large, excel says "screw it, we're using scientific notation."