Pima County, AZ, as a new state?

[Revive 755]

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2011/02/25/20110225xgr-tucson0224.html

[corco]

God.

Every single day somebody alerts me to something that increases my perception that this is the most fucked up state in the country. Here's today's!

Wyoming was a great example of republicanism/conservative viewpoints going right- that state carried itself in a fantastic way, and even as a more liberal person, I could very much respect how well things seemed to work in Wyoming. Arizona is the complete opposite. Wyoming seemed to be made up of real republican/libertarians. Arizona is full of bumper sticker quoters and this is what we're left with.

[golden eagle]

Just saw this on MSNBC a couple of minutes ago. I know it won't happen, but would be fascinating to see a new state created.

[J N Winkler]

Every single day somebody alerts me to something that increases my perception that this is the most fucked up state in the country. Here's today's!

Not to mention Evan Mecham in the 1980's and Fife Symington in the 1990's (has he been released from prison yet?).

I quite like Arizona DOT, but the state as a whole is kooky.

[Stephane Dumas]

I wonder what'll be the new name of the state if it come to fruitition: Pima or even Lincoln, Jefferson?

[Landshark]

Why the GOP bashing?  It is the Pima Democrats suggesting the silly notion of a new state.

Obama and the feds have let Arizona down, which is why the state is acting the way it is. 

[J N Winkler]

Why the GOP bashing?  It is the Pima Democrats suggesting the silly notion of a new state.

I don't see the GOP bashing in this thread.  Yes, Evan Mecham was Republican, but the Republican leaders in the state legislature couldn't stand him.  I don't even remember whether Symington was Republican or Democrat and would not know without looking him up in Wikipedia.

Yes, it is the Democrats who introduced the legislation, with the express rationale of coupling it with a substantive bill (introduced by Republicans) which they see as equally silly and irresponsible.

Obama and the feds have let Arizona down, which is why the state is acting the way it is.

The current situation can't be laid wholly at Obama's door.  Bush's proposed immigration reform was a sensible and humane approach but was shot down by both Republicans and Democrats.  The current situation in Arizona is the result of a Clinton-era decision to concentrate enforcement in southern California (thus pushing illegal crossings into Arizona) in order to head off SB 1070-style measures in California.

[corco]

Why the GOP bashing?  It is the Pima Democrats suggesting the silly notion of a new state.

Obama and the feds have let Arizona down, which is why the state is acting the way it is.

It's both parties in Arizona that are causing problems. Republicans trying to annul federal law is completely insane just as Democrats trying to form a new state is completely insane. Neither party is acting anywhere near responsible down here.

My point was that the last two states I have lived in have had very conservative mindsets. Wyoming's way of executing their mindset works, and Wyoming is a good example of the Republican viewpoint working out and being laudible. Arizona is a good example of the Republican viewpoint leading to crazed insanity- they're two opposite extremes. I'm not a Republican but I'm definitely not anti-conservative viewpoints, but here in Arizona you have a state that is indisputably in shambles and the general mindset has been super conservative. In Wyoming, the conservative viewpoints are executed a lot differently (read: more sanely and less bumper sticker quotingly) and there you have a state that's quite prosperous and doing very well.

I also don't see why a state that is anti-federal government would be blaming the federal government for "letting them down"- that doesn't make any sense (and I haven't seen any indication that they are). If you bite the hand that's trying to feed you, you can't cry foul play when you don't get food. Nobody is blaming the burst of the housing market or a lot of the economic collapse on the federal government- it's Arizona's own fault they moved to an almost entirely sales tax dependent tax base, leaving them with no money in the event of any economic downturn. The conservative voting body is anti property and income tax and view sales tax as "fairer" (which any economist can tell you is not true) but when there is downturn and people stop vacationing and buying things, the state tax base disappears, which is exactly what has happened in Arizona. Now you've got 10% sales tax, a legislative prohibition from raising property tax rates/the tax base/the assessment values more than 1% per year, so there's no way for the state to make money. That is in no way the federal government's fault, unless the expectation is that the federal government will prevent any and every economic downturn ever, but that's impossible.

In 2009 (the most recent numbers I have handily available), Arizona got almost a third of its state budget from federal grants, which is more than most states. Arizona is hardly in position to be shooting down the federal government (and I would laugh when they pass this bill and the feds withhold that money, but I'm hoping to get funding for research from the state for my master's degree here in the fall, in addition to the funding I'm already getting from the state, so the last thing I want to see is the state go broke).

Short version: The GOP mindset can be a good one if executed correctly, as it is in Wyoming. Poor execution has made it fail miserably in Arizona.  

[J N Winkler]

I also don't see why a state that is anti-federal government would be blaming the federal government for "letting them down"- that doesn't make any sense (and I haven't seen any indication that they are). If you bite the hand that's trying to feed you, you can't cry foul play when you don't get food. Nobody is blaming the burst of the housing market or a lot of the economic collapse on the federal government- it's Arizona's own fault they moved to an almost entirely sales tax dependent tax base, leaving them with no money in the event of any economic downturn. The conservative voting body is anti property and income tax and view sales tax as "fairer" (which any economist can tell you is not true) but when there is downturn and people stop vacationing and buying things, the state tax base disappears, which is exactly what has happened in Arizona. Now you've got 10% sales tax, a legislative prohibition from raising property tax rates/the tax base/the assessment values more than 1% per year, so there's no way for the state to make money. That is in no way the federal government's fault, unless the expectation is that the federal government will prevent any and every economic downturn ever, but that's impossible.

But is the tax system in Arizona really that one-sided?  Arizona has a state income tax which is linked with federal income tax (tax rates range from 2.59% for sub-$10,000 incomes to 4.54% for incomes over $150,000; withholding is used).  Localities and special districts also impose property taxes (Pima County, I have been told, has the highest marginal property tax rates in Arizona).  I have no figures on total take for each type of tax, but prima facie Arizona seems to have more in common with states like Kansas and Idaho than with states like Washington (no income tax, heavy reliance on sales taxes) and Texas (no income tax, heavy reliance on franchising taxes).

In 2009 (the most recent numbers I have handily available), Arizona got almost a third of its state budget from federal grants, which is more than most states. Arizona is hardly in position to be shooting down the federal government (and I would laugh when they pass this bill and the feds withhold that money, but I'm hoping to get funding for research from the state for my master's degree here in the fall, in addition to the funding I'm already getting from the state, so the last thing I want to see is the state go broke).

It has been suggested that a lot of this sabre-rattling is really a ploy to maneuver tea-partiers and other small-government militants (many of whom are also anti-establishment in general and have little practical experience of government) into eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation with the prospective victims of the policies they advocate.

[Scott5114]

Realistically, of course, there's little chance of this happening. The Arizona Legislature would have to approve before Congress would admit the new state.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

This is all much ado about nothing. Unless Pima Co. wants to form their own nation or join Mexico ( ), they can't split off from Arizona to form their own state. Constitution doesn't allow for it. (and before you jump up and say W. Virginia, that state was formed because Virginia had "left the union" during the Civil War).

[corco]

Unless Pima Co. wants to form their own nation or join Mexico (  ), they can't split off from Arizona to form their own state. Constitution doesn't allow for it. (and before you jump up and say W. Virginia, that state was formed because Virginia had "left the union" during the Civil War).

I'm pretty sure the Constitution allows them to become a state if they jump through the right hoops (congressional approval from Arizona and the feds). The Constitution definitely doesn't allow then to form their own nation or join Mexico.

A parallel could actually be drawn to West Virginia in this instance. If Arizona decides to ignore federal laws (seceding, in a sense) and Pima County wants to secede from Arizona and become its own state so it can follow federal laws, then Pima County would become a modern day West Virginia. If Pima could prove it really wants it and Arizona passes the law, I'd bet the federal government would figure out a way to make it happen, just as they did with West Virginia.

[vdeane]

This is all much ado about nothing. Unless Pima Co. wants to form their own nation or join Mexico ( ), they can't split off from Arizona to form their own state. Constitution doesn't allow for it. (and before you jump up and say W. Virginia, that state was formed because Virginia had "left the union" during the Civil War).

Ever hear of Maine?  A new state can break off of another with approval from the old state and congress.

The legality of secession was settled in the civil war.

[english si]

Ever hear of Maine?  A new state can break off of another with approval from the old state and congress.

And I'm guessing that the various other ones happened differently (Kentucky and Tennessee being the easiest ones - Vermont being disputed between two states complicated matters) so can't be test cases?

And this seems a less childish way of trying to block a bill than the go-into-hiding-so-a-quorum-can't-be-reached that we've seen in Wisconsin.

As for not following Federal Laws, haven't many states passed (via referendum in many) laws effectively doing what this bill is to do and opt out of Obamacare (which seems to be the goal). Given that 26 states were part of the lawsuit against the Feds that declared it unconstitutional, I hardly see how this is Arizona being way-out-there anti-feds, unless you through a majority of states in there as well.

[Landshark]

Bush's proposed immigration reform was a sensible and humane approach but was shot down by both Republicans and Democrats.

The problem is the unsecured border.  We need to fix the broken border before ever considering any type of immigration reform. 

[Landshark]

I also don't see why a state that is anti-federal government would be blaming the federal government for "letting them down"- that doesn't make any sense (and I haven't seen any indication that they are).

It's the border situation!  The feds are letting Arizona down by not securing the border. Arizona responds by passing sweeping illegal immigration legislation which is FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL BY THE FEDS!   See the problem?  

It is obvious why there is a populist backlash against the federal govt. in Arizona.  Other states are now working to pass similar legislation as Arizona.