Split the State Movement Gaining Momentum (latest update)

Posted by Jack

Open letter. . .


To: Redding Record Searchlight, Redding.com

Mr. Ross,

Newspapers like the Searchlight, Bee and Chronicle continue to help make Jefferson a reality. Our movement is only ninety days old, yet one Field Poll shows affirmation with 28 percent of the vote. This number continues to increase over time. The Searchlight’s polls show us at around 60 percent in favor of State Split. The evidence for dramatic action is clear. The conversation is shifting to the real issues which face the North State. California is mired in almost one half Trillion in debt. No one knows the total of California’s unfunded liabilities. We have no effective representation in the North State. These are facts which, “the people”, are in a position to remedy.

More Committees forming. More people who want to hear what is possible if we act together, if we act now. More Inquires from San Diego to Oregon. More County governments interested in separation. We wear negativity of news outlets such as yours, like a badge of honor. People grow tired of news which is more editorial than truth. The word continues to spread and gain support with or without publications like yours. You risk making yourselves irrelevant, by ignoring or misrepresenting the truth.

The truth is plain to anyone with eyes and ears. The economic Ship called California is sinking. California has been on the same course for fifty years. Shall we continue to do the same things for another 50? Representation is the key to effective government. We have none.

The Time Has Come For 51

Mark Baird


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Split the State Movement Gaining Momentum (latest update)

  1. Libby says:

    You’re not going to be able to stop the naysayers until you come up with some facts about how this is going to work.

    So far, all we ever hear is what a drag it is to be attached to the populous end of the state. We need to hear how the unpopulous end of the state is going to survive on its own.

    Until then, people are just going to keep beatin’ on ya with a little common financial sense: the fewer people in living in a state, the higher the taxes will be.

  2. dewey says:

    Comments pulled.

    Editor: Dewey, now you are accusing the SoJ people as being biggoted? Okay, that’s enough! You’re suspended until you refrain from casting extreme insults at people and using this site to spew your disinformation, hate and extremist politics. In particular you used at an insulting term to describe members of the Tea Party. That vile sexual reference has you suspended until Jan. 10th.

    When you decide you can voice an opinion not laced with invectives we will give you one more chance, but not until. Now sit it out and calm down.

  3. Libby says:

    Now, is that fair? Course, I haven’t read Dewey’s post, so neither I nor anybody else can tell, but I do know that I intimated, not too long ago, that your motives in hankering after the State of Jefferson were less than egalitarian. You’ll have to ban us all, you know … and readership will fall off.

    • Post Scripts says:

      Libby, how many years have you known me and exchanged thoughts? And in all those years have I ever once casually banned a commenter without cause?

      Have you forgot Quentin Colgan already?

      In 8 years I’ve only had to ban 2 people for violations of the E-R’s editorial policy, Quentin and now Dewey. There’s times when I should have banned some people, but we try to err on the side very liberal free speech.

      That’s why it’s so simple to write almost anything you want here! However, you just can’t use this site to spew profanity, threaten people or use minority slurs… no matter who they’re directed at.

      Dewey violated the paper’s policy (not mine). He had been warned about hate speech before, but he crossed the line when he used an ugly slur concerning one’s sexual orientation. We can’t have that here. We’ve never tolerated that sort of thing.

      Yes, this is a free speech podium. And as such, we respect everyone’s opinion without regard to race, religion or sexual orientation. All we ask is that people that comment try to write without using hate speech and profanity. We want people to feel this is a friendly site for sharing ideas and exchanging opinions. We do not tolerate vile slurs of any kind, especially when directed at a minority!

  4. Harold says:

    Libby write: “Now, is that fair? Course, I haven’t read Dewey’s post”……… Well Libby, then maybe you should refrain from making general statements on which you have no facts or knowledge of why!.

    Libby also posts: You’ll have to ban us all you know … and readership will fall off…… My response to Libby on that commentary, Like that would happen:), maybe in your Liberal dreamworld.

  5. Tina says:

    Libby: ” We need to hear how the unpopulous end of the state is going to survive on its own.”

    Spoken like a true progressive. Would you feel better if the committees said, “Mother may I?”

    “…the fewer people in living in a state, the higher the taxes will be.”

    Where did you come by this law of finances?

    USA Today:

    The Tax Foundation’s 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index grades all 50 states on 118 different measures to reflect the favorability of their tax structure to businesses. The states that, according to the foundation, have the best business climates generally have lower tax rates, including lower personal and corporate income taxes, and less complicated tax codes. Wyoming has the best business tax climate in the country and New York the worst. Based on the Tax Foundation’s report, these are the most and least tax-friendly states for business.

    In case you wondered Wyoming’s population is a little over 576,000.

    South Dakota might represent a better example to illustrate how small states can “survive”:

    Taxes collected per capita: $1,682 (3rd lowest)
    • Unemployment: 4.4% (3rd lowest)
    • Corporate taxes collected per capita: $19 (5th lowest)
    •> Sales tax rate: 4.0% (tied-13th lowest)

    South Dakota is one of the seven states without an individual income tax. In addition, the state only collected $19 per capita of corporate income tax in 2011, lower than all other states excluding the four states that do not collect corporate taxes. Because of these low taxes, the state only collected $1,682 per capita in 2011, lower than all but two other states. More than half of that money was collected in the form of sales taxes. In 2011, the state collected $985 in sales tax revenue per capita, the eighth-highest of all states. In January 2013, South Dakota had an unemployment rate of just 4.4%, lower than all states except for North Dakota and Nebraska.

    South Dakota’s population is a little over 833,000.

    “You’ll have to ban us all, you know … and readership will fall off.”

    We’ve never banned you and you don’t even live in the North State. It’s a world wide web…remember?

    Besides Jack took the steps he must take as editor because of an infraction of the blog standards not as a means of furthering the cause for the state of Jefferson. I’m sure he would prefer that our contributors would remember to be respectful and civil.

  6. Mike says:

    You’re right Libby, we do need to have some “facts about how this is going to work”. So, thankyou Tina for great real life examples right here in the lower 48. I’m convince that we can govern every bit as well and even better than the examples you mentioned. After all, we can benefit from their examples, experience and mistakes.

  7. Tina says:

    Thanks Mike. The example set by South Dakota is one to take not of in a positive way. The tax structure seems to lean heavily on consumption taxes. I’m in favor of these taxes because people buy what they can afford and are “exempted” from a heavy tax burden when they are strapped financially.

    I suspect their property tax is a bit higher but when you aren’t obligated to pay income tax this isn’t a big problem.

    The sales tax rate is 4.0% with some municipalities as high as 6.0%.

  8. Libby says:

    “Wyoming has the best business tax climate in the country ….”

    And the citizens of Wyoming, per capita, got their noses REAL deep into the federal trough, because there are not enough of them to maintain their own infrasture. Deny it all you like … it’s still the truth.

    The Wyoming State Deparment of Forestry has 48 employees. Big, bad fire? The feds deal with it.

  9. Tina says:

    Libby: ” Big, bad fire? The feds deal with it.”

    Well that would be because the federal government owns or controls most of the forest.

    They also have control over (own) the federal highways that go through the state…just like every state…so they maintain those too!

    Wyoming’s citizens noses are not any more deeply into the federal trough than citizens of other states.

  10. Peggy says:

    Wyoming, Montana and other small population states have volunteer fire department. My high school buddy is one in Montana and he fights fires in other states too.

    You’re right Tina, federal land fires are fought by the federal Forestry who may pay for additional support from states, metro and city fire departments.

    My neighbor is a Forestry chief and my son is a metro fireman who spent two weeks at the Rim fire.

    The more I hear about the advantages from having smaller states the more I like it.

    The imbalance of representation in Congress for the west coast compared to the east coast based on population must be corrected.

Comments are closed.