Pubs haven’t been in control for decades. No blaming them for CA’s fiscal woes.
Chronos said the “legacy”. So I assume he is referring to Proposition 13 and other anti-tax laws which were enacted in the late seventies.
Prop 13 passed with over 62% of the vote so blame both sides for that. And that was almost 50 years ago.
Republicans have claimed California’s “tax revolt” as one of their accomplishments. So if they want the credit, I feel they also get the blame.
As for it being fifty years ago, that’s how legacies work. They continue to have effects long after they were started. There’s currently a war being fought in the Middle East that’s the legacy of events that happened more than seventy years ago.
I don’t see how, by its very nature, it could be anything but antagonistic, so we certainly wouldn’t keep treating them like part of the United States. I think our approach would be, “You made your bed; now, lie in it.”
Good point, it’s much more than military bases and post offices. And would include other sensitive Federal departments: energy, IRS, intelligence, etc.
Defense companies could close their CA sites, but it seems more likely they would want to spin them off to serve the new CA market. It would be more efficient than gutting what they can and rebuilding the facilities in the contiguous 47 states.
Thinking about it more I don’t see how it could be antagonistic. Any state big enough to leave is too big to let go. The US could never let CA walk away with 10% of the stuff and 0% of the debt.
If it was an amiable split it would have to be phased over years along with an agreement to keep US bases in CA, free trade, and to provide defense.
Even that is unrealistic. The only possible option would be to allow more autonomy like has been done in Spain and elsewhere and that would be a stretch.
I don’t see antagonistic. More like coldly professional.