It’s funny how Assemblyman James Gallagher and other Republicans want to divide up the state into a coastal California and a separate rural state. Why does Gallagher want to do this? In my opinion, it comes down to his own personal political future. The results of Prop 50 put his political future in jeopardy, and now he wants a way that would help him get elected in the future in whatever way posible. He talks all the time about California being controlled by one majority party, yet at the same time he wants to create an entirely red state where Republicans would have control. He always says you can’t have it both ways, but here he is trying to create exactly what he claims to despise. Rural California depends on coastal California economically a lot more than these politicians care to admit. The coastal areas generate most of the tax revenue and economic activity for the state. That money helps fund infrastructure, highways, roads, healthcare programs, education, and services that the entire state, including rural areas, relies upon. How would this new state even survive economically? The economy of this proposed rural state would struggle because most of California’s economy currently comes from the coastal regions. His new California would be massive geographically, but land does not equal economic power. Population and industry matter. Actually, more land would mean more highways and roads for the new state to maintain. The counties in the coastal state would still have approximately 30 to 32 million people, while the rural counties making up the new state would only have around 10 to 12 million people. That is a huge difference in population, which then affects the workforce and taxpayers. Economically, more than 80% of California’s economy currently comes from the coastal areas Republicans want to separate from. Those coastal regions contain much of the technology industry, tourism, entertainment, and financial businesses. Also, these areas would control most of the shipping industry, and all the major ports would be in the coastal counties. Without those economic structures, this new rural state would immediately face major budget problems. So how would they support the infrastructure for this new state? How would they maintain highways, bridges, and emergency services? Rural areas already struggle with road maintenance in many places, as we currently know. Republicans constantly complain about taxes, especially fuel taxes, but those taxes help pay for transportation infrastructure. If they want to get rid of fuel taxes, then where is the replacement money going to come from? You cannot promise people lower taxes while also promising them better roads, more services, and a completely new state government without explaining how any of it gets paid for. Creating a new state would not solve any of the problems rural communities face. In fact, it could make many of those problems worse. Tax revenue from wealthier parts of the state helps support areas with smaller populations and weaker local economies. That is how large states function. At the end of the day, this proposal feels more political than practical. That may sound good to rile people up on social media, but when you actually look at the economics of it, the idea is far from practical.
