(14 Jan, 2023)
17) As described here (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYH-NShTIn417), the Greater Idaho movement is a preposterous demand. I doubt Idaho bites, either. The land grab alone is enough to kill this on any floor. The amount of money the State of Idaho would have to give to the State of Oregon is insane, and I don't see Idaho biting. Eastern Oregon isn't (for better or worse) exactly known as the Land of Endless Profits. Poverty is pretty high out there.
I think a better idea is something like this:
Keep Oregon's outer border as-is, but change the structure of the government. Let the Cascades serve as a band of "purple" between Red/Conservative Eastern Oregon and Blue/Liberal Western Oregon. Let the East and West and the "purple" band have their respective regional governments, with a statewide blanket government that is neutral and acts more as a mediator between the regional governments on issues that concern the state as a whole (highways, wildfires/natural disasters, etc). Each side of the state gets one Senator, and congressional districts still essentially remain the same (though intra-state population shift would be inevitable and would eventually cause a shift in district lines).
It's essentially just adding a tier to the local/state/national division of politics. Instead you get local/regional/state./national.
What the guy in the video is suggesting is just a pipe dream, though.
But I got to thinking a little bit more about it, and wanted to give it it's own post. I do think people should feel represented and should be able to live under a government that makes them feel more comfortable. I feel like The Greater Idaho Movement (henceforth GIM, because eff typing that out even one more time) goes too far beyond that. I'll explain my thoughts.
GIM by Raw Numbers
Of the counties listed on the GIM website, that would be moving from Oregon to the new Greater Idaho these are the following raw numbers for population and land area. Links to sources are given.
Total Population: 539,921
Total Land Area: 66,024 sq. mi
Note that the land areas are not rounded up even though they do not include the digits after the decimal points (for example, even though Malheur is technically 9,887.52 square miles, I imputed it as 9887 sq mi in my calculation). This rough approximation is to account for the difference between the actual county borders and the yellow line representing the hypothetical GI border, as depicted in the GIM website linked above.
Now look at the raw numbers for Oregon as a state, as it currently exists.
Oregon Population: 4,246,000
Oregon Land Area: 95,990 sq. mi.
So about 12.7% of the states population would leave, and they would take roughly 68% of Oregon's land mass with them. The land and everything on, under, and over it (including Oregon state buildings, Oregon state sewage systems, Oregon state roads, etc.).
I don't have the raw data for how much all the state property would be valued at. I don't care to look it up, nor do I care to crunch numbers (at least, not for free). But I'm guessing its substantial. And as I said in the quoted blurb, the area that would move is incredibly impoverished. Idaho would be taking on that entire payment, essentially (barring outside donations). Idaho wont be gaining extra Senators, and this wouldn't result in extra Congresspeople for the Republicans. Idaho doesn't gain anything politically, and it doesn't give the Republican/Conservative political movement any real advantage. They would be taking on all the massive debt and the poverty almost strictly as a symbolic gesture.
I would be interested to see what professionals would calculate for the full projected economic impact of the GIM proposal.
Some more interesting numbers/facts/potential consequences:
Idaho's minimum wage is $7.25/hr, while Oregon's is $13.50/hr. and expected to rise w/ a rising consumers index. My guess is, if you're making minimum wage in your Eastern Oregon town, and the county your town is in were to go over to Idaho, your wage will almost definitely be reduced (and more than likely it will be reduced to the $7.25/hr). I would also guess that no court in Idaho would rule in favour of a worker who is suing b/c they're sad they have to live with the new minimum wage of the state they chose to become a part of.
GIM, IMO
Theoretically, I'm not opposed to something like GIM. But this crosses the line of "fairness" into "entitlement". Even with the admission that some Oregonians from non-GIM counties would move to GIM counties (assuming they could afford to even consider it), we're still looking at MAYBE 20% of the state's population walking away with 68% of the state's land.
In what world does that seem fair?
Literally the only reason this small group thinks they can up and leave and take almost 70% of the state's land with them is because....they're mad they don't get their way. They're mad that the state has a "one vote per person" democracy and not a "one vote per acre owned" democracy.
There are plenty of Red-states these people can move to if they so desire. Instead they feel they're owed almost 70% of the state's land. That's a very cringy and very inflated sense of entitlement.
It's especially cringy when you consider most of these people voting for GIM are probably anti-reparations for the descendants of actual slaves who actually lacked any freedoms what-so-ever. If you're against reparations for actual slavery, you can't be pro-reparations for getting your feelings hurt by the democratic process not working in your favour. You also lose the right to ever-again call another person a "snowflake".
The GIM is a childish, petty, entitled clusterfuck of poor logic, poorer planning. At best. Period.
Grow the fuck up, look for (and maybe even find) a real solution, and stop wasting other peoples time and money on your stupid kids klub treehouse plan.
In terms of economic policy, I have a problem with GIM in the same way I have a problem with the idea of the so-called "national divorce"; both sides will flounder and eventually sink, and the USA will cease to be an economic super-power on a global scale.
In terms of social policy, GIM is flawed in its logic, again much in the same way that a "national divorce would"; it pre-supposes that everyone born after the separation will automatically believe in, and follow, the dominant philosophy in the "blue" or "red" state/region/whatever.
Here's some articles about the flaws with the idea of a "national divorce". I think a lot of the points are applicable to the flaws in GIM:
www.nationalreview.com/2021/10/national-divorce-is-a-poisonously-stupid-idea/
reason.com/podcast/2022/07/05/is-america-heading-for-a-national-divorce/
www.learnliberty.org/blog/national-divorce-is-not-a-pro-liberty-solution/
I purposely chose Conservative/Libertarian sources, because I think it's important for GIM'ers to hear why they're wrong from their own people.. Also, I genuinely enjoy Reason for the most part.
Update 16 Jan.:
Ok, I do want to make clear that I don't necessarily blame the people for voting for GIM. As I said at the top of the post, I'm theoretically ok with the idea, just not this version. But for people who just voted for something on a ballot and had no part in the actual "planning" of this joke....you can't really blame someone for exercising their right to vote. If "every American gets a million dollars tomorrow: yes or no" is on the next ballot, I'm guessing most people are voting yes. For Conservative Oregonians, this is basically their version of something like that. My quarrel is strictly with the architects of the GIM and the land grab they feel entitled to.
I do think the political divide in Oregon is pretty stark, and I do think it has to be addressed. Oregon touts itself as an inclusive place, and this is a test of inclusivity. This should also be taken as a "see, this is a small taste of how it feels" lesson for "anti-woke" (or whatever) Conservatives on how minority and under-represented communities feel. If you're so in your feelings over being a political minority, imagine what it's like for people actually being oppressed.
Like I said in the blurb i quoted at the top of the post, there has to be some way to get people what they want/need without turning it into some big event that's so outlandish it feels more like an internet troll-job than an actual proposal.
Update 17 Jan:
Yes, I do realize that in older posts I've suggested what amounts to a thought experiment on a GIM type national restructuring. But (as I believe I said then) it would have to be something well thought out, heavily planned, and universally agreed upon. The one big problem about the GIM counties resolution is that the rest of the state hasn't agreed on it. Eastern Oregon isn't an independent entity. It's just the Eastern part of a state called Oregon. All Oregonians help fund it, and so all Oregonians should have a say in what happens to a substantial chunk of the state.
But, end of the day, IMO, the state should remain as one, and consider alternatives that could be beneficial to everyone.
Also, I got some good news today. So I might be laying off blogging for a bit. But I do want to kind of spitball possible configurations/laws/etc Oregon can pass/enact/put in place to maybe appease the greatest number of residents and allow for the greatest level of tolerance and maybe even *gasp* harmony and acceptance. So I'll probably be updating this post sporadically.
Update 22 Jan
I do want to say that the only reason I even posted this post is because I care about Oregon. It's my home. I just think there's a better way of dealing with the harsh divide than this GIM proposal. I don't like the idea of extremism breaking up the state.. Especially when these votes aren't even "100% of voters in county X, Y, or Z want to leave Oregon"
Anyway, I said I wanted to spitball, so here's a spitball idea:
I think there's a small group of people who want out one way or another. Maybe, if they own property, the state can buy it and reappropriate it as low-income housing. It would probably be bought at a bit of a loss, but I'm sure the low cost of living and low taxes in Idaho will more than make up for that (yes, some semi-sarcasm there).. The point is you have cash in hand to go move to your ideal state. You don't have to drain tax-payer funds by dragging this thing to its inevitable demise at the Federal level (because this would have to be ok'd by Congress...and maybe by the Senate, too?). And this will cost taxpayers a lot, on the State and Federal level, well before it even goes before Federal review.
Anyway, you get to move. In the case of people who don't own property but want to leave, I'm sure some kind of arrangement cant be made. Like enough to cover security deposit and 1st months rent on a new place. A parting gift from the "Socialist hell-hole" you want to leave so badly.
Another, less expensive, spitball idea: I think there's a cue to be taken from the way recreational marijuana sales were voted on, city by city. Some cities/towns don't allow sales. But there's a blanket state law that says you can't be arrested for illegal possession so long as you're of age and you're not carrying around like a pound of weed in your backpack for whatever reason.
A lot of division within the state is attributable to the touchy subjects: the pro-choice/anti-choice divide, the 2A/gun control divide, the racial justice/racist "justice" divide...things like that.
So, for example, if Conservatives can just be happy with having no abortion clinics in their city, but no penalty to people who leave the city to get an abortion, then everyone should be happy. If you feel you have to, say, disown your child because they didn't want a baby at age 17...I suppose it's your right to be a trash parent, so long as you don't inflict any violence on your child (physical or otherwise). But allow people the choice. . Maybe it's city by city. Maybe it's county by county. Maybe you do the regional thing.
With gun laws, I don't know. I'm not sure of the in's and out's of what give & take there is between federal and state laws. If, say, AK-47 style rifles (finally) get banned on the Federal level...it won't matter if you're in Idaho, Oregon, or maybe even Florida. But otherwise... maybe both sides could discuss how to maybe do a county-by-county or region-by-region set of gun laws.
As far as the racist stuff...nope. Nobody gets their magical pure-race wonderland. The second you open that laptop to connect to the world and call people all kinds of racist names and all-caps shout all kinds of racist clap-trap... you lose any claim to an isolated, "pure-blood" community. This is America in 2023, and no one gets to impose "sundown" laws anywhere, no one gets to discriminate against any race for jobs or housing or anything else. If you're really that dedicated to, say, your pure general European heritage? Find like-minded individuals to start a commune in some remote, uninhabited area in Russia. I'm sure Putin & Co. will welcome more willing bodies (and their money)You can renounce your citizenship to the Integrated States of America and let the rest of us get to the business of finding a way to live together better. .
Anyway, most of the places that are scared of integration out here are already like 90% white as it is. I don't think you have to worry too much about diluting your pure mixed Irish-German-Swedish-Romanian bloodline.
Anyway, it'll still cost in bureaucracy, but this second, "live and let live laws" spitball would probably be cheaper than the first.