Wednesday, the New York Times (NYT) printed several editorial letters outlining reader rationales why Texans who support or have signed the White House petition to secede would be up the proverbial Texas Creek if their wish was granted. One letter was so critical that the author suggested it was tempting to “have Texas booted.” As of the publication of this article, 118,034 folks have signed the Texas petition to secede.
What some might describe as empty excuses why Texas could not survive if the state secedes reflect comments found on most Texas secession articles. Frequently, faultfinders slam any citizen who signs a petition to secede as either a racist or anti-America. As these issues are examined, the clock is ticking on the count-down to a White House response. (“The White House deadline to respond to the Texas petition to secede is right on top of us” )
A warning to Texans, as printed in the NYT paper, lists “federal dollars for their pet projects, roads, agricultural endeavors, university student loans, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, fee-free interstate transport of their goods, travel without a passport, defense of their border from illegal immigrants and on and on.” Most of that rant defies the very premise of the petition on the White House’s “We the People” site, which clearly states a request to “peacefully” grant Texas the right to secede.
Following that request for a “peaceful” secession, some Texans might feel only the irrational would infer Texans plan to be American enemies. There is no justification to hypothesize Texas citizens might not work across the borders of the state or that American businesses and workers might not work in Texas. It’s likely Texans might still serve in the U.S. military just as U.S. military bases could remain in Texas. The U.S. military currently maintains installations world-wide even as non-citizens of America are currently enlisted.
Both Texas citizens and Americans currently work in other countries. Already business is developed and in some cases thriving, in other countries. Since laws have been long set up which easily facilitate business and workers, why would this change? More folks and businesses move to Texas than any other state, for jobs, for the business-friendly lifestyle, and for wonderful weather and terrific neighbors. Texans would expect to see an economic increase, because, once Texas was unhampered by Federal restrictions, it’s predictable growth would be unleashed.
Assuming that all the warnings about Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid don’t mean that folks believe the U.S. would or should automatically default on their obligation to honor the monies Texans have already paid into the entitlement programs; perhaps, they are questioning whether Texas could successfully replace those programs moving forward. Apparently, those who are asking are unaware that way back in 1983, when it was still possible to opt out Social Security, called a “Ponzi scheme” by Governor Rick Perry, employees who worked for government in Galveston, Brazoria and Matagorda Counties opted out. For 30 years, they have successfully controlled their private retirement plan.
There is no reason to think that Texans would be unable to take care of themselves, they have already proven they can, and that they can even handle it better. This proven model could be broadened to protect the retirement of all Texans and certainly expanded to include superior health insurance, minus EZ-Kill Emanuel’s death panels, with more benefits for more folks.
That’s not to say that folks who lean towards a a welfare dependency state might not find it easier to move across the borders into the U.S., where they would find a much friendlier welfare nation. However, it is unlikely Texas would grieve over the loss of most of them, and with a nifty little Texas passport, family visits could be frequent, moving back and forth fluidly, the way Canadians and Mexican citizens flow.
Governor Perry has long claimed the federal government has failed its responsibility to defend Texas borders. Like other states, and many Texas citizens, most actually believe states could do, again, a better job than Washington in protecting borders because Washington basically ties the hands of states when it comes to enforcing immigration laws. Imagine if Texas could cast away Washington’s handcuffs, how quickly border violators would spread the message, “Don’t mess with Texas.” (“Open Texas borders are riskier than leaky condoms.”)
The result of real enforcement would carry over economically as it lifted the burden of criminal immigration. Apparently, many folks, outside of Texas, are ignorant of the burden illegal immigration and anchor babies place on Texas prisons, hospitals and the state’s education system. (“Illegal immigration grenade: 60K Texas anchor babies get U.S. citizenship every year”)
As for federal monies, Texans would hope folks keep in mind that Texas is one of the few states that pays in more money to the Union government than it recovers. Still, keep in mind that the controversial petitions are citizens’ petitions, with no official standing. However, to suggest that the petition is akin to the Civil War, with racist undertones, ignores the fact that many citizens of Texas were calling for secession long before President Obama took office: end of discussion.