Skip to main content

The Obama Administration has respond for demands for secession.  As these petitions are likely more an indication of which states the US in general wish would leave rather than which states wish to leave, it may be useful to examine which states should not be encouraged to secede, and which states should.

In this analysis it becomes clear that Texas and Louisiana play a vital economic and cultural role.  They are diverse, productive states that help link the US to the rest of world.  Loss of these two states would result in great loss to GDP, trade links, as well as the exchange of peoples.

On the other hand, many extreme northern states perform no such duty.  They do not engage in large amounts of trade, they are not diverse, and their economy are dependent on the government dole.  These states can be safely asked to leave, and maybe should, for the benifit of the greater country.

First, let talk about Texas and Louisiana.  The first thing that will happen if these states secede is the non-hispanic white population will become an absolute supermajority.  Right now that population is sitting around 64%, which gives it enough power to resist awarding full rights to the minority population, as can be seen in the congress right now, but also aware that such power is waning.  However, is the new nation without Texas and Louisiana, not only will be whites have over 66%, but also models on who a diverse population can live in urban settings.

This new majority will also have the power to limit the power of minorities.  For instance, there will be much less pushback when states try to implement Arizona style laws.  I will always remember when hispanics penetrated the midwest, and the laws that results.  Texas and Louisiana never had such an 'Immigration Problem"  That is why don't have laws persecuting immigrants like the rest of the country.

Then there is a matter of economics.  Texas has a GDP of 1.3 billion, and Louisiana 0.2 billion, given the two states an economy of 1.5 billion.  Removal from the US GDP will mean an immediate decrease of 10% from the national total. The new nation of Texas and Louisiana will be ranked 13th in the world.  This is not q836 when Texas did not have an economy

To continue on economics, there is sea trade.  Not only does Louisiana control the route of the Mississippi river to the sea, the states also control the top three sea ports, but also 7 of the top sea ports.  Can this traffic be diverted to other ports on the Gulf Coast.  Certainly.  But that would require massive infrastructure investment by the US, a fight that would involve the actual radical conservatives from places like Ohio and up and down the eastern seaboard.   There is only one other major port along the gulf coast.  Like traffic would be diverted to the eastern seaboard, resulting in greater power for those Red states.

So clearly if Texas and Louisiana left the union there would be an economic recession, likely ending with a more powerful conservative block due to increases in the white population and the increases in power in the nominal red states from South Caroline to Virginia.  Whether these are Red states in the last election are irrelevant.  The direction is clear.

So who should we ask to secede.  The choices should surprise no one.  First we have Washington, the birth place on the contemporary Tea Party in Seattle by Keli Carender, a pissed of white person who, like most in Tea Party, think jobs and social help for minorities is bad

From here we can move east along the Canadian boarder to the states that are essential frontier and live off the government dole.  Idaho with a population 1.5 million, and farm subsidies of $2000 per person.  Montana with a population of 1 million and farm subsidies on $6000 per person.  North Dakota with a population of 0.7 million and farm subsidies of $20,000 per person.  South Dakota with a population of 0.8 million and far subsidies of $12,500 per person.  We can even include Minnisota with 5 million and a farm subsidy of $3,000 per person.

Compare this to Texas and Louisiana with farm subsidies of $1,000 per person.

So how would the loss of these northern states effect the culture and economy.  Well, given that the 70%+ white non-hispanic population of Washington is typical of these northern states, the Union would certainly become much less white.  So if this a scary thing, that would be a negative for staying in the union.  However, given that so many seem to want a white state, this would bode well for the new country between Washington state and Minnesota.  We expect white, probably christian people, to emigrate to this new nation, presumable providing a highly skilled and motivated work force.

What about the economy.  These states contribute about 0.8 billion to the economy, so the GDP would drop so the GDP would drop about 5%, which is the growth in the US GDP over two years, unlike the 5 years it would take to recover from the loss of Texas and Louisiana.

How about sea freight?  There are many ports in Washington state, but losing them would be about the same as losing New Orleans alone.  Expanding Long Beach to the capacity of Houston would more than solve the capacity problem from the point of view of the US.

Now, some people might ask if such a Nation of northern states could prosper.  I would say absolutely.  To begin, the economy would be around the 18th in the world.  As stated it would have a large seaport. It would have trade with Canada.  Given the lack of horrible US regulations, it would be able to frak as it pleased, and even develop refining capability so that it could produce it's own petroleum products instead of heaving pipelines into the US.  It could farm and ranch as it pleased, selling the agriculture product for a price that is set by the free world markets instead of the socialist US government.

Also they could set immigration policy as they wished.  That means that the hispanic people who steal jobs and lower wages would be presumably be prohibited.  The hard working white people, therefore, would have jons at high wages.  As mentioned, I would expect the some of the white population to emigrate to this new nation where they can get a fair shake.  Families who want to live an independent, government free lifestyle, will flock to these states.

In thinking about this I was surprised when I found that Washington, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, as well as Minnesota could be lost with little negative effect on the overall US population and economy.  In fact, Oregon and Wyoming also be safely allowed to leave.  The actual contribution of these states to the culture of the US seems equally minimal. About the only risk the US would face is in terms of food. But who else are these states going to sell food to?  Are they going to have it shipped by sea to Mexico?  Not likely  There is an issue with food security, i.e. making sure the US has enough food, but that can be handled by stockpiling staples locally and expanding our importing of food.  The US will benefit because we will no longer be paying people to not do work.

Tags

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nobody. n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aoeu, swampyankee, not4morewars

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 11:01:27 AM PST

  •  interesting, but illogical (0+ / 0-)

    if I bothered to find a picture of Spock I'd go do it but you get the idea.

    For starters, just because there might be a Tea Party person in Washington that doesn't mean Washington is a Tea Party state.

  •  Silly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    janmtairy, wilderness voice

    for so many reasons I don't know where to start.

    Lose 10% GDP and 10% population.  What have you lost?

    Idaho, Montana and North Dakota haven't expressed a desire to leave.  So what's the point in including them?  Most likely they would be as happy to be a part of Canada as the US.

    Alaska, OTOH, has a movement dedicated to leaving.  Let them go.  They would need an army to protect their borders from people trying to steal their resources and would need to recover the 1.84 sent to them by the US government for every 1.00 sent to the US government.  They would come back begging on their knees in a few years.

    Mississippi gets $2 for each $1 they send the US Government.  Without Federal benefits there would be food riots within weeks.

    Republican tax policies have led to financial conditions which have caused Republicans to demand cuts to programs they have always opposed.

    by AppleP on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:16:34 PM PST

  •  As long as we're playing Modest Proposal, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice

    notice that secession does not mean loss.

    After the secession of Texas and Louisiana, the Palin Administration's National Security Adviser Dick Cheney could point out
    - they oppress their citizens
    - one of them has a history of war with a neighboring state
    - they have abusive governments
    - there are terrorists of the same skin color as many of the state residents
    - some liars and tortured people said they have WMD
    - they have oil.

    After the invasion, the US would have the ports and the industry, without the damaging electoral votes.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site