New law in CA: police don't need a warrant to go through your cellphone.

You might want to read up on that a bit more.

 

My take was that H8R was crying about the disparity with regards to the Federal Tax Revenue generated by the State and the actual returns it gets.

He seemed to be implying that CA has a lot of goods to offer.

Maybe I got it wrong, it may not be the entired State of CA but last time I touched the subject of water, Southern CA was very dependent of drinking water from sources outside the State. I believe the same can be applied to the agricultural lands, which represents a fair number/value of the goods generated by the State.

I may be wrong. If so, I would welcome any re-education on the subject.

 

What he was saying was Cal has a negative state:fed transfer of payments (more $$ goes to the federal govt than is received back). The ratio is significant.

WRT water, Cal actually has a lot of water resources, and for the most part they are well-managed, given the tremendous demands placed on them by the major three sectors: ag/industrial, municipal/drinking, and environmental.
Here is a page that documents state storage (all of these are based on within-state watersheds: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/rescond.pdf.

Southern Californian water districts have established water contracts from the Colorado River watershed, but as a state that acknowledges riparian rights, usage of water on the state's border has basic legal standing as well. Currently, the allocation is 4.4 M a-f, but actual usage ebbs and flows depending on availability and other state's usage (its a seven state arrangement. Note however, that Reno and surrounding ag/industrial demands are met by a California watershed (Truckee River/Tahoe basin).

 

I was not disputing the ratio. Do you (or anyone else) know what the ratio is?

I will have to look at the link later.

I think that if CA opts for its independence some of those usage rights may go bye-bye or required higher fees/taxes.

I am all or States' Rights. I think Federal Tax Contributions should be limited to what is required to sustain Federal Issues. Redistribution should not one of them (at least not a primary one).

States in lieu of Federal Redistribution should be allowed to assess fees as needed to secure all other in-State services.

With that said, I am cautious about the effect of the proposed above.

There are consequences/impacts, including the ability of some state mandating law, applicable Nationwide. Again, there are consequences.

 

I'll fling my ignorance into the fray.
1. who makes these laws
2. who votes on them
3. and why do we only seem to hear about them after they are law?

 

There are real people on the other side of the Sierra Nevadas?

 

If California leaves, my guess is that several other Western states would go with us or at least leave the Union. Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico might all make a go of it and form at least a confederation with California. In such a case water wouldn't be an issue, and we would do quite well without being controlled by the communists and blue bloods in the Northeast.

 

This all starting to sound familiar.

Wonder if the Mexicans will be emancipated during the secession?

 

Se

 

"Se" ¿Qué diablos significa eso?

 

You are killing me Smalls!

BTW - I believe CA can survive with or without any alliance (Western States). They always have Mexico.

 

Yo se. I think. Maybe he meant to say, Si.

 

Yup! Probablemente

 

As a LAUSD student and supporter of fonetic spelling, I'd say yes, he meant to say, "si."

 

This is why I will never make it on the west coast, no habla

 

Accurized para colloquialism...

 

HAHA I just clicked on this thread. That's right gimme the password or eat this phone! Lmao!