Secession

Secession has been bandied about in the last few months either rhetorically or by those who genuinely seek it. It is also appears to have been used as a smear against any government official asserting the paramount position of states over the federal government in certain areas by those who are opposed to any curtailment of the powers of the federal government (at least when the democrats are in power). Whatever side anyone takes and no matter who is in power, the steady march toward a stronger federal government will continue as the Constitution and the Commerce Clause are interpreted to mean that the three main branches of the federal government have unlimited power and jurisdiction over all matters. No one really saw the Roman Republic transforming into the Roman Empire which in turn transformed into the Dominate which in turn transformed into the breakdown of the state from internal and external pressures. This is because those in power used the same title and names for exercise of power even though the size and scope of those powers had changed dramatically. They just always made sure not to call themselves kings because of the ingrained public distaste for the term. With the people, it is OK to have all of the powers you are prescribed from having, just as long as you are not so gauche as to announce it.

However, power in Rome, and the struggle for power in general has a strange way of asserting itself from quarters that are unanticipated. No one imagined that the Praetorian Guard would become the kingmakers of Rome for so long. No one anticipated that the Christian Church would assert such a dominant role in the Empire and Europe from its humble beginnings. People looked for the seizure of power to come from other areas based on how Roman History had transpired before. This brings me to the question of secession.

Throughout the history of the U.S., there have been secessionist or quasi-secessionist movements that consisted typically of the state or several states in conjunction leaving the Union. The best known example of course is the secession of southern states during the U.S. Civil War. But despite all of the current rhetoric and accusations, is this really the likely path that secession movements will take? I would say no for a number of reasons. First, there appears to be such a public hysteria over the mere use of the term and whatever they associate with it in their minds, that any movement in any state that attempts to de jure secede will be crushed both from within and without from popular opposition alone; Second, there are too many financial interests who would like to the keep the steady trend of the increase in federal powers and especially regulation over commerce going for various reasons - the last thing they want is the creation of more nations with the likely result of impeding commerce; Third, the political class has too much to lose from secession - no member of Congress or of any state government will ever risk the safety, security, and perks of a government job funded by the United States. They may be inclined to use rhetoric and pass a few "show" bills to assert their theoretical independence, but that will be it. Perhaps one last argument that may hold water with at least some is the attachment to the American flag as a symbol that so many people posses. I think that many of these people would consider sacrilege to force a change in the number of required stars by creating more than 50 states (although apparently most Americans think there are 52 states). This last one will have to be tested though.

The reality is that the first true "secession" movements in the U.S. will not be secession movements at all in the strict sense. What is more likely to happen is a rebellion by local government against the state government. This is because these will be the first financial crises that genuinely affect the political classes. The root cause will be state's pushing off more and more funding requirements to the counties for state mandated programs and regulations (more than already exist now, that is). This is because given a choice between raising taxes and being voted out of office and legislatively passing the buck to someone else to raise taxes, the political classes will always do that latter at the expense of those who are lower on the totem poll. Look for larger percentages of social programs to be funded by the counties. Look for larger fees and taxes to be collected by the counties on behalf of the state. When this happens, the counties will have a choice - either raise taxes and get voted out of office, or fight back by refusing to comply with state law or only partially complying.

The first place this is likely to be seen is in California where the state government is now paying with IOUs (that don't have a Federal Reserve to give them an unlimited supply of money). If counties start getting state funding in IOUs while at the same time being asked to turn over real money that they have collected back to the state, the lawsuits will begin. There was apparently already one similar case in California several months ago and I'm sure the problem has only picked up steam since then. So what will happen?

Secession in the early 21st century will be more of a de facto secession where counties and especially cities either remove themselves as much as possible from the authority of the state government or are themselves removed from state funding. Cities like Detroit and Philadelphia may be examples just waiting to happen. The states, through legislation, may spin these off as "independent" cities in the sense that they will no longer be entitled to state funding for anything. Philadelphia has already been quasi-independent of the state in many regards including having its own police force, more available taxes to levy, and having a mayor's office that is a much more powerful executive than county commissioners or county councils. It really wouldn't take a whole lot to make the city a completely independent entity by the rest of state, especially once the reality sets in that the City is taking a much bigger portion of revenue than is being collected in taxes or if the City brings the issue to head by refusing to turn over money collected on behalf of the state to make up its own budget shortfalls.

This is where political secession is likely to happen first and it is likely to happen all over the U.S. along rural/urban lines within each state rather than states themselves seceding from the U.S. The type of historic secession we are used to reading about may happen eventually, but not until these de facto secessions have become so commonplace that the forces preventing real secession dissipate enough. Then again, none of this may happen at all if the U.S. recovers sufficiently in economic terms. People hate change, so unless the economy gets really bad and revenues drop so low that the political classes begin fighting each other, there will not likely be anything that a few instances of temporary breakdowns of government within states which will not even merit a footnote in most history books.

Neverending L in Philly

Urban Warrior | 'I CAN'T TAKE IT MUCH LONGER'

This is an interesting article and could raise several points for discussion.

The "L" isn't named for fact that the line looks like an "L" on a subway map, but rather because it is an "elevated" rail platform for the paltry city subway. The idea behind these types of elevated railways is that they are much less expensive and much quicker to build (in theory) than actual subways such as the NYC system.

The problem here is that the city has apparently been taking forever to reconstruct the L which has apparently been in bad need of repair for years. Merchants along the L are demanding money to reimburse them for business losses generated by L reconstruction.

Given that the reconstruction has hurt these business (it seems pretty clear), what are we to make of this crisis?

One question is whether an early investment in an underground subway system in this part of the city would have paid off now by not interfering with established businesses that have grown up around the subway system. The L itself is a tremendous eyesore and my impression is that its presence actually makes the neighborhood uglier and more dangerous to drive in. Compare this with DC where nearly everything is underground and I think it is obvious that while the city may have saved a ton of money in initial construction, the economic fallout is much worse. Another thought. If an L style railway is so great, why did they only use it in the poorer neighborhoods of West Philly instead of the whole system?

Another question is whether this crisis is the result of SEPTA and the City avoiding basic maintenance and thereby making the problem much worse when if finally came time to decide to make the repairs. The answer is probably yes.

Another question is that why should the government pay to help private businesses that are hurt by this reconstruction. This is actually a moral question. Obviously the business owners have taken a hit, but is this really a government taking? They have obviously benefited from the presence of the L, although they have likely paid for it with hire rents and property taxes. The question is whether this is a place to draw a line.

This crisis does tend to show what happens when government takes over too much control of something. A corporation running the system could theoretically do the same thing, but the corporation has a much stronger motivation to get the system repaired quickly because they lose money just as much as anyone else when there is less L traffic. On this point, though, I'm not sure if L traffic has gone down or that the lost foot traffic is from local neighbors who are going to other business that aren't near the L even though they still commute using the L.

Yet another question is whether the L would have been better run by a private company. I've taken the L. It isn't horrible, but it isn't all that great either. Every few years SEPTA makes a bad decision regarding the cars they purchase and then never seem to learn form their mistakes. They tend to get dirty and the stations themselves are pretty horrendous as far as cleanliness and associated businesses go. I'm not sure if a private company could make the line profitable, but I'm sure they could do a much better job than SEPTA and the City. The repairs would have been done a long time ago as well.

Back to article.

For one thing, the customers have not likely disappeared. Since it is appears that a reduction in pedestrian traffic is what has cost these businesses, chances are the customers have started going to other establishments. This means, of course, that when the L is back up and running, those businesses will suffer from a loss of customers. Does the city need to compensate them? I'm sure we'll be reading articles along those lines some time.

An irony here, of course, is that the City is now shelling out more money as direct welfare payments to hurt businesses just to keep them afloat because of its decision to save money by constructing an L instead of an underground subway, by not performing timely maintenance, and by being its usual corrupt, inefficient self when it comes to spending money on public works.

We all know that Philly is a bottomless pit for state and federal funding and that any money that gets spent there usually winds up in the hands of everyone except the people it is intended to help, but this is a fairly egregious case of the city ineptness. L construction should have been done years ago. It's continued problems are a beacon for how poorly run the City is.