Facebook Friend Michael Smith:
Statistically speaking, voting for a Democrat is more of a danger to public safety than the Second Amendment will ever be.
From their stances on an ever expanding welfare state, open borders and terrorism, Democrat policies pose a statistically significant safety risk to the general public – including political beliefs of all types.
You have to show ID and undergo a background check to buy a gun, you do neither to vote – actually, Democrats think it is discriminatory to require an ID to vote.
I expect now that California is 100% owned and operated by a radically progressive Democrat Party, it will continue down a path to Venezuelation. Not even Venezuela’s rich natural resources saved it and neither will those of California. Illinois is a good predictor of where California is likely to wind up. Illinois is California without the beaches and mountains.
But given the socialist nature of our federal government, California and other Democrat dominated states assume that the other 49 states will bail them out.
Secession has been bandied about by both right and left as a reaction to political changes but I wonder if the trigger for secession (we don’t have a mechanism, to expel a state from the union) might wind up being more financially related than politically related.
I think think the catalyst, the spark that sets the whole shebang aflame and finally pushes this over the edge might be what comes of three things of which I have been thinking:
1. States with lower tax rates are going to draw greater populations and more revenue generating businesses.
2. They are going to object to paying for the spending in the spendthrift states – bailing other states out.
3. Population and business shifts will deplete the tax base of states with entrenched governments, unfunded pension liabilities and powerful public sector unions, thereby exacerbating the problems in states like Illinois, New York and California.
I predict that the straw that finally breaks the camel’s back will be a lawsuit, one filed by a high tax state like California against states that have low or no state income or property tax rates because they are unfairly “pricing” their states – the effect of which is to rob the high tax states of the taxpayers necessary to support their respective state governments. If the burden is increased in one state by out-migration, that will be called “unfair” and I think these states will turn to the courts for a remedy.
There are states now that levy fees that are essentially “exit taxes” that you must pay when you move to another state – but no matter how high those are, they are a one-time shot, not long term, recurring revenue.
There is a possibility that a governor or a state attorney general might try the invoke the Commerce Clause but I think it is more likely they would try to use the Fourteenth Amendment which states, in part:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
My peeps, we eat ridiculous for breakfast these days. We start there and end the day with absurdity for dinner.
If the courts agree that when one state with lower taxes draws a taxpayer or business away, it is equal to depriving the people of a bankrupt state of the “privileges” in that state associated with being a “citizen of the United States” and that based on the equal protection clause, all states must have “equivalent” tax rates to prevent taxpayers shopping low tax states.
This argument has already been used effectively in the federal takeover of education when it comes to programs offered and levels of funding. The Feds simply institute things like Title IX and you either comply or your funding goes away and you get sued. I think we will see an attempt before the end of Trump’s next term to apply the same technique to taxes. The debasement of the Tenth Amendment has already done damage, potentially irreparable damage, to state sovereignty – so I would not be surprised to see such a gambit attempted.
Mark my words, could be headed for a crisis of constitutional proportions – and it will be started by a lawsuit.