President Obama's opponents have unwittingly come
up with a brilliant plan to avoid the "fiscal cliff." They want to
secede from the union.
If Obama were serious about being a good steward of the nation's
finances, he'd let them.
The White House, in one of those astro-turf efforts that make
people feel warm about small-d democracy, launched a "We the People"
program on its website last year, allowing Americans to petition
their government for a redress of grievances. Any petition that
receives 25,000 or more signatures within 30 days is promised a
response (though not necessarily a favorable one) from the Obama
administration.
And so a large number of patriotic Americans, mostly from states
won by Mitt Romney last week, have petitioned the White House to let
them secede. They should be careful about what they wish for. It
would be excellent financial news for those of us left behind if
Obama were to grant a number of the rebel states their wish "to
withdraw from the United States and create (their) own NEW
government" (the petitions emphasize "new" by capitalizing it).
Red states receive, on average, far more from the federal
government in expenditures than they pay in taxes. The balance is
the opposite in blue states. The secession petitions, therefore,
give the opportunity to create what would be, in a fiscal sense, a
far more perfect union.
Among those states with large numbers of petitioners asking out:
Louisiana (more than 28,000 signatures at midday Tuesday), which
gets about $1.45 in federal largess for every $1 it pays in taxes;
Alabama (more than 20,000 signatures), which takes $1.71 for every
$1 it puts in; South Carolina (26,000), which takes $1.38 for its
dollar; and Missouri (22,000), which takes $1.29 for its dollar.
Since the effort gained attention this week, copycats in all but
a few states have joined the petition drive. To be fair, White House
officials could refuse the secession petitions of states Obama won,
such as New York (which gets only 79 cents on its tax dollar),
Michigan (85 cents) and Colorado (79 cents).
What would be left is a Confederacy of Takers, including
relatively poor states such as Alaska, West Virginia, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi. One of the few would-be
Confederacy members that pays more than it receives is Texas, which
because of oil money is close to break-even at 94 cents of benefits
for its tax dollar. (The statistics, from an analysis of tax and
revenue data by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, were published in
2006, but the broad pattern doesn't vary much over time.)
Depending on how aggressive a fiscal hawk he wishes to be, Obama
could also try to offload onto the Confederacy of the Takers North
and South Dakota and Montana ($1.73, $1.49 and $1.58 in benefits,
respectively), but this would probably only work if Canada agreed to
allow overflight rights for American aircraft to reach the West
Coast states of Washington, Oregon and California (88 cents, 97
cents and 79 cents on their tax dollars, respectively).
Possibly, the new United States would need to negotiate certain
protectorates in the Confederacy - Austin, New Orleans, south
Florida and the like - the way the British did in Hong Kong. Then
there is the awkward matter of what the breakaway nation would do to
its poor.
But once the handout states left the union (and took with them a
proportionate share of the federal debt), the rest of the country
could enjoy lower taxes and the high level of government service
typical of the Northeast, the Great Lakes and the West Coast.
There would also be nonfinancial benefits. Tampa's Central
Command, now caught up in the David Petraeus sex scandal, would be
the new nation's problem. And the exit of a number of Southern
representatives from Congress would give Democrats a solid governing
majority.
Of course, secession isn't as easy or as painless as an
electronic petition, and Obama couldn't offer a redress of these
petitioners' grievances even if he wanted to. Nor should he want to:
The Union of the Makers would be fiscally healthy but spiritually
poor without the Confederacy of the Takers.
Yet would-be rebels from the red states should keep in mind
during the coming budget battle that those who are most ardent about
cutting government spending tend to come from parts of the country
that most rely on it.
Most Popular Stories
- SEO Traffic Lab Celebrate Wins at Digital Marketing Event 'Internet World 2013' in London
- Social Media Initiatives Should Follow Customers' Lead
- Apple CEO: Offshore Units Not a 'Tax Gimmick'
- U.S. Senate Accuses Apple of Large-scale Tax Avoidance
- UTEP Water Recycling Project Wins Venture Titles
- Marketo Makes a Mint in IPO: Stock Shoots Up More than 50 Percent
- Bieber Booed at Billboard Awards
- Crude Oil Up, Gasoline Down
- Austin Startup Compare Metrics Raises $3.5 Million for Expansion
- Why So Many Top 'Car Guys' Are Actually Women
News-To-Go
Advertisement
Advertisement
News Column
Secession: The 'Confederacy of Takers'
Nov. 16, 2012
Dana Milbank, Washington Post Writers Group
Advertisement
Source: (C) 2012 Tulsa World. via ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved
Story Tools



