State of Jefferson

by Jack

Well, it’s officially begun in Butte County! Local citizens have formed a committee to promote the State of Jefferson here and get a resolution before the Board of Supervisors for a vote. Tentatively, this would come as soon as the 24th of October.

JeffersonThe State of Jefferson concept began back in 1940 in Siskiyou County and then it folded up quickly with the outbreak of WWII. However, it’s an idea that will not go away and the more the State of California taxes and does not provide fair representation to the North State the more this idea gains popularity.

Assemblyman Stan Statham from Chico once proposed that we split the state because of the different priorities between Northern and Southern California, but it never made it out of committee. The new Jefferson movement is based along that thinking and more. It seems well thought out and they’ve drawn up a list of grievances with California why some of our counties (and a few Oregon counties) ought to combine to form a new State. That and there is a need to balance the social and economic disparity within this State. Changing demographics have left NorCal without much clout in Sacramento. As a taxpayer you should know the voting power is all in the far Southern region and this means whatever they want to do they can. The North State is pretty much at their mercy.

A division of Ca should have appeal to both Republicans and Democrats because it would give Democrats a lock on California, even more so than they have now. And in the North the Republicans would no longer be irrelevent in Sacramento. GOP bills in Jefferson would have a much better chance of being passed since the North State is generally populated by conservative voters concerned with preserving liberty.

This country would founded on grievances that were less compelling and less severe than those confronting today’s North State voters. And the nations founders had a heck of a lot more to lose than we do today, yet they found a way to make their dream to a reality, why can’t we? The odds may not favor us, but two things to remember: The odds won’t get any better and we’ve got nothing to lose by trying. If the State isn’t split then at least the gripes will have been bought out in public like never before. Mostly those gripes are about taxation without representation and water rights, but there are plenty of others too. They deserve to be heard and then maybe those legislators with a twinge of conscience may be moved to do something about it? We can only hope!

One County Supervisor recently said he didn’t want anything to do with this movement because he didn’t want to look like an idiot. That’s unfair and an elected official should set aside such personal concerns and focus on doing what is right. If that’s his main concern then they he’s in the wrong business, because nobody in politics is free from being mocked and no bill is either! Imagine if that was the litmus test in 1775! Gee, somebody might make fun of me if I sign this Declaration of Independence. Well, if that was the limit of their courage then I would be sipping tea today, not hot coffee. The only thing politicians in the North State should concern themselves with is, is this the right thing to do for the people? The answer seems pretty clear to me, but then I’m not a politician and I’m not concerned what others might think of me if I support creating a new state.

The Vision: I can see people from all over the country and the word flocking to this new State of Jefferson simply because it is founded on libertarian principles of less government and more freedom. That has a lot of appeal to many people, and not just Americans. This could be really big!

I admit that anyone can find a ton of reasons why this new State of jefferson is not likely to be born, but again, I pose the question: Isn’t it right to try? The State of Jefferson and the State of California would ultimately be better off if they were left to direct their own future based on what their constituents want. There’s nothing wrong with bringing government closer to the people is there? No, of course not, and when that happens everybody wins.

I hope the Butte County Board of Supervisors vote to back the State of Jefferson resolution.

By the way…some college student in last week’s News and Review said she was against this because she didn’t want to see them separating from the United States! Of course that is not the intent, this is a realignment of boundaries. It’s done all the time for redrawing political districts under the guise of fairness and balance. Well, the North State hasn’t seen fairness or balance for decades and if left unchecked it’s never going to either because the votes are all in the South. The only way to insure equal representation is by a split of the State.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to State of Jefferson

  1. Libby says:

    Nah. Then you will have battles between east and west Jefferson, and east Jefferson still will be at a demographic disadvantage.

    Besides which, this smacks strongly of the sort of tribalism that makes Africa such a model of social cohesion and civil society. You can’t be making yourself a separate country every time you get your knickers in a twist.

    As long as the minority (in this case, Republicans) is not being horribly afficted, restricted and abused (and let’s be real here, you are not), then you just gotta stick being the minority.

  2. Peter says:

    “This country would [sic] founded on grievances that were less compelling and less severe than those confronting today’s North State voters.”

    I’d like to know what these more compelling grievances are before I grab my musket and head off into battle. Can you provide the committee’s list?

  3. Post Scripts says:

    Peter, my first reaction to your comment, where have you been??? Don’t you see what’s going on in the state? We’re once a great state and now we’re broke and the liberals ruined it at so many levels!

    Look…I’m probably not the best guy to list ALL the grievances off the top of my head, but I will give it a shot. For one I don’t like CA having the highest tax rate in the nation and swe get almost nothing for it! Our tax dollars are not spent wisely and much is wasted or lost to cronism and sweetheart deals. Then we have way too much welfare( one third of the whole usa welfare pop. lives right here), not enough reform…needless to say!

    Then we have way too many failing schools, too much overhead, too much waste and not nearly enough common sense. The headlines have been filled with examples of overpaid administrators. The fire tax in rural counties was offensive and unwarranted. Too many end runs by legislature on the 2nd amendment. They’re always undermining the 2nd and most recently we have this ….

    “… the state’s Democratic governor will decide the fate of 14 bills to strengthen gun laws already considered some of the toughest in the country. Although he has weighed in on other high-profile legislation, Jerry Brown has offered little insight into how he will approach gun control.

    Among the proposed laws being considered are Senate leader Darrell Steinberg’s bill to prohibit semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines capable of rapid shooting. Other bills would require all gun owners to obtain a safety certificate, prohibit magazine-repair kits and allow the city of Oakland to pass its own gun regulations.

    Senate Bill 755 by Lois Wolk, D-Davis, would expand the list of crimes that result in a 10-year ban on owning a firearm to include driving under the influence and public intoxication when there are two convictions in three years.

    “You have people who write this legislation who don’t understand the technology and thus don’t understand why the bill is a problem,” said Craig DeLuz, a lobbyist for the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees. “And in the end, none of these will end gun violence.”

    I’m fed up with the gun-grabbers in CA. I also am disgusted by the enormous amount of waste, fraud and abuse coming out of Sacramento.

    Peter, if I have to point these things I doubt you will be joining the revolt, because you have not kept yourself well informed. That’s your job as a voter and too many people in this state have let gov. get away with too much imcompetence for too many years.

  4. Toby says:

    If the Left would make the same demands on all minority groups as Libby has told republicans to live by, our Country would be in far better shape and I bet we wouldn’t be having this chat right now.
    Libby, you make a great argument for splitting the state. Look how easily you dismiss huge portions of the States population. That is the issue in a nutshell.

  5. Tina says:

    Libby the entire state is being “horribly afflicted, restricted and abused” and it won’t be much longer until even you will know it…but you will never admit it. i have asked you to explain how this progressive tax and spend stuff will grow the economy and you have never given an explanation. I’d like to know what gun law currently in place stopped the murders that happened today…there are hundreds of them on the books? Gun restrictive laws like those being considered in California won’t stop the violence but they will greatly INFRINGE on the freedom and rights of law abiding citizens.

    As Jack has said it may never go anywhere but at the very least it is a group of citizens making others around them aware of the growing displeasure many of our citizens are experiencing.

  6. More Common Sense says:

    When I first heard about the resurrection of the idea for a state of Jefferson I thought it would be a good way to send a message to Sacramento about how the north state feels about the lack of representation. Since then I have discovered another reason to support Jefferson. This reason has to do with national representation. California’s representation in the House of Representatives is based on population just like every other state. So our representation in the House is equivalent to all other states. However, the Senate is a different story. Each state only gets 2 senators. The state of California is 163696 square miles in area and it only has 2 senators. The state of Rhode Island is 1545 square foot in area and it also has 2 senators. I think that the number of senators compared to area is probably not the best way to evaluate representation. Instead I decided to evaluate representation based on the number of people a senator represents given the number of people in their state. So I decided to create a table listing, on the one hand, California, with an area of 163696 square miles and a population of 38,000,000 compared to the smallest states in the country. It turns out you can fit the 10 smallest states of the country into California and still have enough room to fit the 9 smallest states once again. Here is the table.

    State Area Population Senators
    Name sq miles Population per Senator Parties
    Rhode Island 1,545 1,050,292 525,146 DD
    Delaware 2,490 917,092 458,546 DD
    Connecticut 5,543 3,590,347 1,795,174 DD
    New Jersey 8,721 8,864,590 4,432,295 RD
    New Hampshire 9,304 1,320,718 660,359 RD
    Vermont 9,620 626,011 313,006 DI
    Massachusetts 10,555 6,646,144 3,323,072 DD
    Hawaii 10,930 1,392,313 696,157 DD
    Maryland 12,407 5,884,563 2,942,282 DD
    West Virgina 24,229 1,855,413 927,707 DD
    Total 95,344 32,147,483
    Average 9,534 3,214,748 1,607,374

    California 163,696 38,000,000 19,000,000 DD

    The smallest 10 states in the country occupy about 60% of the area of California and have 85% of the population, but together they have 20 senators in the Senate to California’s 2. The average number of people the Senators from the smallest states represent are 1,607,374 compared to California’s whopping 19,000,000. Now take a look at the last column. This column has a letter for each of the states Senators representing their political party. I don’t know about you but this disturbs the hell out of me.

  7. More Common Sense says:

    Please excuse the table formatting.

  8. Peter says:

    Post Scripts, I assure you I’m very well informed about the state of our state and country. As, I believe, Reagan once said, “Trust, but verify”. I’m only trying to gain knowledge about what the committee has listed as grievances. You stated that the new movement seems well thought out and they’ve drawn up a list of grievances. So, what are they? I trust you would want me to be informed of their reasons. Or would you rather I follow you blindly down this road. I’m offended that you would imply that I am ill informed. I’ve got my reasons for a new state and you implied you knew theirs, so again, what are they? Either you know and are unwilling to share them or you are lying and don’t know what their reasons are. Trust but verify, I believe it’s a Russian proverb.

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Sometimes pipe dreams work for me. As long as the State of Jefferson does not include the horror of slavery I am on board. Am I a fool? Nope, just one of those plain folks H.L. Mencken used to deride. Peter opposes such a move? So it goes…

  10. matt says:

    i do support forming a new state, a list of grievances where do you want to start?
    1. lack of actual economic freedom,
    2. oppressive corporatism laws for the benefit of government and corporations at the expense of the people
    3. lack of any actual accountability within the bureaucracy of Sacramento
    4. Totalitarianism is a term used by some political scientists to describe a political system in which the state holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.
    hello Sacramento can you hear me you don’t have the consent of the people

    btw i live within the state of Jefferson

  11. More Common Sense says:

    OK, I reformatted the table to make it more readable. Again, The smallest 10 states have 60% of the area and 85% of the population of California. But those states have a total of 20 Senators while California only has 2. It’s interesting to note that each Senator’s vote for Delaware represents 458,546 people but still represents the same level of power in the Senate as a Senator’s vote from California which represents 19,000,000 people, 38 times as many people. Clearly the small states have much more representation in the Senate than the larger states. When you look at the political parties for the Senators in the smallest 10 states you see that this situation really shifts the balance of power in a very equitable way.

    State Area Population Senators
    Name sq miles Population per Senator Parties
    Rhode Island 1,545 1,050,292 525,146 DD
    Delaware 2,490 917,092 458,546 DD
    Connecticut 5,543 3,590,347 1,795,174 DD
    New Jersey 8,721 8,864,590 4,432,295 RD
    New Hampshire 9,304 1,320,718 660,359 RD
    Vermont 9,620 626,011 313,006 DI
    Massachusetts 10,555 6,646,144 3,323,072 DD
    Hawaii 10,930 1,392,313 696,157 DD
    Maryland 12,407 5,884,563 2,942,282 DD
    West Virgina 24,229 1,855,413 927,707 DD
    Total 95,344 32,147,483
    Average 9,534 3,214,748 1,607,374

    California 163,696 38,000,000 19,000,000 DD

    • Post Scripts says:

      Thanks for that post Common Sense, but I might add that as part of the checks in balances originally established was the House of Represenatives (Congress) where the number was determined by the population of the respective state. The Senate was purposely was set up with two reps per state to balance against the interests of the larger states. So it all works out…or at least as close as possible, nothing is perfect.

  12. More Common Sense says:

    I’m sorry, even when I reformat the table with spaces instead of tabs the site removes the spaces.

    • Post Scripts says:

      I’ve run into that myself, the comments section is really limited on what it can do re HTML. Sorry bout that, but it’s beyond my control.

  13. Peggy says:

    We’re not the only ones wanting to secede from So. Cal. Maryland and several other states are too for the same and similar reasons.
    —-

    Western Maryland secessionists seek to sever ties with the liberal Free State:

    “West Virginia was the last state to break off from another. Now, 150 years later, a 49-year-old information technology consultant wants to apply the knife to Maryland’s five western counties. “The people are the sovereign,” says Scott Strzelczyk, leader of the fledgling Western Maryland Initiative, and the western sovereigns are fed up with Annapolis’s liberal majority, elected by the state’s other sovereigns.

    “If you think you have a long list of grievances and it’s been going on for decades, and you can’t get it resolved, ultimately this is what you have to do,” says Strzelczyk, who lives in New Windsor, a historic town of 1,400 people in Carroll County. “Otherwise you are trapped.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/western-maryland-secessionists-seek-to-sever-ties-with-the-liberal-free-state/2013/09/08/15e97aa8-1651-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html

  14. Pie Guevara says:

    Re: “The Senate was purposely was set up with two reps (senators) per state to balance against the interests of the larger states.”

    Do I misunderstand this statement? The Senate was set up to balance state rights (group rights) with popular rights. It was meant to balance the political clout of heavily populated states with states less populated. We are, after all, The United States Of America.

    States formed along the similar political, capital, and cultural interests of the people who lived there. The idea of the Senate was to be a necessary (and in my opinion wise) power balancing act between highly populated states and those less populated.

    Has it worked?

    • Post Scripts says:

      Pie, I stated that poorly, by larger states I meant more populated states. As wikepedia says, the Senate is more deliberative and more prestigious than the House of Representatives, due to its longer terms, smaller size, and statewide constituencies.

      The idea is to give each state equal representation in the Senate whereas the House representation is based on population within the states. Having two senators allows for more diversity in views and allows the two senators to be elected in different years, thereby allowing more flexibility in face of changing times.

      In the most general terms I believe it has worked, not perfectly, but well enough.

  15. Mike says:

    Peter wanted to know what grievances the Committee had. As Jack pointed out, the list is endless, but here are some that our Committee is concerned about.
    The proposed Declaration itself cotains the following grievances with the State of California:
    • An illegal fire tax
    • Property rights violations
    • Assaults upon Second Amendment rights
    • aggressive regulation and reinterpretation of long-established laws have denied the County of Butte, its businesses, and its citizens access to our most abundant natural resources, causing untold harm to our economy, as well as to our health and public safety
    • State and Federal Agencies have, through a process commonly known as “sue and settle”, compromised longstanding principles and priorities of beneficial use and stewardship of our natural resources while sacrificing public processes and open government

    Mark Baird, a spokesman from Siskiyou County, listed the following grievances in a letter to the Redding Searchlight:
    • California is ranked as the worst State in which to do business.
    • California has the highest taxes.
    • California ranks among the worst for Public Education.
    • California is the worst tax and spend state with the highest unfunded pension liabilities.
    • California is a failed state with a confusing morass of failed social and environmental engineering projects which not only impede the economy but also destroy real people’s lives.
    • We do not need, nor do we want to pay for a 100 billion dollar high speed train which will never benefit us.
    • We do not need two massive tunnels under the Sacramento Delta, touted to save the environment, but really intended to siphon ever increasing amounts of water to Los Angeles.
    • We do not want, nor need, the child transgender law.
    • Catastrophic wild fires are putting whole towns in danger through failed California forest policy.

    In addition to the above, the people of Butte County are particularly affected by:
    • A California State Parks Dept. which closes Bidwell Mansion while hiding hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars and then lying about it.
    • California lawmakers that so mismanaged our prisons that they now are releasing 1000s of criminals onto our streets or forcing state prisoners into our local jails.
    These are all things we can fix in the State of Jefferson. We can avoid the mistakes California has made and which California refuses to address.
    In the State of Jefferson we want the most power with people at the local level. It is better to be governed by locally elected representatives who have the local wisdom and knowledge to make informed decisions. It is better to be governed by people who have to look their constituents in the eye once in a while. A few functions can be handled better at a wider level and can be passed up to the county level. Even fewer can be handled better at an even higher level and can be passed up to the state level.
    California is ungovernable in its present size. All we want, is the opportunity to do a better job of it, for our children, and our families
    We can “Start Over”. We can get back to the basics of Good Government. First, we can have a Government that helps us protect our life, our liberty and our property. And then, we can have a Government which represents additional wishes of the governed.

  16. Tina says:

    Matt wrote: “2. oppressive corporatism laws for the benefit of government and corporations at the expense of the people:

    That expense includes lesser or smaller corporations that don’t necessarily benefit from the deals politicians carve out for big corporate players that give them money. This is happening now under Obamacare. Several health care industry giants helped get this monster knowing that the draconian regs would kill their smaller counterparts and mean more business for them. The business man is making a business decision. The politician is operating unethically against the best interests of the people and the nation in moral, if not legal, violation of his oath of office.

    I agree this is another good reason to support the state of Jefferson. However…it would require constant vigilance, something the people have not maintained well in any state…just look at the federal government!

  17. More Common Sense says:

    I just wanted to point out how much at a disadvantage California is due to its large size. I’m aware of why the Senate was setup the way it was. I just think that as a result the liberal New England states have far to much clout.

  18. Tina says:

    Mike: “We can “Start Over”. We can get back to the basics of Good Government.”

    Another benefit would be having as our home a state that challenges the federal governments overstepping its bounds as many states are now beginning to do!

    See here and here.

  19. Princess says:

    We already voted on this in the 90s. Measure “O” failed. It failed because Southern California will never let us go. But many people in Northern California voted against it because for some reason they don’t think we can support ourselves without Southern California. That is crazy. They suck all of our money down there and we are left with their regulations of our guns, our hunting, our fishing and our agriculture. Imagine how great our economy would be if we weren’t trying to fund the pensions of all of the Southern California public employees? The UC system that pays their chancellors $300k+ a year. More than the governor of California makes. We could keep the few state college campuses up here and build a great education system not built on bloated administration with crazy pensions, salaries and benefits. Our sales tax could go to fund our public safety, not LA’s. Federal transportation dollars would go to fix our roads and bridges, not the Chinese Bay Bridge that took a decade to build and its only half way across the bay.

    This is not a liberal/conservative fight. It is a common sense fight. We are supporting them, not the other way around.

    This is a no-brainer but I don’t think Northern California can be persuaded to vote for it.

  20. casey says:

    Well said, Mike!
    I noticed on Jack’s blog, the map of State of Jefferson. Quite a bit different from the original. Makes me wonder…does the state border need be continuous, or can there be island regions, such as Hawaii, but on land? Anyway, we need to get this issue before the Butte Co. Supervisors, and see where they stand.

  21. Libby says:

    “Several health care industry giants helped get this monster knowing that the draconian regs would kill their smaller counterparts and mean more business for them.”

    You’re not far wrong. What the OA, and subsequent administrations, seem to be working toward is the Belgian/French model of universal health care, wherein there are “private” health insurance companies, but their revenue derives entirely from the state, and everyone is covered.

    I truly loath the idea of Aetna shareholders basking in my tax dollars, but what can be done? You all are too dim-witted to see the virtue of straight-up single payer, and so the rich get richer off us peasants, just like always.

  22. Tina says:

    Single payer is dim-witted.

    Single payer is a zero competition monopoly of bureaucrats who don’t give a sh*% because there is no bottom line…it includes all of the worst possible incentives, including not much for those who love or once loved medicine and those who might have engaged in innovations to save lives.

    Other peoples money can always be tapped to cover the cost, these dimwits pretend, and it’s a utopian dream until you “start running out of other peoples money”. That is happening in Europe. So are the incidents of horrendous failures of the healthcare systems in terms of the patients.

    You are not of an American mind. You are other. What planet?

    Consider Sweden:

    For much of the 20th century, Sweden had a single-payer system of health care in which the government paid almost all health care costs. Like other nations with a single-payer system, Sweden has had to deal with the problem of ever-growing health care expenses causing a strain on government budgets. It has dealt with this problem by rationing health care – instituting waiting lists for medical appointments and surgery.

    Sweden stands not merely as a warning about single-payer systems, but also as an example of what happens when market-based reform of such systems do not go far enough.

    In the 1990s, Sweden set about reforming its health care system by introducing aspects of privatization. These reforms were limited, however, and the old problems with waiting lists and rising costs had re-emerged by the beginning of this decade.

    The experience of Sweden demonstrates that when a nation adopts market-oriented reform for its health care system, the reforms will fail if the market is not permitted to work.

    And Canada:

    “[H]ealth care system is coming apart at the seams….On the ground, there is too often a glaring lack of execution: long waits, bed shortages, unequal access to medication. Those failures are compounded by the fact that the ever-rising medicare bill is squeezing out education and other social priorities.”

    No, that’s not from an item in the New York Times; rather, that’s from a piece in the Toronto Globe and Mail on Nov 7, 2010 about Canada’s health care system. Its problems provide a glimpse of what a fee-for-service medical care produces in a single payer system: no demonizing of insurance companies, no teeth gnashing about the uninsured, and no end to the concern about how to pay for health care.

    You want to know who likes single payer healthcare?

    People who rarely need it. They love all those free checkups and coverage for massage therapy!

  23. Post Scripts says:

    Mike, that was excellent. We have more reason to form a new state than the founders had to form a new country!

Comments are closed.