pop-culture for the people

In the most recent election, the most populous state in the union, with the most electoral votes (55), comprising 20% of the total needed to be elected, was completely ignored by both candidates.  Why?  Because we were a sure thing for the Democratic party.  And sure enough, we delivered over 6 million votes (54% of the total) to John Kerry.  What state am I talking about?  You guessed it; that crazy, left-wing, hippy commune of no-good Hollywood actors and has-beens—California.

So, other than making movies (which are all moving to Canada anyway), why should anyone else in the US care about California, right?  Well, it’s simple really.  Consider the economy.  In 2001, California was responsible for 13.4% of the US GDP; the closest runners-up were New York at 8.2% and Texas at 7.5%.  It comes out to 1.3 TRILLION dollars. Just from California.  I’ve always heard that CA is the 7th largest economy in the world, so I decided to try to find out if that is true.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any concise data on the rankings of the GDPs of the world’s nations.  However, there are many tables devoted to the wealth of nations per capita.  So I took the 2001 GSP of CA and divided by the 2000 population (there was no 2001 data) and I came up with a startling figure.  Now, I know there is a difference in the way GDP and GSP are calculated, involving military expenditures, etc., but I think this works for illustration.  Per capita, from the 2000 and 2001 figures, CA comes in at about $39,000.  Using the 2002 world figures, that puts us 3rd in GDP per capita, and AHEAD of the United States as a whole (which would then be 5th, with CA inserted).  There’s also that tiny little issue of TAXES.  I believe the figure is: CA gets $0.75 back for every dollar it pays to the Feds in taxes.  So we’re supporting the rest of the country, despite the fact that those dollars are desperately needed here.

So, with such a large population, and such a large economy, why are we being ignored?  In 2001, Dubya refused to intervene in the electricity “shortage,” probably because it was manufactured by a close friend of his.  It took him days to declare the 2003 firestorms in SoCal a disaster area, when he declares Florida a disaster area whenever there is a burp in the weather.  There have been reports that FEMA has a history of overpaying in Florida.  When a levy broke up here in the delta last June, it took a MONTH for the feds to decide it was a disaster area, and even then they restricted it so that the federal money only helps the state with clean-up and no low-cost loans are available to the farmers who lost millions of dollars in crops, houses, and equipment.  The crop was so new at the time, that the farmers had not even insured it yet.  That levy broke in June, it is now December and they are still pumping water out.  So, even before the election, Dubya has had a policy of ignoring California.

So, where am I going with this, right?  California secession baby!  Other than the issues I have outlined above, the following are some reasons why CA may want to consider seceding if the courts don’t go our way.

The fight over marijuana:
In 1996 Prop 215 passed by a 56% margin, legalizing medical marijuana in California.  Now the first cases are hitting the courts, with the first Supreme Court ruling due by the summer.  Now what is happening is the “pot stores” that have popped up around California are being raided by the DEA.  These are essentially pharmacies that only sell marijuana.  They are legal under California law, have business permits, only sell to people with a valid prescription, and grow their own plants (thus are not transporting it across state lines).  They are now being targeted, I believe, because they are so visible.  The feds are trying to make a point in California, and it is starting to piss us off.

The fight over the environment:
California is exempt from the Clean Air Act because we had our own clean air laws in place before the federal standard was enacted in 1965.  This means we get to set our own emission standards, and we pay for it with more expensive gas and cars.  Now, California has decided to also set its own standards for minimum miles-per-gallon (mpg) and carbon dioxide emissions of the fleet of cars sold in California starting in 2009.  Now, the automotive industry is suing in federal court, saying we don’t have the right to set minimum mpg requirements, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and therefore cannot be regulated.

California is very proud of its coastline, and the state has been fighting the feds for years over offshore drilling.  We decided years ago to limit offshore drilling, stop new leases, and not allow unused leases to be renewed.  The Bush administration does not like this, and would prefer to start new drilling off the shore of California over the objections of the state.  This despite the fact that Dubya helped his brother’s reelection by buying back unused leases in Florida to prevent new drilling.  So far the courts have ruled in California’s favor by blocking the new leases until their impact can be evaluated.  Lease owners are also suing California over regulations regarding what can and cannot be dumped from existing oil platforms into the waters off our coasts.

The fight over abortion:
Roe v. Wade said the constitution guarantees a right to privacy and that in the 1st trimester an abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor.  The 2nd and 3rd trimesters are allowed to be regulated, as long as exceptions are allowed for the health of the woman.  This court decision does not specifically allow abortions, or say that we have a constitutional right to an abortion.  If it is struck down, it also does not specifically prohibit abortion, but it would make it much easier for the federal government to enact laws that prohibit abortion.  Enter California law.  Governor Davis signed into law a constitutional amendment that protects the right to privacy.  California also has laws that make abortion legal.  If Roe v. Wade is struck down, abortion rights will not be affected until a federal law is enacted to prohibit it.  Then we’re stuck with the same problem that is currently happening with marijuana.

There is also a new fight in the states rights saga.  The new federal spending law stipulates that federal funding will be cut to any state that tries to enforce state laws that protect rights to abortion.  For example, California requires all hospitals to provide abortions when the mother’s life is in danger.  In some states, Catholic hospitals will not perform an abortion while the fetus is still alive even if it would stop a woman from bleeding to death during a complication in the pregnancy.  The new federal spending law will cut off funds to states that try to penalize a facility for not following the state laws.  The California attorney general is taking this to court.

The real kicker, of course, is that the Bush administration is Republican.  Republicans are supposed to be for small federal government and states rights.  Democrats are the ones that are supposed to enact all these far-reaching laws that make all the states act the same.  However, someone needs to tell this to the current regime, because I have a feeling that when push comes to shove, they’re going to be heavily in favor of federal government regulation.  So what’s my answer?  When you have an administration that so eagerly ignores the will of such a powerful state, it may be time to say “See ya!”

—hathyr