States right to leave the United States.

I know everyone has heard numerous times that states like Texas have talked about leaving the United States, but how realistic is it? I've always kinda liked the idea of a state deciding when the proverbial, "Enough is Enough" scenario has played out, but is it truly realistic?

I have numerous close friends that are trying to leave California in flocks, citing the grass is always greener, and leaving California in droves for other places. Then I began thinking about this scenario where states have had it, and decide to leave. I'm curious to hear other peoples thoughts . . . could this become a really a reality or is it just talk?

 

I don't believe states actually have the right to leave the U.S., and that it is equivalent to some type of treason. This issue came up some years back when a small town near my home seceded from the union, then filed for foreign aid.

I guess we could always look to the Confederates to see how others feel about the acceptability of cesation.

 

I think that would be as close to impossible as anything could get.

 

I spent much of my youth in Canada and am reminded of the similar situation of Quebec and it's desire to secede. I think many of us were of the opinion they shouldn't be allowed to secede; instead we should kick them out.

 

Turned out poorly for South Carolina some years back. . Take a look at the "free state" movements like Wyoming and New Hampshire. I've always heard that Texas is different. They were a sovereign nation prior to statehood and their statehood deal is different...I don't know if that's true though.

 

The Florida Keys (Key West) tried it in the 80's -
The Conch Republic
The Conch Republic

 

During a bloody American conflict called the Civil War in 1861, the southern states tried to break away from the Union. They called themselves the Confederacy. The Union said that they could not break away, but the Confederacy disagreed, so a civil war erupted, resulting in more deaths than all other American conflicts combined. It permanently settled the issue of whether or not a state can break away from the Union.

 

I don't think it permanently settled anything. States can still try, thought I feel it would be difficult.

If anyone is crazy enough to do it, it would be Texas and with the current trajectory of this country I'd be in Dallas within a day.

Also just like to point out, the South didn't lose the war, we ran out of bullets.

 

Well I think the Giants won that because they have an SEC QB and the Patriots have a hermaphrodite that wears Uggs playing QB.

 

First, Texas does not have a right to leave the union. Texas does however maintain a right to break into 5 smaller states.

That said, economically speaking, Texas does not need NASA to survive. The military? That's debatable. Aside from Ft. Hood and Lackland AFB we also have massive aerospace industry assets in Lockheed and Boeing here, I mean massive, as in entire cities exist to support them. Even still the state has 3 branches of "guard" to include the national guard and does not suffer in the area of recruitment.

Financially I would be curious to find out if the state as a whole pays in more money to the federal government than we get back. My guess is yes...if that were so, my assumption is that yes, economically Texas could survive on its own, especially if we did not fall under federal energy policy and started drilling gas and oil and began generating electricity however we wanted (nuclear and coal). I imagine we could survive on energy alone, probably with the U.S. becoming our biggest customer.

 

Red states, by and large, tend to get more money back than they pay in and blue states, by and large, tend to pay in more than they get back.

 

You can see an evaluation of net federal taxes minus spending by state here.

Texas does pay more in taxes than it gets back. However, several other states lose even more money than Texas, notably New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and Minnesota. And a number of additional states, like Connecticut and Delaware, also lose more than Texas, relative to the smaller size of their state economies.

One interesting point is that most "red states" (i.e. those with more conservative politics) get a net benefit from federal government spending: they receive more $$ from federal spending than they pay in federal taxes. Texas is an exception in this regard.

 

I heard Texas refines 85% of all U.S. oil, 65% of all defense industry related businesses, and computer related businesses have been relocating there because of very generous tax breaks to attract businesses to move their operations to Texas and strengthen their economy.

To a lame man like myself, it seems like their economy is stronger than people think. Which supports the sediment that they could operate independently from the union and still be okay. But again, I don't know if it could be done, which had me curious. . .

 

It all depends on what you value. They also have the worst health and education systems among the bigger states. And if they seceded, say goodbye to the defense industry. The U.S. would take away its military personnel and equipment (including absolutely gutting the National Guard and Air National Guard). I would suggest that Texas' economy would collapse. Texas does pull its weight when comparing what it pays the federal government vs. what it gets in return, which is nice.

All in all, the states that tend to have that kind of secession jabber (and that's all it is, jabber) are the ones most reliant upon federal money. And that almost invariably are the "red" states. (Maryland is an exception, but that's because of its location next to DC.) I say let 'em go. Good riddance.

 

The state that would be most viable as a separate country is probably California, although I don't know of any serious secession movement here. If California was a separate country, it would be one of the top 10 countries in the world by GDP -- easily bigger than Canada.

But it's not just about the size -- California's economy is also diversified, ranking highly in areas as different as agriculture, technology, education, entertainment, and tourism.

The next largest state economies, in Texas and New York, are both smaller and less diversified. In New York, the economy leans on the financial services sector; in Texas, the state economy leans on the energy sector. This is fine as long as those sectors are doing well, but not so good otherwise.

In big picture terms, the main concern for the Texas economy is that crude oil production peaked in 1972. Even with the latest technological drilling advances, crude oil production in Texas in 2011 was less than one-third of the 1972 level. In fact, Texas oil production in 2011 was less than the production in 1936.

 

And the main concern for California is that even with that huge economy they can't keep their spending down. California would be broke within 6 months of sucessession. They are in dire straights.

 

It's true that California's state budget is hurting. But in theory, secession would improve the budgetary situation.

California, like Texas or New York, pays more in federal taxes than it receives in federal spending. In other words, the federal government directs California tax dollars away from California, and to other states instead. Under the (totally hypothetical) secession scenario, those tax dollars would stay in California, thereby alleviating the budget problems.

In fact, the net outflow of federal tax dollars from California was well-publicized as a political issue by Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Republican governor: