re: Texas moves one step closer to leaving US

quote:

---

But everyone signing that petition will now be on the “Gulag Re-Education List”

---

For years I’ve been collecting TEXIT signatures, writing and publishing independence articles, traveling to relevant conferences, knocking on politicians’ office doors, hosting meetings, and engaging in just about every imaginable individual sovereignty activity imaginable. If anyone is on a “list,” I am.

frick ‘em.

I long ago passed the point of being concerned about what the feds think of me. I refocused my efforts on something that made me feel like I was making a difference. I had no choice. Sitting by and doing nothing was no longer an option for me.

I wonder how long it would take for another country to invade Texas to gain critical proximity to the US.

If they do it I may move there.

quote:

---

So Texas is prepared to take over for air traffic controllers and TSA to keep your busy airports open. Prepared to purchase all of the VA hospitals and pay for the care of veterans? Gonna just let all federal prisoners out and shut down the prisons? That's just a thimble of how the federal government is intertwined in your state. Maybe y'all already have a plan. I would hope but would seriously like to hear it and try to understand it. Seems an impossible task.

---

Interesting take. Of course the fed gov is intertwined but if they seceded they could make all of those decisions.

The airport would be run by Texas. Federal offices and land woukd be either taken over or negotiated with the feds. Other issues are resolved over time

quote:

---

So you are the perfect one to address some of my questions. I genuinely curious how you unravel hundreds of years of cohabitation between state and federal and I joint programs (Medicaid being a biggy).

---

Here’s the thing. They never have an answer to that question. They also don’t answer why the federal government will agree. They won’t. This will not happen. There is no scenario in which the federal government passively lets Texas leave. Won’t happen.

quote:

---

Can the rest of the South join you?

---

This is why the U.S. will use force to stop it.

quote:

---

What part of the economy is made up of federal stuff, courts, highways, federal buildings, military, social security offices, VA hospitals and nursing homes, etc., etc? How do you unravel? Curious! Don't forget airports, FAA and TSA.

---

I'm sure TX can find the way to manage all of that as the feds won't be able to take the infrastructure with them.

There are definitely a lot of steps ahead of TX to do this but having their own electric grid is a positive.

They better have a really good plan and make sure it's not just another version of the current US. Legalizing weed, gambling, not being strict on left social stuff, etc is not a way to get conservatives on board to help.

quote:

---

So you are the perfect one to address some of my questions. I genuinely curious how you unravel hundreds of years of cohabitation between state and federal and I joint programs (Medicaid being a biggy).

---

I’m not ignoring you, I was just trying to keep my comments in this thread limited to the dissemination of today’s news.



I absolutely could address every issue you raised—and have actually commented on those very topics (and many more) multiple times on this board over the years. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a question/issue raised re: TEXIT that hasn’t been raised before.


This thread will inevitably devolve into people giving their reasons why Texas cannot become a sovereign nation—such threads always do—and I was simply trying to avoid that obligatory shite storm in this one. I’m not looking to change anyone’s mind re: Texas independence, I’m just passing along info.


But the simple answer to your question … Throughout history new nations (far smaller and with significantly fewer resources than Texas) have sprung from existing ones. And that will continue to be the case as long as humans inhabit the Earth. Somehow, since 1945, 140 new, formerly dependent countries have been able to “make it” as independent, self-governing nation-states.


It is true that Texas is highly integrated with the US; but those political and economic ties are not so tight or intricately interwoven that it will be impossible to untangle them. And in many instances, it will not be necessary to untangle them at all. There is no part of the relationship between Texas and the rest of the US that could not be accomplished by utilizing existing state-level institutions and agencies, executing bilateral agreements between Texas and the United States, or by Texas signing onto multilateral international agreements that are already in place.


With specific regard to Medicare and Medicaid, here’s a boilerplate answer:

quote:

---

Medicare and Medicaid are incredibly important issues for many Texans who support Texas independence. We will not abandon Texans who rely on these kinds of services as the whole point of independence is to help Texans whose needs and values have been abandoned by the federal system.

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), CMS Program Statistics, total expenditures for Medicare in Texas total $27,591,169,728. When it comes to determining the total amount taken out of the pockets of Texas taxpayers to fund Medicare, even the Internal Revenue Service is stumped.

“Collections of withheld individual income tax are not reported by taxpayers separately from Old-Age, Survivors, Disability, and Hospital Insurance (OASDHI) taxes on salaries and wages (under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act or FICA) and individual income tax payments along with taxes on self-employment income (under the Self-Employment Insurance Contributions Act or SECA).”

Given the current imbalance in how much Texans pay into the federal system versus how much we get, it’s safe to assume that we are putting more in than we are getting back.

The fact is that the $27 billion is a drop in the bucket of the amount we already overpay into the federal system. An independent, self-governing Texas would need to set up our own version of the Medicare system for those who are already on Medicare or those close to nearing retirement age who would otherwise rely on the healthcare coverage provided by Medicare. This would be accomplished during the transition period after a TEXIT vote. With the $103 – $160 billion we already overpay into the federal government this should not be too difficult. It’s also important to note that this new system would run a lot smoother and be more flexible as it will be run by Texans and for Texans.

---

Such issues will have to be worked out by folks far more intelligent than myself. But they can and will be addressed and are certainly not challenging to the point of remaining shackled to a fedgov that has abandoned Texas and her people. It will help significantly when Texans aren’t sending Washington DC the $billions we currently do; said treasure will remain in Texas.


Given all of our natural advantages, if Texas can’t make it as an independent nation, then who can?

quote:

---

Legalizing weed, gambling, … is not a way to get conservatives on board to help.

---

Yes that’s exactly what those Libertarians what to secede from the Union for, more government intervention. /s

quote:

---

The issue isn’t if Texas could. I’m sure it could. The issue is the US won’t allow it. This is not a decision for Texas in isolation. The US has to agree and never will.

---

No one is asking the chuckleheads in DC for permission.

The US can’t continue to whore itself out to every other sovereign-seeking nation around the world (e.g., Ukraine), yet say those same policies of freedom for all don’t apply to its own people.

When 15 million Texans go to the polls and vote in a free, fair, and open referendum—conducted under the laws of the State of Texas—and choose, by a majority vote, to leave the Union and assert Texas’ status as a free and independent self-governing nation-state, how can the US handle the 6.4 million Texans who vote in favor of independence? Military action? Prison? Extermination? Not a chance.

What possible justification will they have for any actions taken against Texans whose sole crime was voting for self-determination in a fair, free, and open referendum?


Here’s another answer from the TNM:

quote:

---

First, there would be little to no public support for military action against Texans who voted to leave the Union. A 2011 IBOPE Zogby poll found that 43 percent of respondents believed that States had justification for leaving the Union. For those who consider themselves conservatives, that number jumps to 65 percent. Military action against Texas, in the absence of some morally reprehensible act, would require a strong consensus from the remaining States and the people in those States. The strong liberal States would likely fall on the side of letting Texas go. The strong conservative States would be split on the issue but would largely be supportive of the basic principle of self-government. With numbers like these, a consensus seems implausible.


The use of military force would bring a swift condemnation from the international community and would damage international relations for years to come. Some countries would likely impose economic sanctions on the United States until the civilian government of Texas was restored and the results of the independence vote respected. It would also cause a tectonic shift in international policy related to the support of democratic institutions, essentially delegitimizing any efforts made by the United States past, present, and future.


You would have to believe that troops would obey an order to fire on millions of Texas civilians and their leaders whose only crime was invoking their right of self-government. With approximately 170,000 Texans serving in the United States armed forces, it would be difficult to get compliance. The ultimate irony is that any Texan in the United States military who took up arms against the lawfully elected government of Texas or its citizens would be guilty of treason under Article 1 Section 22 of the Texas Constitution.


A 2009 poll from the aforementioned Zogby showed a large number of military personnel and their families believed that States had an absolute right to leave the Union. As published in Forbes, “42% of members of the armed forces and 41% of people who have a family member active in the armed forces agree secession is a right…” The fact that 42 percent view it as a right carries weight. It means they view it as a fundamental freedom, like the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion. Just as it is unlikely that the military would act against those rights when exercised by the civilian population, it is equally unlikely that they would act against TEXIT.


The most likely scenario, if an order of this nature was given, would be outright disobedience from the highest levels of the military all the way down to the enlisted ranks by at least 42 percent of the military, if not all. If some component of the military followed through on the order, it would likely trigger a domino effect where other States, outraged by the disregard for the political will of the people of Texas, would skip to the end of the process and unilaterally declare independence. Texas might be the first to leave but, if the federal government used the military to suppress the result, it certainly would not be the last.


Although the lack of public support and impracticality of military action are significant factors, the real reason the federal government won’t stop Texas from leaving the Union is one of the most biggest drivers of federal policy-economics.


Economies hate disruption. TEXIT would no doubt be disruptive, but it comes down to what is more disruptive. Ordering military intervention would be economically disruptive and would create shockwaves throughout the U.S. and global economies. Carrying out any type of military intervention would be even worse. The best course of action for the United States would be to mitigate disruption in the most practical way it can-at the negotiating table. It is the most practical choice open to the federal government in dealing with a successful TEXIT vote.


To illustrate the oversized role that practicality plays in this arena, one only needs to look at the statements from the federal government on Brexit. In his now infamous visit to the U.K., President Obama told the British people that, if they voted to leave the European Union, the United States would place the U.K. at the “back of the queue” in negotiating a trade deal. The British people voted to leave the European Union anyway. Now the federal government is currently at the table with the U.K. laying the groundwork for a trade deal. When faced with the choice of irrationally shunning the world’s fifth largest economy, with a GDP only $1 trillion greater than Texas or rationally executing a trade deal, the federal government chose the practical route.


It is far easier to negotiate a free trade agreement with a Texas that’s on its way out the door than it is to militarily occupy its capital in Austin. It is easier to negotiate a currency union with Texas than it is to deal with the possibility of massive insubordination in your military. With a negotiated separation, the federal government has the opportunity to show that it believes in the principles that it has espoused around the world for the last 70 years. It is better to keep goods and services flowing than to have them come to a dead stop. Forced integration into the Union at the point of a gun invites international condemnation and the loss of credibility on the international stage for the next 70 years.

---