My father was a native Californian. In the 50's he received his degree in petroleum engineering from UC Berkeley. He had several job offers from oil companies. After graduation they flew him out to Houston. One exposure to the humidity and he was ready to get back on the plane. He returned to California and started working for IBM in their San Jose Labs where he helped design and build the very first disk drive. The RAMAC 350. I miss you dad.
I can certainly identify with your dad's story about the Texas humidity...I grew up in California's Central Valley and had never left the state until Air Force basic training in San Antonio six weeks after high school graduation. A group of us recruits flew into San Antonio from LAX around 9pm. I remember stepping out of the plan into the south Texas humidity and immediately it felt like I was hit with a wet blanket. The air was so thick, so hot and so wet. That was in July 1978, and I remember that feeling to this day -- 44 years later. May your dad's soul rest in eternal peace....
The way you just rapidly listed off the conservative counties as fast as you did is extremely impressive....you truly are, "The Geography King!" I always learn something and enjoy your videos King!
California City would be the perfect capital. The streets are already laid out and there's no buildings there yet, so they can design it any way they want.
As a native Californian in my 60s, I can tell you Californians do not understand either cold or humidity. I traveled extensively on business in my 40s. I remember flying into Minneapolis in the late spring. As I flew in the clouds were gray and overcast. In California a spring rain means cool and pleasant weather. I walked out of the air conditioned airport into a wall of water. Instant dripping sweat. The next day was clear and bright. I walked out of the reconditioned office once again into a wall of water. Growing up in California, I was unprepared for the humidity. I taught classes in California and would have Midwest and East Coast students. I enjoyed asking them to lookup the humidity in the paper. Here in the Bay Area, they don't print humidity in the paper anymore because it is generally between 20% and 50%. Pleasant, neither too wet or too dry. Californians do not understand cold either. It is something you go visit up in the Sierra Nevada mountains where extremely cold is anything below freezing and extended sub-zero (-15C) temperatures are rare. There are many parts of the country where any temperatures above freezing are considered balmy days. I remember someone from the upper Midwest pointing out they keep sleeping bags in their car because going outside in the winter can kill. As a friend from the easy coast told me once: "California has terrible weather. Bright, sunny and mild is not weather, it's climate." On the other hand, I lived in the Central Valley for a few years where we have 110+ degree temps in the summer. Yes it is a dry heat. But it is still freeking hot.
The awesome weather is my main reason to be in CA. PLUS, my wife makes good money... I am on CA state teacher retirement (STRS). And I have lived here since 1964 (I am 62) and will NEVER let the leftists drive me away.
Some people are upset in the comments crying that he's being "political." He said he was not gonna be a partisan hack. The things he's saying in the video are simply facts. Fun Fact: Every time I've ever heard someone complain about people "making things so political" the person always tends to be the most partisan of hacks that America has to offer. To them FACTS are "political" which is kinda sad tbh.
@@jardan3887 - Even if New California got a proportional share of the assets of California Classic (a dubious proposition at best. What reason would California Classic have to agree to this?), you'd still have to pay for staff, upkeep, etc... You're still going to need a butt load of new revenue. In fact, you'll need a relatively higher amount of revenue. Because everything will be more rural on average, and the logistics of operating in rural areas are more costly due to lack of infrastructure.
@@withlessAsbestos well they really are. Straight white conservatives are the only ones I've heard whining, and most of them have bypassed patriotism into nationalism. And they're the ones causing problems and whining about everything and playing the victim in everything to get their way. So he's not exactly very wrong.
It’s very refreshing to listen to a non-partisan view on this, because people tend to forget about actual facts. And I completely agree that no matter what is the political party of your state, it doesn’t affect your daily life that much. Climate, weather and the overall “beauty” of where you live are so much more important. Ultimately, that’s what’s gonna affect your mood, your plans for the day and more generally your well-being.
during covid id argue the political leaning of your state (or the cities that control the state politically in many cases) not only affects your daily life, but may be one of the biggest affects on your daily life
@@johnnymcjohnnysteinstein4375 I would argue that it still doesnt matter. I live in New york city. And even when it was at its worst. I went outside for walks. Got in my car and drove around just for something to do. No one stopped me. No one cared. Everyone was just trying to get by day by day. Politics only take over if you let it
@@luiscruz7343 I think Johnny might have been referring more to whether people have to wear masks or whether they can choose not to. But even then, I’d argue that it probably has less to do with state politics than it does with local politics. For example, I live in Burlington Wisconsin, and my local school board has chosen to make masks optional. But all Milwaukee Public schools have mandated masks for kids. So despite Wisconsin being ran by Tony Evers (a Democrat), I still can essentially live normal life Bc of the conservative choices my local government made. And this is true for pretty much any state of the union. Typically, huge cities tend to be more liberal, and smaller cities/towns tend to be more conservative. So for the most part, state politics have little to no impact on ur life. But imo, local politics can definitely have some impact, depending on the issue at hand of course.
@@joeryan9166 I can see that. And I can understand your point completely. But still, I was in NYC a complete liberal city and no one bothered me. Not one police officer state trooper asked me what I was doing. I went to work, went out to get a sandwich for lunch, took walks, went to public spaces. No one cared. So yeah local politics can affect your life, but you can always find ways to do what you want to do. Politics only take over if you let it be such a huge part of your life.
Excellent video and, being from the central valley and having lived in red and blue states, red and blue areas, you were just the man to do it. I watched this video immediately after watching your video on California HSR which is an illustrative transition. All of the ideas for a 2nd california state over the past few decades have been frankly ridiculous. If you're starting the conversation without separating LA and SF areas, its a non starter. The new state would not be at all economically viable. It would be one of the poorest states in the country and the resource management (of just water alone) would be catastrophic for the west. Also, the HSR project looks set to be a huge boon to the central valley. That project would be permanently dead if this went forward. I think splitting CA could make a lot of sense but it would have to be a north/south split. I believe I saw a video you did recently that discussed the topic and I think its the closest I've ever seen to a common sense, logical partition. For me personally, I'd split the states with the border starting somewhere in Big Sur, somewhere near Soledad in the Salinas valley, somewhere around Los Banos and Chowchilla in the Central Valley (so you have Merced in Northern CA and Fresno in Southern CA), then somewhere between Mariposa and Oakhurst along CA 49, then the border would be the Southern and Eastern edges of Yosemite NP, and then somewhere just to the west of CA highway 395, probably the ridgeline just to the west of 395 west and north of Sonora Junction. That would mean Yosemite NP is in Northern California but Mammoth and Mono Lake would both be in Southern CA.
The conservative counties in CA hold all the water. One of the big reasons CA won’t let them go. If it does happen, you can lower taxes and turn around and charge CA for the water.
Kyle, I love how you point out the flaws of both conservatives and liberals, and the best part is it's unbiased. I actually have no clue what your personal political bias is, and that's a great thing.
what are you guys talkin about? I love this guy‘s content, but he spent this entire video trashing one side, omitting any and all mention of the compelling rebuttals the side he opposes had already made to the tired list of arguments he repeats
Up until this year, I would have agreed with you. But living in California compared to Florida this year are completely different experiences. California has had the most aggressive measures in tackling Covid. Florida had minimal restrictions in the beginning and is now completely open.
@@MustardMan7321 The results of the ill-conceived recall election show that the majority of people appreciated the strong government response to COVID in CA. And CA's economy is doing very well. You are in a minority. You really prefer Florida's approach, where the governator is campaigning for his next election, while having COVID numbers massaged to conceal deaths? You can move there and your dream would be realized.
Isn't income lower in "New California" which means less income tax revenue and lower property values to tax? Maybe that's the real reason they wanted San Diego County - people with money.
The only reason to break a state into pieces (IMO) is if there were really two sections of the state with different priorities, but this proposal, just like the five caliifornia proposal, is just the aimless musing of conservatives who can't think of any practical way of gaining support. An example of a more geographically rational way to break up the state is to divide the south from the north at the grapevine. More than half the state lives in the highly urban south, which is mostly city or desert, while the Bay Area, Central Valley, Central Coast, and Northern California has a much more diverse composition. Both states would still be highly liberal, but they'd be able to forge more focused policy on their particular problems. Ag would have much more of a say in Northern California, and the Bay Area wouldn't play second fiddle to LA anymore. The big problem with any proposal to divide California would be A) sharing water, and B) sharing the University system.
You make a lot of sense. I used to live in Santa Clara County and spent a lot of time in Berkeley, SF and Santa Cruz and love (most things about) the state. Having said that, we want to move from high tax New Jersey where, you know what, the taxes are really high (property & income), and sales tax is no real bargain either. I could start a movement to have a New New Jersey lol but u bring up good points. Instead, it would be nice (and simpler) if a chunk of California broke off ... and became part of low (including no income) tax Nevada. The beauty and great climate of California with the low taxes of Nevada, now that's a practical solution to a complex problem. And we'd move there in a heartbeat.
"New California" is funny because "Greater Idaho" (even more ridiculous) wants to usurp 7 of the "New California" counties. I wonder if they'll have to fight a war over that. (laugh emojis here) Edit: 17:37 is THE BEST. OG Humboldt County girl here.
splitting the state isn’t entirely a bad idea (though im from the midwest, so im not all that familiar with the area), but it likely wouldn’t work. i hear similar ideas about illinois and new york all the time. here’s what i think would be an interesting and realistic possibility. so new california forms. they eliminate the income tax. a good bit of the tech companies based not too far away around the bay move to stockton/modesto. they’re pretty close to the bay area, but avoid the income taxes. suddenly they’re back where they started, both states are heavily liberal.
It would work fine if not for the existence of the counter-majoritarian nature of the Senate. Get rid of it, the Electoral College, and elect all representatives proportionally and hack away.
Actually, the images you show at 6:50 and 6:55 when referencing Contra Costa county are pictures of Benicia California which is in Solano county. The first image shows the port of Benicia to the left, which is on the east side of town and you can actually see the Martinez bridge still under construction. The second image is on the west side of town, and it shows Ninth street park looking out over the Carquinez Strait. I live in the bay and I visit Benicia a lot. It’s cool to see such a tiny town on your video.
I calculated, the total results from all the counties they proposed for New California for the 2020 election went 57% biden 41% trump. You are literally still in a safe blue state, but now have to worry about the state economy and services not crumbling when shit hits the fan
Non partisan view? Nope. New California State is about rural versus city. LA and San Francisco and coastal in between will stay. Rural parts of counties such as Monterey County will go and break away from the whale watchers.
It's not at all about rural and urban. Mendocino, Humboldt, Lake, Alpine, Mono and Imperial Counties are all rural and liberal. Bakersfield has almost 400,000 people and is where House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is from. Duncan Hunter and Darell Issa are from San Diego. The point of the video is to show just how little the people that came up with this idea know about the geography of California.
I've lived in the Bay Area since birth 50 years ago and I've never heard of this. I'd only heard of Jefferson, part of far northern California and very southern Oregon.
There are super rich and "the rest" everywhere in the state. I grew up in the Central Valley and there were a TON of ultra rich. Those corporate farmers aren't poor. And there are plenty of poor folk along the coast. And that's true for all 50 states. This issue is absolutely about politics and nothing else. Even the guy behind the idea is a political pundit on the radio and he has stated himself that the issue is to break away from the left. I don't do politics on this channel. I was simply pointing out that this idea wasn't well thought out and that it can't work.
But you know, it's more about the divide between rural, and the urban populations, than it is about the left and right. We have the same problem in Washington State. The urbanized areas of the State dominate the government by way of voting demographics, and rural residents feel they have no say in legislative issues, or governance in Washington, as a whole.
"Super rich" will become even more rich in any form of a Socialist state. Look at the unlimited income level of the Communist leaders compared to the nothingless of the miserables, or "deplorables" in their countries. I'd say: NO USSR in the USA!
@@GeographyKing plus they said in one video they want to leave because of Taxes Anti Trump laws Anti white laws Forcing kids to be trans Homes are costing high And There government is evil I'm not from California but I was born and raised in Washington and moved to Florida But we though about moving to California but
Remember that to form a new state from an existing state, the current state legislature needs to give its blessing. Do you honestly think that the inland counties want to give up the huge population and tax base of the coastal counties?
When I was a young(er) man, I worked in hospitality in various ski resort towns in the Canadian Rockies, and a lot of our day-to-day work involved being outside. On really cold days, we'd sneak around to the back door of the restaurant's kitchen and go in the walk-in freezer to warm up LOL
Bm 6:13; POLITICALLY Bias; 1:35 Since When is the CONSTITUTION Politically Bias, Contradiction, 2:01; It's just the way it is, 3:30; this reminds me of What nancy pelosi said "it is, what it is" Nowhere do I hear the Word "fed", Does the fed dictate to the State?, What's Common Law? Only tells Presidential Election for each County, nothing is said about other Offices 4:25; 6:00; Take sanctuary cities illegals and disperse them to surrounding counties, Now We See why the fed has open Border Policy, The People of each County gets to Vote to Join the New California, if it's a FAIR Election, 6:15;
I would love to see a video on taxes per person ( sales, property, income..) basically how much taxes it takes to run a state, either by population or by area.
I live in Contra Costa County. I didn’t even know my county was going to be a part of the breakaway California until watching this video. You cite our record of voting for Democrats as a reason why we would not fit in with this new CA, you showed our voting record to support your point, but those voting statistics don’t capture everything. Socially we might be liberal but if you look at how we run our own county the political culture here is more complex, and I dare say we might have more in common with this breakaway California movement than it seems on the surface. I could explain here, but I just left a lengthy post on another video of yours that was longer than intended and you probably aren’t interested in reading another lengthy post.
I think the bigger issue with the breakaway movement is that the counties this group want to include are financially dependent on the ones they want to break away from. I see the issue more economic than political even though the idea is driven by politics.
my mind is blown that so many people take this video at face value as “unbiased” when you spent the whole time trashing one side and omitting any mention of the compelling rebuttals the “new California“ people you insult as old white and stupid have publicly offered to these same arguments. you point to 52% of the vote for clinton as evidence of a given county being a liberal stronghold, forgetting that 40% of the population is still a pretty good number of people, then you chuckle to yourself at the comparative economic prospects of a successionist state as if “old california’s” wealth isn’t far more concentrated in hands of the 40% that voted AGAINST clinton. you overlook the number of Americans from CA & elsewhere in the country that would enthusiastically migrate to a such a haven of constitutionalist freedom & sensible policy, away from the vomitous decay of our once beautiful urban centers. the best part is how you act as if European Americans haven’t historically demonstrated an ability to get things done, couldn’t figure out how to finance natural resources & disaster management or to raise crops without illegal labor. farmers are forced to hire a legal labor when they are in competition with other farmers who already have. and Kyle you have admitted elsewhere that you are hardly unbiased on the topic of whether the US & Mexico should have a border at all. I love your content but this one was anything but non-partisan and I’m pretty disappointed
I like how he starts off dismissing all the other videos about this as biased & partisan but then spends the rest of the video trashing conservatives and pretending the “new CA” people don’t have compelling rebuttals to these tired arguments. it’s worth noting that he’s stated elsewhere that he considers himself “mexican”
Not true. I'm from Illinois, and while most of the state is conservative outside of Chicagoland, the following areas are not: Rock Island Metro, Peoria, Bloomington/Normal (Moderate), Champaign/Urbana, Springfield, Metro St. Louis area, Carbondale.
This "New California" would be pretty liberal as well. Maybe a bit less so. But having some larger urban/suburban liberal cities like San Diego, Orange County, and Contra Costa, would just drown out the rural inland conservatives and just create the same problem they're trying to avoid, just without Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco.
This is FANTASTIC!!! I've tried to explain this to others, but was never as succinct and to the point! Of course, I have not taken New California as seriouslyas the State of Jefferson, mostly because that movement is 80 years old, but growing larger and some of those countries have already voted to leave California. It would definitely be more conservative, but where's economic driver of the state? All those miles off road and forrest to keep up, but not much tax base - especially if they don't want to pay much. Everything you said about essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face applies, only more so. Thank you for this. Sorry I was so late to your channel.
you guys act like wh!t3 people are inept and unable to think clearly or roll up their sleeves and get things done. farmers only need to hire illegal labor when they are in competition with other farmers who already have. they would manage it all just fine if not better
I broke down the 2018 gubernatorial race and inland California still voted 55/45 Democrat so it's not even an issue of "in x years the state will be blue." It would already lean D.
it might lean dem but it wouldn’t be crazy far-left like the coastal areas. like all of the california emissions things probably wouldn’t be the interior portions of the state
I commend the attempt (however, i suspect a bit more veiled, than objective, as you initially claim at the start...) to make some kind of sense of this 51st state issue... but perhaps next time try starting without the premiss that nothing's currently wrong with Cali's economic and socio status? California is currently facing just about the same economic struggles as Kansas... there is a reason that the 51st state supporters are growing, or that the movement is here in the first place.
The point I was trying to make was that this wouldn't work, regardless of how gung-ho the movement's supporters are. Every state faces budget issues, but for whatever reason this New California movement is looking at divorce as the best option. I suspect it's because a radio talk show host is the one behind all of this and is simply pushing his ideas foreward without really thinking about it or examining the consequences.
Yeah, I can see your points, and completely agree with that idea that their initial proposal is off-base just a bit... it is sad that the conversation even comes to this...I would not be surprised to see them start canvasing lobbying district to district though, and in the end we'll see how much "real" support the 51st stated movement gets...while state legislature districts are spread across the state, obviously the most populous areas will see the highest number of districts, so...
@@hero92694able but you do realize that to build a mile of road cost two million dollars. In a city or Urban environment that $2 million for that 1 mile is divided by 50,000 people. Which comes out to just $40 each. But in a rural community/small town, to build the same two miles of road will be split between 500 tax payers. That's $4,000 per each taxpayer. Now you have to connect all your small little towns that stretch a vast large states. Also you have to account for pipelines, rural electrification, gas infrastructure, wastewater pipes, freshwater pipes, fiber optics etc. A lot of people don't realize that Rural America is 100% subsidized by cities. cities are not just efficient economically but they're the most viable structure for any society. Do you actually believe Verizon wants to build a 4G/5G tower for just small communities. No!!!. The states and the federal government subsidized telecom companies to build towers in rural communities.why? Because it's not profitable. This has nothing to do with politics, I live in New York and we have the same issue, but it's a fact that is the cities that generate the bulk of the tax revenue. this new California can never be economically viable, I'll be the first one to donate when I see the Sarah McLachlan commercials come on......btw the same issue in regards to taxes between rural and city folks is also playing out on the national level. The amount of taxes New York and other large states pays to the federal government gets redistributed to other poorer states. but yet everyone complains that New York and California are welfare states.
@@SofaSpy You realize New California isn’t 100% rural. The second most populous county in California is in New California. Orange and Kern county are both very populated as well. It’s more of a partisan divide, which I don’t mind because I feel like California’s government is becoming extremely corrupt.
Frankly this is very true. I'm from Georgia (swing state) and there are a lot of conservatives who have "escaped" to Florida before the state goes full liberal. Florida has a higher sales tax, the weather is way worse, the cost of housing is ridiculously high especially around Miami, and the few white nationalistic conservatives are escaping a majority white county (Forsyth) to go to Miami-Dade, which is majority Hispanic. In any case, I prefer it here as a centrist. Not too hot.
My Mom used to say, and we are descendants of the original California pioneers,..." too many people, too little water, most of those folks need to go back east, and take their east coast thinking with them!" If the people of Calif would wake up and vote out the robbers in Sacramento, the state could be restored. Some real old time liberal values, along with some conservative realism, that would do it. That is what made the state great in the past. Personally I would like to see the Committee of Vigilance revived!!!
As many wise men have said, we are all part of the web of life, and all connected, true, but at the same time we are not an illusion but quite real. read what I posted by Carl Sagan, here it is,....“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” ― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Reeling off those obscure California county names from memory is impressive geographical nerdiness. Seriously though, you’ve outlined the futility of the New California movement. As someone who lived in California from 1970 to 1978 (Berkeley, San Francisco, Sonoma, Sacramento - as a mobile grad student) and again from 2012 to the present (Palm Springs - immobile retirement) I’ve always thought that the logical way to split the state in two is along the north south divide. However, considering all of the practical matters you’ve outlined I’m persuaded that any attempt to split California into two or more states is a virtual impossibility.
A decision of this type should not be based upon politics. California is an economic powerhouse, a huge success. Dividing the state into two could have unexpected results from an economic perspective.
There are good reasons to consider splitting big states, especially along geographic lines, but splitting a state along purely partisan lines like this, especially with the liberal counties they want to take along for their conservative fantasy ride...is just not a good plan in any way, shape or form. The only really viable splits for California are the NorCal/SoCal divide-which would create two powerful and decently liberal states, but each slightly weaker without the other, or reviving the ol’ State of Jefferson movement in the rural areas along the Oregon/California border, which would give the conservatives up there their own state with more sensible geographic continuity, but having to accept that they as a state will probably never have a strong economy.
you guys point to 52% of the vote for clinton as evidence of a given county being a liberal stronghold, forgetting that 40% of the population is still a pretty good number of people, then you laugh at the comparative economic prospects of a successionist state as if “old california’s” wealth isn’t far more concentrated in hands of the 40% that voted AGAINST clinton. you overlook the number of Americans from California and elsewhere in the country that would enthusiastically migrate to a such a haven of freedom and sensible policy, away from the vomitous decay of our once beautiful urban centers. the best part is how you act as if European Americans couldn’t figure out how to manage natural resources and disasters or to raise crops without illegal labor
I stopped watching after about a third of it. I was getting nothing about geography, which is your specialty. You seem to be talking solely about voting trends. What about water resources? Transportation access? Population movements? Disappointed that you didn't focus on such things.
This video is definitely outside of the norm from my typical videos. These initiatives to split california up make me kind of irritated and I just wanted to state my opinion on them. But after talking about voting trends I did talk about the geography of the counties and why they were chosen to be part of the movement. But I'm definitely going to be sticking to geography for the vast majority of my videos.
Thanx for your reply. I'm going to trespass on your patience by offering my own core impression of the California split proposal. In my view, the first requirement of having a separate sovereignty is to have a separate nation, meaning there has to be a strong culture identity different from the cultural identity in other places. My impression is that there is indeed a cultural distinction between the people in the respective territories in California, but I'm not clear that it is strong enough to serve the purpose of making viable separate states. Trained as an economist, I have to take exception to your judgments about the economics of separation. That there would have to be great adjustments is certainly true, but I believe you have not taken account of every entry on the books, so to speak. For example, you deprecate the "business friendliness" of Texas, but focus only on the taxes businesses there have to pay. The reason businesses have been leaving California and relocating to Texas is due less to tax differences than it is to differences in regulatory burden. This points to a weak point in your analysis, that you are relying on present numbers instead of looking to what could be in a new state. And I find not at all persuasive your notion that the new state would have to replicate the universities, the emergency services, and all sorts of other things. The whole notion of separation is premised on differences, differences that already exist and those than are desirable to develop. Nothing can be taken for granted as necessary for replication in a separated territory. Thank you for the video and for your measured and civil response, something of a rare phenomenon on UA-cam.
Geography King, I should have added another consideration working against splitting up California. Even if California as a whole is willing to split up, the new state would have to be admitted to the union. I think that is unlikely to be acceptable to the other states because it would undoubtedly stoke separatist movements already existing in other states, most strongly in Maryland and New York, but of significance also in Washington, Virginia, Florida, and a few others. People are going to ask whether we really want a further "Balkanization" of the country.
Social speaking there basically is no difference between say "urban vs rural" or "liberal vs conservative". It's not quite so simple economically. There's plenty of "Socialism for me, but none for thee" "conservatives" in rural areas (as pointed out in the video, no rural counties/states are looking to stop being net takers from their state/federal government), but that goes back to their social conservatism. Somehow *they* are deserving of the help, but everyone else isn't, because... reasons. I just saw a video of Craig T. Nelson on Glen Beck unironically saying that he when he was on welfare and foodstamps "no one helped him out". When, of course, welfare and foodstamps *are the help.* Because in the mind of a conservative when they get welfare, it's not welfare.
Your comments on taxes and those just wanting to reduce and reduce taxes (what they actually mean is just reduce taxes on the rich, who the past 20-30 years have just got richer and richer) is exactly what the UK government have been trying to do, and they haven't explained how they are going to pay for the cuts. it spooked the markets, pushed interest rates up, which has increased the cost of mortgages, the Bank of England had to intervene to stay the ship by investing £60bn to steady everything (in a new state they wouldn't have this so it would bankrupt them). So you are so right, this just hasn't been thought out. It's more about getting the votes for winning back Congress and the Senate, making it harder for the Democrats to win the Presidency, that's all it's about and sod the consequences!!! Great rant against this!!! All this said I think it is a reaction to the current US electoral system. The electoral college votes should be split by the proportion of the votes cast for each party by the people of the state. That way everyone feels their vote has counter and democracy would function better imo.
I’m from Maine, and my reaction to the Nee California movement is the same as all the other splitting states movements and the like, it’s largely politically motivated and as you said, it fails to consider the many other factors, including the logistics of running a state. Also, ofc California has problems (all places do), but it’s in a better position, especially with it’s tremendous resources as you said, to solve those problems if it stays as one
That was started back when California first was a state because there was no easy way to get over the mountains north of LA to get to the capital. In those days, southern California didn't have enough votes to split off. By the turn of the century (1900), socal had grown enough that splitting was becoming a possibility. In 1915 the old Ridge Route was completed and that provided easier access to northern California and staved off the split. Now southern California has the majority of the votes and it needs norcal for all the water they get from there, so is in its best interest not to split the state. That's why it's never happened, even though a bill to split the state has been introduced every legislative session since the 1860s.
I like your videos, thanks for making them. I'm curious if you feel different now about your comment stating politics has no impact on one's day to day life.
Cal Fire would absolutely help, because if they didn’t, that fire could spread to them. The US Forest Service would also help. The capital would likely be in Santa Maria. It has everything needed, and they would LOVE the growth. Emergency personnel will stay and be repatriated to work for the new state. Why wouldn’t they? Few people would move, not even the liberals, because they know what a fishbowl old CA has just become.
Can you make a “Greater Idaho” video? You don’t need to discuss all politics but maybe look at natural geographic borders between states. Maybe transfer both eastern part of Washington and both eastern and southern parts of Oregon to Idaho. They have also been taking about parts of Northern California. What will the population for the these states be after moving of borders? Of cause everyone knows that this will never happen because it needs to be approved by all states involved and the federal government, but it would be nice to see the numbers on population, economy and other important issues.
Texas is huge too. I'm sure there are liberals there that would love to break off from mainstream Texas. Separation is not the answer, especially when it would most hurt the ones that came up with the idea. Every single state has a political minority and people that don't agree with their state government.
All of these states need to be separated then. The country is tired of being ruled by people who hate their way of life. It’s time for a national divorce at this point.
PREFECT SOLUTION: Californian split from the U.S. and become a separate nation. California will be happy. The remaining 49 states will be REALLY happy.
The examples of hypocrisy regarding redistribution of wealth is a false equivalency. Kyle, I do wish you would understand that criticizing "both sides" doesn't make you more "balanced" when both sides aren't at fault.
Not at all. The biggest problem I had with it is that the people that came up with the plan think that they can decide which counties go in which state without voters approving it.
There is a problem with the very concept of a "51st state", the assumption being that, if a new state is formed within US territory, it MUST join the existing Washington, D.C. union. That is a faulty (and unimaginative) assumption. How about a scenario in which a group of, say, ten States separate from D.C. to form a new regional federation on the continent, then areas within those States, in turn, separate to become the 11th, 12th, or 13th State of that federation? More lateral thinking on these matters could very well lead us to a better, happier, more proper, and more satisfying state of affairs.
@@argentorangeok6224 160 years ago, America was on an upward slope towards empire, Now, it is on a downward slope from empire. Furthermore, the Declaration stipulated free and independent States as the primary political units, not unions of states, the numbers and sizes of which are merely incidental and conditional. This stipulation was re-iterated in the Articles of Confederation, and, again, in the 1783 peace treaty with Britain, but was then derailed at the Philadelphia Convention, the delegates to which were only supposed to amend the Articles, but, instead, went beyond their powers in passing the pseudo-federal const. of 1787, which centralizers of power have ever since opportunistically glommed onto as the source of their "authority". The key for present-day secessionists is to lay bare the illegitimate origins of the current American "union", and the States can exercise their sovereign right and prerogative to leave it behind in favor of new political arrangements. Deprive a regime of its legitimacy, and, regardless of how much power it may wield, it simply cannot act.
@@vhsprospector7192 I'm with you. I'm simply saying that it would be bad. The deep state wouldn't allow it to happen. Violence would be required. People are starting to talk about civil war and most of them probably think it will look like a kick-ass Mel Gibson movie. It would be ugly even if the "good guys" mopped the floor with the "bad guys". I really wish we could just amicably split up into two or maybe three countries and each side leave the other to its own devices and consequences.
The proposed counties for NC is based on the same thinking that goes into Gerrymandering. Combine some liberal areas within the borders, as long as the majority remains conservative. As you have pointed out, the minority liberals would never join this folly.
Its 1:am and I am falling asleep, one last thought if I may, “...vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76 now look to a single and splendid government of an Aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and monied in corporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry.” ~Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson ..well, politics can effect your way of life and here lies what is wrong in America today and in every state, good night!
Kyle ay ? That’s not going to be hard to Rhyme with another word that is negative I am not looking at this from a political side so let me tell you about this from my political side
Just because someone says something about a political issue that doesn't go along with your predetermined opinion doesn't mean the information is political. The only even remotely political thing in this video is me simply stating the actual election results for various counties. Not even an opinion, just the actual numbers. The only way anyone would think this plan would work would be if they were told so by political propaganda. It was the same thing with a video I posted about gentrification, something that liberals hate. In the video I stated it's not that bad and can be good, and liberal comments were like "but it kicks out black people! Gentrification is terrible!". I'm a geographer. A nerd. I don't care about people's political opinions. I care about the realities of the geography of the US. To think that either party has a monopoly on good or bad ideas is ridiculous.
I LOVE THIS VIDEO!!! I’m a huge Carolina Panthers fan (Because Rams left L.A.) and those fans in the “SOUTH”, of North Carolina, hate “those Californians”. 🤷🏽♂️
New California would have less income so state services, like roads and the highway patrol would decline. I would also expect state forestry to decline, emergency services, both paramedic units and emergency rooms to decline. Emergency preparedness would decline. The average state income tax in California is not the highest, it is the marginal rate of 13%, which applies to a small part of the population may be the highest, but for the rest I don't agree. Just Google the tax load total, including property, sales tax and such to find California turns out to be about 25th-30th in the U.S.
I agree this is not unique to California but at the same time I do think it’s incredibly unfair to have them be part of the same state . I do think it’s incredibly unfair for the Conservative population in California force to pay taxes on stuff they don’t want against their will because of the liberal cities . Also I agree with you that the borders they have drawn doesn’t make any sense the borders I would have drawn would make more sense than the borders they have drawn .
As an American, I’d like to see larger states like the Canadian Provinces. Break the US up into like 5-7 states. Be cool to see a map video on that idea from you.
bad idea, 5-7 is too few. something like 20-30 would be better. there's a good atlas pro video about this topic. anyways, I think with 5-7 states there wouldn't be a way to draw compact borders that would keep similar political/cultural/ethnic/geographical features. perhaps if someone could figure out a way to split the country into 33 states each with 10 million people that would be great.
The State of California at the State-level has more than $59.83 billion of the taxpayer's money it is not using, i. e. surpluses in excess of 1,695 for every man, woman and child in California or $6,779 for a family of 4. This does not include all the additional surpluses that exist in the school districts, cities, or counties in California. The Exhibit A below shows the results of the review. What are these surpluses we refer to? Government surpluses, as used in this report, are funds that are not required or needed for the operation of all government operations, funds, accounts, agencies, etc., directly or indirectly, for the year(s) covered by the budget which is usually one year. Theoretically, at the end of every fiscal year, governments should have little or no cash/investments on hand. But what we have found is that most governments have huge amounts of cash and investments on hand at the end of the fiscal year. And somehow these cash and investments are not being recycled back through the budget process the next year, but are being held year-after-year. A Government Can Have a Budget Deficits/Shortfalls and Financial Surpluses At The Same Time. This is the most deceiving topic that governments, politicians, and the news media have conveyed to the public about governmental financial matters. In realty, a government can simultaneously have a budget shortfall and a financial surplus of the taxpayers' money. The problems are focused in four areas: 1. The budget only covers a small portion of the State's financial condition. There are a group of funds not part of the budget process. The complete list of funds and budgetary requirements are found in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). This report depicts the complete financial status of the State. The budget only covers a portion of the financial resources of the government. A Little Background: The CAFR usually has four categories. Governmental Funds Proprietary Funds Fiduciary Funds Component Units Governmental Funds involve activities of the government including most basic services such as environmental resources, general government, transportation, education, health and human services, and protection of persons and property. Most of the cost of these activities are financed by taxes, fees , and federal grants. Proprietary Funds are used when a government charges customers for the services it provides, whether to outside customers or to other agencies with the state. For example, Enterprise Funds, a component of proprietary funds, are for activities that provide goods and services to outside (non-government) customers, which includes the general public. Fees, charges for services or goods, assessments, fines, licenses, etc. are the major revenue sources. Fiduciary Funds are activities in which the state acts as a trustee or fiduciary to hold resources for the benefit of others. These funds are pension trust funds, investment trusts, and agency funds (which are for assets held for distribution by the government as an agent for other governmental units, other organizations, or individuals). Component Units reportedly are legally separated organizations for which the government is financially accountable. Usually fees, charges for services or goods, assessments, fines, penalties, licenses, etc. are the major revenue source. The budget, as commonly known to the public, only involves the Governmental Funds and may not even include all of the governmental-type funds. The remainder of the Funds shown above are not part of the budget and are commonly called "off-budget" items. 2. Next year's budget consists only of next year's estimated revenues and next year's estimated expenditures. Previous years' revenues not used (spent) are normally not considered in the next year's budget, but should be. In other words, the previous years' revenues (as shown in the CAFR) are not recycled back to the budget process.
CA has to keep a large amount of cash on hand in the event of a major earthquake. The feds don't bail out CA for disasters like they do for FL, TX, or most other states.
@@GeographyKingThe other states maintain huge illegal surpluses as well. CA is stealing more because there is more to steal. CA is retaining astronomically more than is allowed under the GFOA guidelines. It is amazing to me that you are rationalizing the theft in this way.
Cities are the economic drivers in a state because that's where most of the companies are located, so that's where most of the high paying jobs are located, so that's also where most of the population is located, so that's where most of the tax revenue is generated....and it isn't a coincidence that most of the college educated population lives in cities. Cities also tend to be more liberal than rural areas of most states....are you connecting the dots yet? If these rural red counties think they can survive without the huge tax base provided by the liberal cities, they are dreaming. Just like all these proposals for red states to secede from the union...good luck surviving without all that sweet green federal money from the blue states that props them up.
My father was a native Californian. In the 50's he received his degree in petroleum engineering from UC Berkeley. He had several job offers from oil companies. After graduation they flew him out to Houston. One exposure to the humidity and he was ready to get back on the plane.
He returned to California and started working for IBM in their San Jose Labs where he helped design and build the very first disk drive. The RAMAC 350.
I miss you dad.
I can certainly identify with your dad's story about the Texas humidity...I grew up in California's Central Valley and had never left the state until Air Force basic training in San Antonio six weeks after high school graduation. A group of us recruits flew into San Antonio from LAX around 9pm. I remember stepping out of the plan into the south Texas humidity and immediately it felt like I was hit with a wet blanket. The air was so thick, so hot and so wet. That was in July 1978, and I remember that feeling to this day -- 44 years later. May your dad's soul rest in eternal peace....
Lies
I never knew I was so interested in cool stuff about the states till I found you. Thank you. I love your videos
Thank you! I'm glad you found the channel!
I absolutely agree!
The way you just rapidly listed off the conservative counties as fast as you did is extremely impressive....you truly are, "The Geography King!" I always learn something and enjoy your videos King!
I wouldn't be surprised if he has notes off-screen, behind or to the side of the camera. Well researched nonetheless!
He forgot Butte.
I've been binge watching your channel all day! Good stuff! 👍
Thanks!
Lol same here, very entrataining, especially the maps videos
Same I've already watched all my fav phys. Geo videos
California City would be the perfect capital. The streets are already laid out and there's no buildings there yet, so they can design it any way they want.
16:00
Why isn't Kern County on this table?
@Arch Stanton It's not in LA County. It's in Kern County.
As a native Californian in my 60s, I can tell you Californians do not understand either cold or humidity. I traveled extensively on business in my 40s. I remember flying into Minneapolis in the late spring. As I flew in the clouds were gray and overcast. In California a spring rain means cool and pleasant weather. I walked out of the air conditioned airport into a wall of water. Instant dripping sweat. The next day was clear and bright. I walked out of the reconditioned office once again into a wall of water. Growing up in California, I was unprepared for the humidity.
I taught classes in California and would have Midwest and East Coast students. I enjoyed asking them to lookup the humidity in the paper. Here in the Bay Area, they don't print humidity in the paper anymore because it is generally between 20% and 50%. Pleasant, neither too wet or too dry.
Californians do not understand cold either. It is something you go visit up in the Sierra Nevada mountains where extremely cold is anything below freezing and extended sub-zero (-15C) temperatures are rare. There are many parts of the country where any temperatures above freezing are considered balmy days. I remember someone from the upper Midwest pointing out they keep sleeping bags in their car because going outside in the winter can kill.
As a friend from the easy coast told me once: "California has terrible weather. Bright, sunny and mild is not weather, it's climate."
On the other hand, I lived in the Central Valley for a few years where we have 110+ degree temps in the summer. Yes it is a dry heat. But it is still freeking hot.
Good weather softens people and make them loopy.
The awesome weather is my main reason to be in CA. PLUS, my wife makes good money... I am on CA state teacher retirement (STRS). And I have lived here since 1964 (I am 62) and will NEVER let the leftists drive me away.
Some people are upset in the comments crying that he's being "political." He said he was not gonna be a partisan hack. The things he's saying in the video are simply facts.
Fun Fact: Every time I've ever heard someone complain about people "making things so political" the person always tends to be the most partisan of hacks that America has to offer. To them FACTS are "political" which is kinda sad tbh.
@@jardan3887 - Even if New California got a proportional share of the assets of California Classic (a dubious proposition at best. What reason would California Classic have to agree to this?), you'd still have to pay for staff, upkeep, etc... You're still going to need a butt load of new revenue. In fact, you'll need a relatively higher amount of revenue. Because everything will be more rural on average, and the logistics of operating in rural areas are more costly due to lack of infrastructure.
He constantly referred to the northerners as White Nationalists
@@withlessAsbestos well they really are. Straight white conservatives are the only ones I've heard whining, and most of them have bypassed patriotism into nationalism. And they're the ones causing problems and whining about everything and playing the victim in everything to get their way. So he's not exactly very wrong.
@@ekselentofficial they’re playing the victim. Then why are all those white liberal college kids acting like they’re more important than George Floyd.
@@withlessAsbestos in what way are they acting like they're more important than George Floyd?
It’s very refreshing to listen to a non-partisan view on this, because people tend to forget about actual facts.
And I completely agree that no matter what is the political party of your state, it doesn’t affect your daily life that much.
Climate, weather and the overall “beauty” of where you live are so much more important. Ultimately, that’s what’s gonna affect your mood, your plans for the day and more generally your well-being.
during covid id argue the political leaning of your state (or the cities that control the state politically in many cases) not only affects your daily life, but may be one of the biggest affects on your daily life
@@johnnymcjohnnysteinstein4375 I would argue that it still doesnt matter. I live in New york city. And even when it was at its worst. I went outside for walks. Got in my car and drove around just for something to do. No one stopped me. No one cared. Everyone was just trying to get by day by day. Politics only take over if you let it
@Dick White I was talking about during covid? You know. What the other OP commented about
@@luiscruz7343 I think Johnny might have been referring more to whether people have to wear masks or whether they can choose not to. But even then, I’d argue that it probably has less to do with state politics than it does with local politics. For example, I live in Burlington Wisconsin, and my local school board has chosen to make masks optional. But all Milwaukee Public schools have mandated masks for kids. So despite Wisconsin being ran by Tony Evers (a Democrat), I still can essentially live normal life Bc of the conservative choices my local government made. And this is true for pretty much any state of the union. Typically, huge cities tend to be more liberal, and smaller cities/towns tend to be more conservative. So for the most part, state politics have little to no impact on ur life. But imo, local politics can definitely have some impact, depending on the issue at hand of course.
@@joeryan9166 I can see that. And I can understand your point completely. But still, I was in NYC a complete liberal city and no one bothered me. Not one police officer state trooper asked me what I was doing. I went to work, went out to get a sandwich for lunch, took walks, went to public spaces. No one cared. So yeah local politics can affect your life, but you can always find ways to do what you want to do. Politics only take over if you let it be such a huge part of your life.
Can we get videos on more state partition and border changes.
Excellent video and, being from the central valley and having lived in red and blue states, red and blue areas, you were just the man to do it. I watched this video immediately after watching your video on California HSR which is an illustrative transition. All of the ideas for a 2nd california state over the past few decades have been frankly ridiculous. If you're starting the conversation without separating LA and SF areas, its a non starter. The new state would not be at all economically viable. It would be one of the poorest states in the country and the resource management (of just water alone) would be catastrophic for the west. Also, the HSR project looks set to be a huge boon to the central valley. That project would be permanently dead if this went forward.
I think splitting CA could make a lot of sense but it would have to be a north/south split. I believe I saw a video you did recently that discussed the topic and I think its the closest I've ever seen to a common sense, logical partition.
For me personally, I'd split the states with the border starting somewhere in Big Sur, somewhere near Soledad in the Salinas valley, somewhere around Los Banos and Chowchilla in the Central Valley (so you have Merced in Northern CA and Fresno in Southern CA), then somewhere between Mariposa and Oakhurst along CA 49, then the border would be the Southern and Eastern edges of Yosemite NP, and then somewhere just to the west of CA highway 395, probably the ridgeline just to the west of 395 west and north of Sonora Junction. That would mean Yosemite NP is in Northern California but Mammoth and Mono Lake would both be in Southern CA.
The conservative counties in CA hold all the water. One of the big reasons CA won’t let them go. If it does happen, you can lower taxes and turn around and charge CA for the water.
Kyle, I love how you point out the flaws of both conservatives and liberals, and the best part is it's unbiased. I actually have no clue what your personal political bias is, and that's a great thing.
he's likely a skeptical moderate, which is where all the educated people are
what are you guys talkin about? I love this guy‘s content, but he spent this entire video trashing one side, omitting any and all mention of the compelling rebuttals the side he opposes had already made to the tired list of arguments he repeats
As soon as the American citizens in D.C. get representation we can discuss other things.
Up until this year, I would have agreed with you. But living in California compared to Florida this year are completely different experiences. California has had the most aggressive measures in tackling Covid. Florida had minimal restrictions in the beginning and is now completely open.
Florida suppressed their numbers and is literally trying to imprison a COVID whistle blower though.
That's it? You're summing this whole video up by rating the COVID response?
@@PJBonoVox Yes. At one point it was illegal to sit on the beach in LA.
@@MustardMan7321 The results of the ill-conceived recall election show that the majority of people appreciated the strong government response to COVID in CA. And CA's economy is doing very well. You are in a minority. You really prefer Florida's approach, where the governator is campaigning for his next election, while having COVID numbers massaged to conceal deaths? You can move there and your dream would be realized.
Isn't income lower in "New California" which means less income tax revenue and lower property values to tax? Maybe that's the real reason they wanted San Diego County - people with money.
Dividing California into a northern and southern state makes a lot more sense than splitting California into an eastern and western state.
The only reason to break a state into pieces (IMO) is if there were really two sections of the state with different priorities, but this proposal, just like the five caliifornia proposal, is just the aimless musing of conservatives who can't think of any practical way of gaining support. An example of a more geographically rational way to break up the state is to divide the south from the north at the grapevine. More than half the state lives in the highly urban south, which is mostly city or desert, while the Bay Area, Central Valley, Central Coast, and Northern California has a much more diverse composition. Both states would still be highly liberal, but they'd be able to forge more focused policy on their particular problems. Ag would have much more of a say in Northern California, and the Bay Area wouldn't play second fiddle to LA anymore. The big problem with any proposal to divide California would be A) sharing water, and B) sharing the University system.
You make a lot of sense. I used to live in Santa Clara County and spent a lot of time in Berkeley, SF and Santa Cruz and love (most things about) the state. Having said that, we want to move from high tax New Jersey where, you know what, the taxes are really high (property & income), and sales tax is no real bargain either. I could start a movement to have a New New Jersey lol but u bring up good points. Instead, it would be nice (and simpler) if a chunk of California broke off ... and became part of low (including no income) tax Nevada. The beauty and great climate of California with the low taxes of Nevada, now that's a practical solution to a complex problem. And we'd move there in a heartbeat.
"New California" is funny because "Greater Idaho" (even more ridiculous) wants to usurp 7 of the "New California" counties. I wonder if they'll have to fight a war over that. (laugh emojis here)
Edit: 17:37 is THE BEST. OG Humboldt County girl here.
Good commentary, well balanced, rooted in reality.
splitting the state isn’t entirely a bad idea (though im from the midwest, so im not all that familiar with the area), but it likely wouldn’t work. i hear similar ideas about illinois and new york all the time.
here’s what i think would be an interesting and realistic possibility. so new california forms. they eliminate the income tax. a good bit of the tech companies based not too far away around the bay move to stockton/modesto. they’re pretty close to the bay area, but avoid the income taxes. suddenly they’re back where they started, both states are heavily liberal.
It would work fine if not for the existence of the counter-majoritarian nature of the Senate. Get rid of it, the Electoral College, and elect all representatives proportionally and hack away.
Actually, the images you show at 6:50 and 6:55 when referencing Contra Costa county are pictures of Benicia California which is in Solano county. The first image shows the port of Benicia to the left, which is on the east side of town and you can actually see the Martinez bridge still under construction. The second image is on the west side of town, and it shows Ninth street park looking out over the Carquinez Strait. I live in the bay and I visit Benicia a lot. It’s cool to see such a tiny town on your video.
I calculated, the total results from all the counties they proposed for New California for the 2020 election went 57% biden 41% trump. You are literally still in a safe blue state, but now have to worry about the state economy and services not crumbling when shit hits the fan
Non partisan view? Nope. New California State is about rural versus city. LA and San Francisco and coastal in between will stay. Rural parts of counties such as Monterey County will go and break away from the whale watchers.
It's not at all about rural and urban. Mendocino, Humboldt, Lake, Alpine, Mono and Imperial Counties are all rural and liberal. Bakersfield has almost 400,000 people and is where House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is from. Duncan Hunter and Darell Issa are from San Diego. The point of the video is to show just how little the people that came up with this idea know about the geography of California.
This feels like how the NCR from Fallout would form. It is also nice to see some of your earlier videos!
I've lived in the Bay Area since birth 50 years ago and I've never heard of this. I'd only heard of Jefferson, part of far northern California and very southern Oregon.
Same here. Go east and north theres State Of Jefferson flags
I WANT IT! This isn't about left vs right. You don't get it. It's about the super rich vs the rest of the state.
There are super rich and "the rest" everywhere in the state. I grew up in the Central Valley and there were a TON of ultra rich. Those corporate farmers aren't poor. And there are plenty of poor folk along the coast. And that's true for all 50 states. This issue is absolutely about politics and nothing else. Even the guy behind the idea is a political pundit on the radio and he has stated himself that the issue is to break away from the left. I don't do politics on this channel. I was simply pointing out that this idea wasn't well thought out and that it can't work.
But you know, it's more about the divide between rural, and the urban populations, than it is about the left and right. We have the same problem in Washington State. The urbanized areas of the State dominate the government by way of voting demographics, and rural residents feel they have no say in legislative issues, or governance in Washington, as a whole.
"Super rich" will become even more rich in any form of a Socialist state. Look at the unlimited income level of the Communist leaders compared to the nothingless of the miserables, or "deplorables" in their countries. I'd say: NO USSR in the USA!
@@GeographyKing plus they said in one video they want to leave because of
Taxes
Anti Trump laws
Anti white laws
Forcing kids to be trans
Homes are costing high
And
There government is evil
I'm not from California but I was born and raised in Washington and moved to Florida
But we though about moving to California but
Remember that to form a new state from an existing state, the current state legislature needs to give its blessing. Do you honestly think that the inland counties want to give up the huge population and tax base of the coastal counties?
When I was a young(er) man, I worked in hospitality in various ski resort towns in the Canadian Rockies, and a lot of our day-to-day work involved being outside. On really cold days, we'd sneak around to the back door of the restaurant's kitchen and go in the walk-in freezer to warm up LOL
Bm 6:13;
POLITICALLY Bias; 1:35
Since When is the CONSTITUTION Politically Bias,
Contradiction, 2:01;
It's just the way it is, 3:30; this reminds me of What nancy pelosi said "it is, what it is"
Nowhere do I hear the Word "fed",
Does the fed dictate to the State?,
What's Common Law?
Only tells Presidential Election for each County, nothing is said about other Offices 4:25;
6:00; Take sanctuary cities illegals and disperse them to surrounding counties, Now We See why the fed has open Border Policy,
The People of each County gets to Vote to Join the New California, if it's a FAIR Election, 6:15;
I would love to see a video on taxes per person ( sales, property, income..) basically how much taxes it takes to run a state, either by population or by area.
I live in Contra Costa County. I didn’t even know my county was going to be a part of the breakaway California until watching this video. You cite our record of voting for Democrats as a reason why we would not fit in with this new CA, you showed our voting record to support your point, but those voting statistics don’t capture everything. Socially we might be liberal but if you look at how we run our own county the political culture here is more complex, and I dare say we might have more in common with this breakaway California movement than it seems on the surface. I could explain here, but I just left a lengthy post on another video of yours that was longer than intended and you probably aren’t interested in reading another lengthy post.
I think the bigger issue with the breakaway movement is that the counties this group want to include are financially dependent on the ones they want to break away from. I see the issue more economic than political even though the idea is driven by politics.
my mind is blown that so many people take this video at face value as “unbiased” when you spent the whole time trashing one side and omitting any mention of the compelling rebuttals the “new California“ people you insult as old white and stupid have publicly offered to these same arguments. you point to 52% of the vote for clinton as evidence of a given county being a liberal stronghold, forgetting that 40% of the population is still a pretty good number of people, then you chuckle to yourself at the comparative economic prospects of a successionist state as if “old california’s” wealth isn’t far more concentrated in hands of the 40% that voted AGAINST clinton. you overlook the number of Americans from CA & elsewhere in the country that would enthusiastically migrate to a such a haven of constitutionalist freedom & sensible policy, away from the vomitous decay of our once beautiful urban centers. the best part is how you act as if European Americans haven’t historically demonstrated an ability to get things done, couldn’t figure out how to finance natural resources & disaster management or to raise crops without illegal labor. farmers are forced to hire a legal labor when they are in competition with other farmers who already have. and Kyle you have admitted elsewhere that you are hardly unbiased on the topic of whether the US & Mexico should have a border at all. I love your content but this one was anything but non-partisan and I’m pretty disappointed
I like how he starts off dismissing all the other videos about this as biased & partisan but then spends the rest of the video trashing conservatives and pretending the “new CA” people don’t have compelling rebuttals to these tired arguments. it’s worth noting that he’s stated elsewhere that he considers himself “mexican”
"Conservative parts of Illinois." Basically, all of Illinois outside of the Chicago area.
Not true. I'm from Illinois, and while most of the state is conservative outside of Chicagoland, the following areas are not: Rock Island Metro, Peoria, Bloomington/Normal (Moderate), Champaign/Urbana, Springfield, Metro St. Louis area, Carbondale.
@@rfranklin3000 So a urban-rural split essentially?
I love your recital of counties north to south! Awesome......
Yes implying someone who doesn't like Illegal immigration is a white Nationalist definitely isn’t a sign of bias
This "New California" would be pretty liberal as well. Maybe a bit less so. But having some larger urban/suburban liberal cities like San Diego, Orange County, and Contra Costa, would just drown out the rural inland conservatives and just create the same problem they're trying to avoid, just without Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco.
This is FANTASTIC!!! I've tried to explain this to others, but was never as succinct and to the point!
Of course, I have not taken New California as seriouslyas the State of Jefferson, mostly because that movement is 80 years old, but growing larger and some of those countries have already voted to leave California. It would definitely be more conservative, but where's economic driver of the state? All those miles off road and forrest to keep up, but not much tax base - especially if they don't want to pay much. Everything you said about essentially cutting off your nose to spite your face applies, only more so.
Thank you for this. Sorry I was so late to your channel.
you guys act like wh!t3 people are inept and unable to think clearly or roll up their sleeves and get things done. farmers only need to hire illegal labor when they are in competition with other farmers who already have. they would manage it all just fine if not better
The Geography King denouncing the East coast and ESPN at the end 🤣🤣
Great job. I was hopeful for the development of New California until I watched your video. Now I know there's no chance it'll ever get off the ground.
I broke down the 2018 gubernatorial race and inland California still voted 55/45 Democrat so it's not even an issue of "in x years the state will be blue." It would already lean D.
it might lean dem but it wouldn’t be crazy far-left like the coastal areas. like all of the california emissions things probably wouldn’t be the interior portions of the state
2018 was a blue wave mid term I'm sure in a Red wave mid term you could have San Diago and oranger county voting 55/45 republican
@@alcarbo8613 gov. elections are often the weakpoints for CADEMs
@@alcarbo8613 San Diego and Orange voting Republican by +10 is impossible now anyway, San Diego is far gone for CAGOP, the incompetent party they are
I commend the attempt (however, i suspect a bit more veiled, than objective, as you initially claim at the start...) to make some kind of sense of this 51st state issue... but perhaps next time try starting without the premiss that nothing's currently wrong with Cali's economic and socio status? California is currently facing just about the same economic struggles as Kansas... there is a reason that the 51st state supporters are growing, or that the movement is here in the first place.
The point I was trying to make was that this wouldn't work, regardless of how gung-ho the movement's supporters are. Every state faces budget issues, but for whatever reason this New California movement is looking at divorce as the best option. I suspect it's because a radio talk show host is the one behind all of this and is simply pushing his ideas foreward without really thinking about it or examining the consequences.
Yeah, I can see your points, and completely agree with that idea that their initial proposal is off-base just a bit... it is sad that the conversation even comes to this...I would not be surprised to see them start canvasing lobbying district to district though, and in the end we'll see how much "real" support the 51st stated movement gets...while state legislature districts are spread across the state, obviously the most populous areas will see the highest number of districts, so...
Geography King Rural vs urban That is how it’s going to be done you actually don’t know a whole lot about the movement. You just glanced at it
@@hero92694able but you do realize that to build a mile of road cost two million dollars. In a city or Urban environment that $2 million for that 1 mile is divided by 50,000 people. Which comes out to just $40 each. But in a rural community/small town, to build the same two miles of road will be split between 500 tax payers. That's $4,000 per each taxpayer. Now you have to connect all your small little towns that stretch a vast large states. Also you have to account for pipelines, rural electrification, gas infrastructure, wastewater pipes, freshwater pipes, fiber optics etc. A lot of people don't realize that Rural America is 100% subsidized by cities. cities are not just efficient economically but they're the most viable structure for any society. Do you actually believe Verizon wants to build a 4G/5G tower for just small communities. No!!!. The states and the federal government subsidized telecom companies to build towers in rural communities.why? Because it's not profitable. This has nothing to do with politics, I live in New York and we have the same issue, but it's a fact that is the cities that generate the bulk of the tax revenue. this new California can never be economically viable, I'll be the first one to donate when I see the Sarah McLachlan commercials come on......btw the same issue in regards to taxes between rural and city folks is also playing out on the national level. The amount of taxes New York and other large states pays to the federal government gets redistributed to other poorer states. but yet everyone complains that New York and California are welfare states.
@@SofaSpy You realize New California isn’t 100% rural. The second most populous county in California is in New California. Orange and Kern county are both very populated as well. It’s more of a partisan divide, which I don’t mind because I feel like California’s government is becoming extremely corrupt.
Holy crud ur such a savage. Geography king for congress
Frankly this is very true. I'm from Georgia (swing state) and there are a lot of conservatives who have "escaped" to Florida before the state goes full liberal. Florida has a higher sales tax, the weather is way worse, the cost of housing is ridiculously high especially around Miami, and the few white nationalistic conservatives are escaping a majority white county (Forsyth) to go to Miami-Dade, which is majority Hispanic. In any case, I prefer it here as a centrist. Not too hot.
So, I'm honestly curious... does Butte County not make the conservative list because there are Chico has more voters than Oroville?
Excellent analysis and commentary.
Thank you,a dose of reality,but the state still on a crash course ,due to population,climate,and infrastructure...we need a new water system,
Judy Sanders Every state is on a crash course! They're just each crashing into something different. :)
Geography King Scary,..
My Mom used to say, and we are descendants of the original California pioneers,..." too many people, too little water, most of those folks need to go back east, and take their east coast thinking with them!" If the people of Calif would wake up and vote out the robbers in Sacramento, the state could be restored. Some real old time liberal values, along with some conservative realism, that would do it. That is what made the state great in the past. Personally I would like to see the Committee of Vigilance revived!!!
That it would! worked in San Francisco, for quite a long time. I think the crooked politicians still have nightmares about it. LOL
As many wise men have said, we are all part of the web of life, and all connected, true, but at the same time we are not an illusion but quite real. read what I posted by Carl Sagan, here it is,....“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness...
The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
Reeling off those obscure California county names from memory is impressive geographical nerdiness. Seriously though, you’ve outlined the futility of the New California movement. As someone who lived in California from 1970 to 1978 (Berkeley, San Francisco, Sonoma, Sacramento - as a mobile grad student) and again from 2012 to the present (Palm Springs - immobile retirement) I’ve always thought that the logical way to split the state in two is along the north south divide. However, considering all of the practical matters you’ve outlined I’m persuaded that any attempt to split California into two or more states is a virtual impossibility.
"Obscure" to you, maybe.
@@zelphxI would say all county names are obscure except for the most populous ones and the ones one happens to live in.
Great video. And then there the issue of the California Burrito..you should do a geo breakdown on that.
A decision of this type should not be based upon politics. California is an economic powerhouse, a huge success. Dividing the state into two could have unexpected results from an economic perspective.
I feel like Redding would be the capitol
Red being right wing and blue being left wing really tripped me up in the beginning 😂. I totally forgot America switched the colours around.
There are good reasons to consider splitting big states, especially along geographic lines, but splitting a state along purely partisan lines like this, especially with the liberal counties they want to take along for their conservative fantasy ride...is just not a good plan in any way, shape or form.
The only really viable splits for California are the NorCal/SoCal divide-which would create two powerful and decently liberal states, but each slightly weaker without the other, or reviving the ol’ State of Jefferson movement in the rural areas along the Oregon/California border, which would give the conservatives up there their own state with more sensible geographic continuity, but having to accept that they as a state will probably never have a strong economy.
you guys point to 52% of the vote for clinton as evidence of a given county being a liberal stronghold, forgetting that 40% of the population is still a pretty good number of people, then you laugh at the comparative economic prospects of a successionist state as if “old california’s” wealth isn’t far more concentrated in hands of the 40% that voted AGAINST clinton. you overlook the number of Americans from California and elsewhere in the country that would enthusiastically migrate to a such a haven of freedom and sensible policy, away from the vomitous decay of our once beautiful urban centers. the best part is how you act as if European Americans couldn’t figure out how to manage natural resources and disasters or to raise crops without illegal labor
I stopped watching after about a third of it. I was getting nothing about geography, which is your specialty. You seem to be talking solely about voting trends. What about water resources? Transportation access? Population movements? Disappointed that you didn't focus on such things.
This video is definitely outside of the norm from my typical videos. These initiatives to split california up make me kind of irritated and I just wanted to state my opinion on them. But after talking about voting trends I did talk about the geography of the counties and why they were chosen to be part of the movement. But I'm definitely going to be sticking to geography for the vast majority of my videos.
Thanx for your reply.
I'm going to trespass on your patience by offering my own core impression of the California split proposal.
In my view, the first requirement of having a separate sovereignty is to have a separate nation, meaning there has to be a strong culture identity different from the cultural identity in other places. My impression is that there is indeed a cultural distinction between the people in the respective territories in California, but I'm not clear that it is strong enough to serve the purpose of making viable separate states.
Trained as an economist, I have to take exception to your judgments about the economics of separation. That there would have to be great adjustments is certainly true, but I believe you have not taken account of every entry on the books, so to speak. For example, you deprecate the "business friendliness" of Texas, but focus only on the taxes businesses there have to pay. The reason businesses have been leaving California and relocating to Texas is due less to tax differences than it is to differences in regulatory burden. This points to a weak point in your analysis, that you are relying on present numbers instead of looking to what could be in a new state.
And I find not at all persuasive your notion that the new state would have to replicate the universities, the emergency services, and all sorts of other things. The whole notion of separation is premised on differences, differences that already exist and those than are desirable to develop. Nothing can be taken for granted as necessary for replication in a separated territory.
Thank you for the video and for your measured and civil response, something of a rare phenomenon on UA-cam.
Geography King, I should have added another consideration working against splitting up California. Even if California as a whole is willing to split up, the new state would have to be admitted to the union. I think that is unlikely to be acceptable to the other states because it would undoubtedly stoke separatist movements already existing in other states, most strongly in Maryland and New York, but of significance also in Washington, Virginia, Florida, and a few others. People are going to ask whether we really want a further "Balkanization" of the country.
It might not be conservative vs liberal. It might just be a rural vs urban issue.
It both and culture. It’s weird to that California has been one territory for about 300 years or more.
The two are very similar.. rural California is conservative and urban California is definitely more liberal
Social speaking there basically is no difference between say "urban vs rural" or "liberal vs conservative". It's not quite so simple economically. There's plenty of "Socialism for me, but none for thee" "conservatives" in rural areas (as pointed out in the video, no rural counties/states are looking to stop being net takers from their state/federal government), but that goes back to their social conservatism. Somehow *they* are deserving of the help, but everyone else isn't, because... reasons.
I just saw a video of Craig T. Nelson on Glen Beck unironically saying that he when he was on welfare and foodstamps "no one helped him out". When, of course, welfare and foodstamps *are the help.* Because in the mind of a conservative when they get welfare, it's not welfare.
@@JCPRuckus As a conservative, I will say that you are not entirely wrong.
Your comments on taxes and those just wanting to reduce and reduce taxes (what they actually mean is just reduce taxes on the rich, who the past 20-30 years have just got richer and richer) is exactly what the UK government have been trying to do, and they haven't explained how they are going to pay for the cuts. it spooked the markets, pushed interest rates up, which has increased the cost of mortgages, the Bank of England had to intervene to stay the ship by investing £60bn to steady everything (in a new state they wouldn't have this so it would bankrupt them). So you are so right, this just hasn't been thought out. It's more about getting the votes for winning back Congress and the Senate, making it harder for the Democrats to win the Presidency, that's all it's about and sod the consequences!!! Great rant against this!!!
All this said I think it is a reaction to the current US electoral system. The electoral college votes should be split by the proportion of the votes cast for each party by the people of the state. That way everyone feels their vote has counter and democracy would function better imo.
Anyone interested in future prediction should watch your videos. Also, this video is a good lesson in economics. Thanks for making it!
Love your vids.
I’m from Maine, and my reaction to the Nee California movement is the same as all the other splitting states movements and the like, it’s largely politically motivated and as you said, it fails to consider the many other factors, including the logistics of running a state. Also, ofc California has problems (all places do), but it’s in a better position, especially with it’s tremendous resources as you said, to solve those problems if it stays as one
This is an interesting video but I wish you would update it to the current situation. Thx
What about dividing CA into two : North and South
I heard that the mountainous north is different from the arid south
then its will not serve the movement. Plus its bound to add 2 more dem senators
That was started back when California first was a state because there was no easy way to get over the mountains north of LA to get to the capital. In those days, southern California didn't have enough votes to split off. By the turn of the century (1900), socal had grown enough that splitting was becoming a possibility. In 1915 the old Ridge Route was completed and that provided easier access to northern California and staved off the split. Now southern California has the majority of the votes and it needs norcal for all the water they get from there, so is in its best interest not to split the state. That's why it's never happened, even though a bill to split the state has been introduced every legislative session since the 1860s.
I like your videos, thanks for making them. I'm curious if you feel different now about your comment stating politics has no impact on one's day to day life.
Cal Fire would absolutely help, because if they didn’t, that fire could spread to them. The US Forest Service would also help.
The capital would likely be in Santa Maria. It has everything needed, and they would LOVE the growth.
Emergency personnel will stay and be repatriated to work for the new state. Why wouldn’t they? Few people would move, not even the liberals, because they know what a fishbowl old CA has just become.
well put.Nice post. You thought it out for sure. They didn't
He didn't think out shit. It's easy to piss on an idea if your a numb-nutz RINO or Dem and want to go along with the oppressors.
Great research and awesome humor. So funny when it is :)
Can you make a “Greater Idaho” video? You don’t need to discuss all politics but maybe look at natural geographic borders between states. Maybe transfer both eastern part of Washington and both eastern and southern parts of Oregon to Idaho. They have also been taking about parts of Northern California. What will the population for the these states be after moving of borders? Of cause everyone knows that this will never happen because it needs to be approved by all states involved and the federal government, but it would be nice to see the numbers on population, economy and other important issues.
Just FYI - the image for Yolo County is UC Davis Medical Center, which is in Sacramento - not Yolo County! :)
Nice catch! The second pic is from the Main Campus I believe
"urrrr DAMN LIBERALS!!!! its all der fault!!!" loved that one XD
You forgot to mention the Zonies, they LOVE Arizona, but they spend three months each year in California. Stay at home!
California is huge
We need the split
Texas is huge too. I'm sure there are liberals there that would love to break off from mainstream Texas. Separation is not the answer, especially when it would most hurt the ones that came up with the idea. Every single state has a political minority and people that don't agree with their state government.
@@GeographyKing yep your a liberal
Us hates liberals
All of these states need to be separated then. The country is tired of being ruled by people who hate their way of life. It’s time for a national divorce at this point.
Great video, excellent analysis...
The first thing that came to my mind when I first heard "New California" was the New California Republic from the Fallout series lol
PREFECT SOLUTION: Californian split from the U.S. and become a separate nation. California will be happy. The remaining 49 states will be REALLY happy.
So all those blue counties they want would then be disenfranchised by their own rationale.
So full of crap!
The examples of hypocrisy regarding redistribution of wealth is a false equivalency. Kyle, I do wish you would understand that criticizing "both sides" doesn't make you more "balanced" when both sides aren't at fault.
Lol I checked the partisan ship of the Old California and it voted for Clinton for 7.9 points and Biden by about 12 pts.
Picking by county will result in a mess no matter what. Look no further than LA County, where Palmdale and Lancaster are a world away from Hollywood.
Three years on and I wonder if you have second thoughts re your statements?
Not at all. The biggest problem I had with it is that the people that came up with the plan think that they can decide which counties go in which state without voters approving it.
There is a problem with the very concept of a "51st state", the assumption being that, if a new state is formed within US territory, it MUST join the existing Washington, D.C. union. That is a faulty (and unimaginative) assumption. How about a scenario in which a group of, say, ten States separate from D.C. to form a new regional federation on the continent, then areas within those States, in turn, separate to become the 11th, 12th, or 13th State of that federation? More lateral thinking on these matters could very well lead us to a better, happier, more proper, and more satisfying state of affairs.
Something like that happened about 160 years ago. It was bad.
@@argentorangeok6224 160 years ago, America was on an upward slope towards empire, Now, it is on a downward slope from empire. Furthermore, the Declaration stipulated free and independent States as the primary political units, not unions of states, the numbers and sizes of which are merely incidental and conditional. This stipulation was re-iterated in the Articles of Confederation, and, again, in the 1783 peace treaty with Britain, but was then derailed at the Philadelphia Convention, the delegates to which were only supposed to amend the Articles, but, instead, went beyond their powers in passing the pseudo-federal const. of 1787, which centralizers of power have ever since opportunistically glommed onto as the source of their "authority". The key for present-day secessionists is to lay bare the illegitimate origins of the current American "union", and the States can exercise their sovereign right and prerogative to leave it behind in favor of new political arrangements. Deprive a regime of its legitimacy, and, regardless of how much power it may wield, it simply cannot act.
@@vhsprospector7192 I'm with you. I'm simply saying that it would be bad. The deep state wouldn't allow it to happen. Violence would be required. People are starting to talk about civil war and most of them probably think it will look like a kick-ass Mel Gibson movie. It would be ugly even if the "good guys" mopped the floor with the "bad guys". I really wish we could just amicably split up into two or maybe three countries and each side leave the other to its own devices and consequences.
The proposed counties for NC is based on the same thinking that goes into Gerrymandering. Combine some liberal areas within the borders, as long as the majority remains conservative. As you have pointed out, the minority liberals would never join this folly.
Can't wait to see what happens when Texas goes Blue in the next ten years!
Do you think texas will become a blue state?
Its 1:am and I am falling asleep, one last thought if I may,
“...vast accession of strength from their younger recruits, who having nothing in them of the feelings or principles of ’76 now look to a single and splendid government of an Aristocracy, founded on banking institutions and monied in corporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry.”
~Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson
..well, politics can effect your way of life and here lies what is wrong in America today and in every state, good night!
Excellent! United we stand, divided we fall!
Typical debits trying to talk you out of it. They forget that Ca money id's generatedby it's agriculture. He's full of shit
Kyle ay ? That’s not going to be hard to Rhyme with another word that is negative I am not looking at this from a political side so let me tell you about this from my political side
Just because someone says something about a political issue that doesn't go along with your predetermined opinion doesn't mean the information is political. The only even remotely political thing in this video is me simply stating the actual election results for various counties. Not even an opinion, just the actual numbers. The only way anyone would think this plan would work would be if they were told so by political propaganda. It was the same thing with a video I posted about gentrification, something that liberals hate. In the video I stated it's not that bad and can be good, and liberal comments were like "but it kicks out black people! Gentrification is terrible!". I'm a geographer. A nerd. I don't care about people's political opinions. I care about the realities of the geography of the US. To think that either party has a monopoly on good or bad ideas is ridiculous.
Not another California, it's better that Puerto Rico be a State and Washington DC, Not another part of California :"") It's Fine like that
@Mecoracon Lola us Miamians want Puerto rico as a state
Unfortunately the conservative parts of CA are also the most dependent on 'gubmint aid' from Sacramento.
I LOVE THIS VIDEO!!! I’m a huge Carolina Panthers fan (Because Rams left L.A.) and those fans in the “SOUTH”, of North Carolina, hate “those Californians”. 🤷🏽♂️
Excellent analysis of why politics doesn’t really matter!
Wow someone else from South Carolina that isn't madly into Trump and conservatism! Nice to see it!
New California would have less income so state services, like roads and the highway patrol would decline. I would also expect state forestry to decline, emergency services, both paramedic units and emergency rooms to decline. Emergency preparedness would decline.
The average state income tax in California is not the highest, it is the marginal rate of 13%, which applies to a small part of the population may be the highest, but for the rest I don't agree. Just Google the tax load total, including property, sales tax and such to find California turns out to be about 25th-30th in the U.S.
I agree this is not unique to California but at the same time I do think it’s incredibly unfair to have them be part of the same state . I do think it’s incredibly unfair for the Conservative population in California force to pay taxes on stuff they don’t want against their will because of the liberal cities . Also I agree with you that the borders they have drawn doesn’t make any sense the borders I would have drawn would make more sense than the borders they have drawn .
What about water rights?
The State of Jefferson makes more sense. southern Oregon and Northern California making a new state has been an idea since the 50s
Wouldn’t jefferson have very few people
As an American, I’d like to see larger states like the Canadian Provinces. Break the US up into like 5-7 states. Be cool to see a map video on that idea from you.
bad idea, 5-7 is too few. something like 20-30 would be better. there's a good atlas pro video about this topic. anyways, I think with 5-7 states there wouldn't be a way to draw compact borders that would keep similar political/cultural/ethnic/geographical features. perhaps if someone could figure out a way to split the country into 33 states each with 10 million people that would be great.
The State of California at the State-level has more than $59.83 billion of the taxpayer's money it is not using, i. e. surpluses in excess of 1,695 for every man, woman and child in California or $6,779 for a family of 4. This does not include all the additional surpluses that exist in the school districts, cities, or counties in California.
The Exhibit A below shows the results of the review.
What are these surpluses we refer to?
Government surpluses, as used in this report, are funds that are not required or needed for the operation of all government operations, funds, accounts, agencies, etc., directly or indirectly, for the year(s) covered by the budget which is usually one year. Theoretically, at the end of every fiscal year, governments should have little or no cash/investments on hand. But what we have found is that most governments have huge amounts of cash and investments on hand at the end of the fiscal year. And somehow these cash and investments are not being recycled back through the budget process the next year, but are being held year-after-year.
A Government Can Have a Budget Deficits/Shortfalls and Financial Surpluses At The Same Time.
This is the most deceiving topic that governments, politicians, and the news media have conveyed to the public about governmental financial matters. In realty, a government can simultaneously have a budget shortfall and a financial surplus of the taxpayers' money.
The problems are focused in four areas:
1. The budget only covers a small portion of the State's financial condition. There are a group of funds not part of the budget process. The complete list of funds and budgetary requirements are found in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). This report depicts the complete financial status of the State. The budget only covers a portion of the financial resources of the government.
A Little Background:
The CAFR usually has four categories.
Governmental Funds
Proprietary Funds
Fiduciary Funds
Component Units
Governmental Funds involve activities of the government including most basic services such as environmental resources, general government, transportation, education, health and human services, and protection of persons and property. Most of the cost of these activities are financed by taxes, fees , and federal grants.
Proprietary Funds are used when a government charges customers for the services it provides, whether to outside customers or to other agencies with the state. For example, Enterprise Funds, a component of proprietary funds, are for activities that provide goods and services to outside (non-government) customers, which includes the general public. Fees, charges for services or goods, assessments, fines, licenses, etc. are the major revenue sources.
Fiduciary Funds are activities in which the state acts as a trustee or fiduciary to hold resources for the benefit of others. These funds are pension trust funds, investment trusts, and agency funds (which are for assets held for distribution by the government as an agent for other governmental units, other organizations, or individuals).
Component Units reportedly are legally separated organizations for which the government is financially accountable. Usually fees, charges for services or goods, assessments, fines, penalties, licenses, etc. are the major revenue source.
The budget, as commonly known to the public, only involves the Governmental Funds and may not even include all of the governmental-type funds. The remainder of the Funds shown above are not part of the budget and are commonly called "off-budget" items.
2. Next year's budget consists only of next year's estimated revenues and next year's estimated expenditures. Previous years' revenues not used (spent) are normally not considered in the next year's budget, but should be. In other words, the previous years' revenues (as shown in the CAFR) are not recycled back to the budget process.
CA has to keep a large amount of cash on hand in the event of a major earthquake. The feds don't bail out CA for disasters like they do for FL, TX, or most other states.
@@GeographyKingThe other states maintain huge illegal surpluses as well. CA is stealing more because there is more to steal. CA is retaining astronomically more than is allowed under the GFOA guidelines. It is amazing to me that you are rationalizing the theft in this way.
Cities are the economic drivers in a state because that's where most of the companies are located, so that's where most of the high paying jobs are located, so that's also where most of the population is located, so that's where most of the tax revenue is generated....and it isn't a coincidence that most of the college educated population lives in cities. Cities also tend to be more liberal than rural areas of most states....are you connecting the dots yet?
If these rural red counties think they can survive without the huge tax base provided by the liberal cities, they are dreaming.
Just like all these proposals for red states to secede from the union...good luck surviving without all that sweet green federal money from the blue states that props them up.
Financials: Rid "prevailing wage", and re-open gold mining and logging.... plenty of money!