Rebane's Ruminations
April 2015
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 22 April 2015.  This commentary is apropos to the recent RR posts 'Constitutional Convention – the debate continues' and 'Suddenly SoJ has become real' and their respective comment streams.]

Most people around here have probably missed what is happening with the efforts to launch two historical initiatives – to hold a Constitutional Convention or Con-Con, and separate certain northern rural counties from California to form the new State of Jefferson.  The basis for both initiatives are contemplated in our Constitution, and proponents of both assert that they will follow the prescribed legal pathways to the letter in order to bring about these historic changes.

The Constitution’s Article V provides for holding a national Con-Con as one of the methods the Constitution may be amended.  If the legislatures of 2/3 of the states apply to hold a Con-Con, then Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments”.  As of today 34 or 2/3 of the state legislatures have passed such ‘applications’ to hold the first ever Con-Con.  However, the never-tried application process is a bit murky because some states have withdrawn, and some have then re-applied.  It will be up to Congress and/or the Supreme Court to resolve the matter.

There are energetic factions on both the Left and Right who desire such a revisiting of the Constitution.  The Left seeks to do a massive rewrite in order to achieve a “modern constitution” in accord with their socialist tenets, and the Right seeks a very focused approach to insert a balanced budget amendment.  Both sides feel that once a Con-Con is launched, they will be able to control the assembled conclave for their respective ends.  Any work product output by the convention must then be ratified by ¾, or today 38, of the states.  Both sides feel they can muster at least 13 states to block ratification of any adopted amendments that they oppose.

From the looks of it, I believe the Left has the more accurate view of what can be done to gain their ends once the Con-Con is gaveled into session.  You can google Con-Con or go to my blog, Rebane’s Ruminations, for more information and participate in a debate about the matter.

The State of Jefferson or SoJ movement is about two years old.  California’s northern rural counties strongly believe that their voices have not been heard in Sacramento, and that the state has been acting contrary to their interests for several decades.  This sentiment, with related initiatives, has been shared by rural Americans in many states.  Here in California six northern counties have passed resolutions asking our legislature to start the separation process which ultimately will reach Congress.  The intended extent of SoJ will be from Placer to Mendocino counties in the south, and reaching up to the Oregon border.

In addition to the counties that have formally declared for separation and formation of the State of Jefferson, eleven more counties, including Nevada County, have active SoJ formation committees.  All these efforts have been roundly dismissed, denigrated, and mocked by California’s Left.  Then about two weeks ago a new political action committee named ‘Keep it California’ was formed.  The objective of this PAC is to organize strong and vocal opposition to the SoJ movement, thereby giving lie to the assertion that SoJ has been nothing but the frothings of “a small group of extremists”.

The stated opposition to SoJ centers around a sclerotic analysis of the new state’s economy that grossly misrepresents its financial and commercial prospects.  The real fear is that as SoJ continues to gain momentum, then so will similar movements in other western states.  And that would totally torpedo the progressives’ design for an American future as delineated in the UN’s Agenda21 vision.  But SoJ proponents believe that in this most exceptional country the world has ever seen, the new and never-been-tried has always served as a beacon to innovation, enterprise, and a better life.

The Nevada County Board of Supervisors will hear a presentation by the county’s SoJ steering committee on 12 May at the Rood Center scheduled for 1:30PM.  There will be an appeal for the Supes to join Nevada County with those in favor of forming the new State of Jefferson.  In attendance will be members of Keep it California who also plan to have their voices heard.  Please consider attending this meeting from which I promise you will emerge either informed or enflamed, or perhaps both.

My name is Rebane, and I also expand on this and related themes on georgerebane.com where the transcript of this commentary is posted with relevant links, and where such issues are debated extensively.  However my views are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

 

Posted in , , ,

19 responses to “The Con-Con and SoJ debates”

  1. George Rebane Avatar

    Our designated reader reports that Mr Pelline first learned the motive for the upcoming SoJ Supes prezo from the above commentary, and became very worked up about it. For him this was apparently a revelatory disclosure. It always amazes how progressive heads think and perceive. Apparently some of these benighted people thought that NC SoJ steering committee had nothing else to do (along with the Supes) on 12 May, and just decided schedule this event with no expectation of its serving to convince the Board to act. But not all progressives are that dense; Keep it California will be there in full fettle to make sure that such an appeal is countered.

    Like

  2. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    If indeed the plan of the local organizing committee for the secession is to ask the BOS to adopt a resolution to secede from California then it is even more important that the decision:
    1) Be backed up by a specific economic analysis of the costs and benefits of secession;
    2) Be backed up by a legal analysis of the pros and cons and the representation structure we are proposing to be joining; and
    3) Provide equal time to both proponents and opponents of secession.
    I think it is illustrative that the Chair of the Board is refusing these things–largely because he is being bullied by the local Tea Partiers to call the question and provide the monkey trial to assuage their fears that our local Supervisors are not sufficiently conservative–or would take any such action without the deliberative process and information that the citizens deserve to back a decision.
    It is s show trial, a clown car, another example of whipping up the base to flex muscle, a parody of public process.

    Like

  3. George Rebane Avatar

    StevenF 832am – I’m sure all of those steps will be taken before the Supes make their decision. 12 May is just the launch, the first step of such an appeal. But your shrill characterization of it as a “show trial(??!!), clown car, …” serves to underline the real trepidation that our Left has about being separated from the Sacramento tit.

    Like

  4. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    When the free lunch leeches get upset you know you are getting close to their blood.

    Like

  5. fish Avatar
    fish

    Posted by: Steve Frisch | 23 April 2015 at 08:32 AM
    It is s show trial, a clown car, another example of whipping up the base to flex muscle, a parody of public process.

    C’mon Steve are you saying that only the left gets to “Mau Mau the Flak Catcher”?

    Like

  6. Brad C. Avatar
    Brad C.

    By jettisoning the proposed SoJ territories would Cali’s balance sheet stand to improve (or at least stay the time)? If so, that would be a good thing for SoJers to mention at the upcoming meeting. Having less territory to police and maintain might be beneficial to Cali.

    Like

  7. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    Fish, I I would say he name calls the SoJ effort since it could cut into the SBC treasury. All those grants telling Nevada City and others how to use their toilet paper and electrical current. What a hoot!

    Like

  8. George Rebane Avatar

    BradC 1109am – Good point, and I’m sure it will be made in due course. But IMHO such financial considerations may/will still take a back seat to the greater ideological battle that is being fought.

    Like

  9. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    It seems that neither Steven Frisch or his “Sierra Business Council” was terribly concerned all the books would balance with either NH2020 or California’s Climate Caliphate. Just click your heels together three times and believe. We’ll make it work, it’s a brave, new world.
    Insisting on a complete accounting for SoJ at this early stage is just a gambit to kill it off before it becomes a bigger pain in Frisch’s behind. I do think it a waste of time but then, most of politics is a waste of time, the reason I didn’t spend a lot of time with the trivial arts like rhetoric or political “science”.

    Like

  10. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I still would like Frisch to tell us who paid for his China trip a couple of years back.

    Like

  11. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “How much do you think the state will charge us for the state water project, central valley project, Humboldt and Chico state universities, the state parks,etc.”
    -Also Sprach Frisch, behind the FUE curtain
    Tell us, Steve, I’m going to guess you’ve been divorced at least once or at least have a clue about how it works… how does one split up community property? If the partnership has two cars, does the divorcing Person A have to buy it from their Ex, or do they get to keep their own car and their choice of the cat or the dog?
    It’s pretty well expected that if a couple have two homes, two cars and two dogs, each gets one and, all things being equal, doesn’t have to pay anything to their former sweetie for the privilege of not losing everything of their community property, and if the state property left behind in the SoJ is less (per capita or per acre? … another interesting question) than the pro rata property elsewhere in the state, how much does the new, smaller California have to pay it’s Jeffersonian ex for it getting shorted all along? Fascinating.
    The more interesting question is how much a SoJ would charge for its lifeblood being shipped elsewhere, and how much California would pay the SoJ for assets like the University of California system that it would be left without. The economic model Frisch seems to have for urban California and rural California, especially the proposed Jefferson counties, is more absentee landlord than equal citizenship, which is why the SoJ effort was launched in the first place.

    Like

  12. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    “How much do you think the state will charge us for the state water project, central valley project, Humboldt and Chico state universities, the state parks,etc.”
    Am still awaiting Steven Frisch, co-founder and current CEO of the wretchedly misnamed Sierra Business Council, returning to justify his apparent claim that any State of Jefferson that might be formed has no actual claim to any former State of California property within its borders and would have to compensate Sacramento for anything Sacramento had previously built within the new SoJ borders.
    Is that a fair assessment of your claims, Steve? From what sources did you put that theory together? The Treaty of Versailles, perhaps?

    Like

  13. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    The problem Greg is that the people of California did not finance the State Water Project, the ratepayers who use the water financed the system, through rates and property taxes (and a tideland oil tax), collected through the 29 state contractors who deliver the water, and the ratepayers and water agencies who are signatories to that agreement own the rights to use the water (after satisfaction of area or origin water rights designated in the Porter Cologne Act) and the right to use the facilities to deliver that water that are managed by the state. That contract gives them the right to the facilities and the water in perpetuity under current law.
    The State of Jefferson would need to break that contract, and I am sure the ratepayers and water contractors would require payment for the facilities should the contract be broken, which will NEVER happen, because without the water delivered by the contracts, there would be no Los Angeles, no Orange County, no San Diego, and no agriculture in the southern portion of the Central Valley.
    That is why this is NEVER going to happen. It is not like the State of Jefferson would own the right to use that water, or charge market rate for it.

    Like

  14. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Oh, and unlike your family friendly God fearing friend who has been married three times and divorced three times, I have been married once, for 27 years now, and never had to deal with any messy community property issues.

    Like

  15. fish Avatar
    fish

    That is why this is NEVER going to happen.
    And yet here you are in full proglodyte bed wetting mode hyperventilating as though it might.
    Should have listened to me Steve …..smug superiority suits you better. Leave the pathetic bleating for jeffy.

    Like

  16. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Oh, and that comment does not include repayment for the Central Valley Project, started in 1935 and the last major facility finished in about 1970, financed by the Feds, and as of 2006 less than 30% paid for. The revenue to pay back the Feds, is, wait for, the water sales.
    The State of Jefferson is NEVER going to happen because the SOJ does not have the assets to repay the debt, and the people who own the right to use the water are NEVER going to relinquish it.

    Like

  17. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    So Frisch did the government pay for your trip to China on your “fact finding” tour? That is, did the tax payers pay? Come on you can tell us. I would like you to fess up.

    Like

  18. Gregory Avatar
    Gregory

    Oh, my.
    For the sake of argument let’s accept Frisch’s account of the State Water Project in his 10:29. There’s nothing there that couldn’t be transferred to a SoJ. There’s no reason to think a new SoJ couldn’t get a share of current oil tax revenues pledged to debt service, no reason to think water users couldn’t change the address of the checks. And, I suspect if you read the actual contracts, the rates paid are not constant in perpetuity.
    It still comes down to who owns California… Californians, or the electeds in Sacramento? Hate to break it to you, but if something like 10% of Californians split off into a new state, the new state pretty much gets everything in the new state that used to be Californian.
    The big thing a new SoJ can’t afford is the public employee pension debt, and California can’t afford it either. SoJ people, wait until that gets discharged to get serious; you might even find California is a tolerable place once Sacramento really does run out of other people’s money and has to settle up.

    Like

  19. Todd Juvinall Avatar

    I recall back in the early 90’s when Truckee wanted to incorporate. We Supervisors did a economic study and there may have been more. They showed the city would fail since it was going to nbe huge and the population was not large enough. Well all that proved incorrect and Truckee made it and has survived. They do have a much higher number of “special districts” with their fees and taxes though.
    I also recall Eastern Nevada County and Placer County, maybe even El Dorado County, contemplated breaking away and becoming a new county since they said they had little in common with the western parts. It appears the tax cheat over there may be on to something?

    Like

Leave a comment