Friday, January 23, 2009

The Cost of Independence

Gaelan Brown at Vermont Commons, has written an interesting piece about buying our independence. The idea is that the Feds might accept a State's determination to become independent following negotiations on the State paying off its share of the national debt in a manner similar to the way an investment group buys out a subsidiary of a corporation. He estimates that debt to be $34,800 per person. (The figure for Ohio is $400.2 billion, which is a little less than the gross domestic product for Ohio in one year). He suggests that the economic pain can be minimized by the new Republic selling long-term bonds to its own residents.

Mr. Brown's conclusion is one we all need to consider:

"But that would mean that on average, each Vermonter would need to buy $34,000 worth of 'Second Vermont Republic' bonds, perhaps accessing cash via home-equity loans? *

OR, we could wait ten years until our share of the national debt has gone up to $100,000 per person.

OR, we could just keep our fingers crossed that Barack will 'save us' and keep passing off our obligations onto our children and grandchildren.

I think it's helpful if we reality-check ourselves and consider secession in this context. This is where the rubber meets the road."

One point Mr. Brown overlooks: a seceding State can also claim the per capita share of the Federal Government's assets for its population, and reduce the debt by that amount.

This will be difficult for the first State out, but easier for those that follow.

* Mr. Brown may need to consider one reason this crisis occurred -- too much mortgage debt leading to foreclosure.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

This post speaks directly to one of the major concerns of the folks over at Vermont Commons, i.e. the "nuts 'n bolts" of secession, as opposed to a well-intentioned, yet directionless, shouting from the roof tops.

During the preceding months leading up to the 1995 Quebec referendum on secession, bureaucrats from both the federal and provincial camps had been meeting in order to put some kind of a price tag on the separation of Quebec, should the referendum be successful (it wasn't by a hair).

IMO, state/provincial bargaining positions gain strength relative to the meltdown of federal coffers. Things could reach a stage where the feds are only too willing to off-load carrying costs that simply can no longer be met. This would be the financial tangent of the overall implosion of the nation-state.

Re "the first state out" I am beginning to wonder if that might not be Texas. Larry Kilgore's gubernatorial numbers far outweigh Sam Young's in Vermont. "The most likely to secede" is backed by soft poll numbers only, not the hard numbers of election results. Coupled with this would be Ron Paul floating the signal that, "Maybe Texas should secede from the Union."

Harold Thomas said...

My selection of the "first State out" link might have been misleading. My intent was to suggest what could happen for the first State out, not that South Carolina would be the first out.

The first State out may well be Texas, or Vermont, or Alaska, or ...who knows? There is much history to be written (in a short time, perhaps) before that becomes clear.