NY Times: American Democracy Is In Crisis From Republicans Adhering To The Constitution

Of course, this is playing to their unhinged, bat guano insane base, but, it is also reckless in that it whips those same barking moonbats into a frenzy towards violence (non-paywalled Yahoo version here)

‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy

The United States has experienced deep political turmoil several times before over the past century. The Great Depression caused Americans to doubt the country’s economic system. World War II and the Cold War presented threats from global totalitarian movements. The 1960s and ’70s were marred by assassinations, riots, a losing war and a disgraced president.

Riots? Like all the BLM/Antifa ones in 2020? Like Leftists declaring the CHOP zone of Seattle as no longer part of the United States? Taking over police stations? Invading people’s homes and businesses?

These earlier periods were each more alarming in some ways than anything that has happened in the United States recently. Yet during each of those previous times of tumult, the basic dynamics of American democracy held firm. Candidates who won the most votes were able to take power and attempt to address the country’s problems.

The current period is different. As a result, the United States today finds itself in a situation with little historical precedent. American democracy is facing two distinct threats, which together represent the most serious challenge to the country’s governing ideals in decades.

This should be good

The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election.

J6, blah blah blah. No mention of Democrats still caterwauling over the 2000 election, saying Bush stole it with the help of the Supreme Court. And 2004, Diebold voting machines in Ohio. And Russia Russia Russia for 2016. Weird, right?

The second threat to democracy is chronic but also growing: The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion.

The run of recent Supreme Court decisions — both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular — highlights this disconnect. Although the Democratic Party has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees seems poised to shape American politics for years, if not decades. And the court is only one of the means through which policy outcomes are becoming less closely tied to the popular will.

Does it need mentioning that we are not a Democracy, ie, mob rule, at the Federal level? That 1. the minority has safeguards from majority tyranny, and 2. we have a Constitution which sets the rules, regardless of public sentiment? Unless that majority can get an Amendment through the process. Or that Democrats will sue when the majority votes, such as California’s ban on gay marriage? And gay marriage bans in other states?

Two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote. Senators representing a majority of Americans are often unable to pass bills, partly because of the increasing use of the filibuster. Even the House, intended as the branch of the government that most reflects the popular will, does not always do so because of the way districts are drawn.

Hmm, that seems to be denying the rules as laid out by the Constitution for presidential election.

“We are far and away the most countermajoritarian democracy in the world,” said Steven Levitsky, a professor of government at Harvard University and a co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” with Daniel Ziblatt.

That’s a good thing. The Minority has rights and safeguards. The same Constitutional rules the NY Times is whining about as the second threat keeps Democrats from getting run over in Republican run states. Anyhow, it is a long, wackadoodle piece, ending with

The makeup of the federal government reflects public opinion less closely than it once did. And the chance of a true constitutional crisis — in which the rightful winner of an election cannot take office — has risen substantially. That combination shows that American democracy has never faced a threat quite like the current one.

Yes, the bureaucracy is heavily Democratic Party voters, well above the Republican/Independent/Democrat split. They do not serve the country, they serve their Beliefs. And, as the comment at the Yahoo piece with the most upvotes notes

The biggest threat to the American Democracy is the people that are elected to serve in the House and Senate that do not do the job of representing the people that elected them while at the same time setting themselves up as a pseudo-aristocracy whose only goal is to remain in power. If they would start doing the jobs they were elected to perform there would not be this amount of frustration and dissatisfaction.

Things we could do

  1. Repeal the 17th Amendment, allowing state general assemblies to appoint senators to represent the will of the state, ambassadors to the federal government, as intended. They will do what their states say, not what the big money donors.
  2. Term limits for Representatives. Eight years
  3. Federally elected positions and appointed administrators will not be allowed to trade stock while in office. Period. No trading stock for any federal employee if it is related to the agency they work for
  4. Balanced budget amendment
  5. Those running for the House may not take in more than 10% of their campaign donations from outside of their district. How does it help the people of that district when a goodly chunk comes from outside?
  6. Allocation to federal agencies will be based on what the agencies need, not what they want, reducing overspending, just like at private sector companies
  7. No more allowing cost over-runs when contracting something, unless the agency requests it. If the contractor is running late and over-budget, tough. Fulfill your contract, eat the money.
  8. Fed govt needs to stop funding everything local. Which gives them power over the towns and cities. Such as all the money to police depts, giving the feds power over the police
  9. Lower taxation. Money should be going to your town and state, not so much to feds

Reduce the power of the federal government, returning it to the states. And cities. Where it belongs. People would not need to care that much what is going on in D.C., but, in their town halls and general assemblies. Which are closer to The People. This is not what Progressives, like the folks at the NY Times want. They want a massively powerful federal government which can mandate how citizens live their lives. Yet, they never seem to realize this will apply to their own lives.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

30 Responses to “NY Times: American Democracy Is In Crisis From Republicans Adhering To The Constitution”

  1. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    They want a massively powerful federal government which can mandate how citizens live their lives. Yet, they never seem to realize this will apply to their own lives.

    That’s because democommies like the name implies will go along with anything a democommie federal government dictates(and I do mean dictates). I use the Wuhan scamdemic as an example. Conversely any idea, policy, program or even suggestion that the feds get smaller is greeted with distain. They are Supreme Government people. They thrive on regulations because they derive power over their fellow citizens. In short they are tyrants. But mostly it allows them to exercise their favorite pass time: lying. And there’s nothing we can do about it. I give Martha’s Vineyard as an example (but there are millions more[two weeks to bend the curve]).

    MAGA, stop the lying!

  2. ontoiran says:

    apparently the ny times writer doesn’t understand our system of government. or maybe he/she/xhe just doesn’t appreciate it. in that case, there are plenty of places where the will of the majority rules that may be more to his/her/xer liking. saudi arabia is 1 place that immediately comes to mind

  3. Facts Matter says:

    Those that would pass laws on term limits would have to vote themselves out of a job. A constitutional amendment would have to be passed by these same people and then sent to the states. all of that will never happen.

    The only way term limits would ever work is if the USA, which is getting really close to a constitutional convention, voted on term limits to be added to the constitution which would then have to still be sent to the states for ratification.

    The power of the federal government has grown to insane levels. It is a multiheaded monster that will never be reigned in. Never. It will only get bigger as the Hydra must feed itself.

    A balanced budget amendment will never be voted on for the same reason as term limits. The USA is a giant Ponzi scheme run by both sides as discovered by Ronald Reagan. Deficit spending. Dick Cheney said Deficits don’t matter and as such spending is out of control by both sides. This will never happen as the USA economy as we know it today is smoke and mirrors fed by 1-2 trillion each year in deficit spending to shore up growth.

    • James Lewis says:

      Colorado enacted term limits for US Reps/Sen back in the 90’s but the USSC in 1995

      “On May 22, 1995, the Supreme Court declared all State term limit laws unconstitutional as they apply to Members of the U.S. Congress.”

      So it will take an amendment to the constitution.

      • JimS says:

        Maybe this Supreme Court would look at it differently, and realize that Conngresmen and Senators are in fact employees of the State. Of course if a state had the balls to do and end run around the Supremes like New York did on the second ammendment, they could simply prohibit anyone term limited out from appearing on the ballot.

  4. alanstorm says:

    The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion.


    The run of recent Supreme Court decisions — both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular — highlights this disconnect.

    No. Not a good example. Look at Congress first – they are the ones who are allegedly supposed to set policy.

  5. alanstorm says:

    The biggest threat to the American Democracy is the people that are elected to serve in the House and Senate that do not do the job of representing the people that elected them while at the same time setting themselves up as a pseudo-aristocracy whose only goal is to remain in power. If they would start doing the jobs they were elected to perform there would not be this amount of frustration and dissatisfaction.

    Hey, they got something right!

  6. Hairy says:

    Republicans happily elected the King of Debt, Donald Tru2020 deficit was 1 trillion dollars
    Poker red states regularly lecture the richer blue states on how to run their economies as they suck off the DC tit

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      You really hate the average working man don’t you Hairy? Love them Martha’s Vineyard types. Rich, hateful, greedy, envious and mostly full of elitist pomposity. The red states feed the blue states. The red states supply the chain that keeps the blue states afloat. The red states provide the energy for the blue states and the labor on millions of Americans who work for us all not just the blues. Why do the rich in America hate the lower classes so much?

      MAGA hairy

      • Zachriel says:

        L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon!: The red states feed the blue states.

        In the presidential election of 2020, of the ten largest agricultural-producing states, Biden received more Electoral College votes.

  7. Dana says:

    Our distinguished host concluded:

    They want a massively powerful federal government which can mandate how citizens live their lives. Yet, they never seem to realize this will apply to their own lives.

    As long as it’s their policies being put into power, they didn’t care.

    So what did the Supreme Court do that so greatly shock the editors of The New York Times? They overturned Roe v Wade, but that didn’t affect the abortion laws in New York state, since overturning the prenatal infanticide decision simply returned the authority to the states, and the liberal northeast has all sorts of prenatal infanticide allowances in place.

    What the Court actually should have done is to declare the unborn child a legal person, who would then have all of the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment; that would have outlawed prenatal infanticide throughout the country.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Because cons feel that they can avoid law, the feel that liberals think the same way. Actually, libs understand the laws apply to them as well.

      If a con’s 12 yr old daughter gets raped and impregnated, the con mom and dad will get her an abortion even if it’s technically illegal in their state. Cons know they can get around the law.

      For nearly 20 years, Texas has also afforded fetuses legal rights when it comes to criminal cases. The Texas Penal Code was updated in 2003 to identify an “unborn child at every state of gestation from fertilization until birth” as an individual for cases of murder and assault. That law has been upheld by Texas’ highest criminal court of appeals, allowing the state to prosecute individuals who cause the “death of or injury to an unborn child.”

      But even conservative opponents of prenatal personcide mostly look the other way. It’s almost as if it’s “virtue signaling”.

      The editors of the New York Times realize that the overturning of Roe v Wade will not affect NY, NJ, CT and surrounds, but unlike cons who think only of themselves, the editors recognize the hardships placed on women in states like WV, KY, MS, FL, TX etc.

      Rather than by SC fiat, it would be better if Congress passed their own “personhood” law declaring a fertilized ovum as a legal person with all the rights of a citizen. That allows the state to control the reproductive status of women more efficiently. That way, if a ten year old female rape/incest victim is pregnant, terminating that pregnancy would be 1st degree murder and she would be prosecuted.

      A dad who smokes around his pregnant wife could be charged with manslaughter if she miscarried. And another wife could be charged with manslaughter for jogging in the first trimester if she miscarried her prenatal person. In fact, EVERY miscarriage would require a police investigation. And since the preimplantation person is now a person, women would need to monitor their menstrual periods for preimplantation persons, otherwise they could be flushing (murdering) a prenatal person down the toilet, the same as if an actual mother drowned her actual postnatal person.

      A pregnant woman in TX challenged a ticket she received for driving in the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane. Hey Texas, is the prenatal baby a person or not?

      Most anti-cancer drugs and treatments are proscribed during pregnancy, so a pregnant woman would no longer have a choice to have her cancer treated, effectively committing state-sanctioned suicide. Is a prenatal person more important than an actual person? No longer could a woman obtain a procedure to save her life if it meant the prenatal person, even one with its own fatal disorder, would be lost.

      A pregnant woman on life support would be required to stay on life support until the prenatal person was viable. Prenatal persons are believed to have a 85% chance of living outside the womb by 26 weeks gestation or so. A “dead” woman at 12 weeks gestation would be required to be kept on life support until the prenatal baby could be safely nataled. Prenatal person viability outside the womb depends on many factors – woman’s health, medical facilities (NYC or SF would be better than a regional rural center in WV), prenatal person weight etc. If the prenatal person is “delivered” at 26 weeks and then dies the police will investigate to make sure it wasn’t murder.

      Birth certificates would become meaningless, supplanted by Life Certificates awarded by the state at fertilization.

      Forced-birth zealots argue that common sense will prevail and police and prosecutors will use their “discretion” in investigations and charges. That’s small comfort for a woman charged with murder having a drink or two.

  8. James Lewis says:

    Dear Hairy:

    Seems like it was 2020 that the crazy Lefties managed to shut the country down, so I don’t think we should use it as a yard stick for anything except stupidity. As for federal money:

    The ten states with the highest total federal funding are:
    California ($43.61 billion)
    Texas ($26.90 billion)
    Florida ($23.77 billion)
    New York ($22.06 billion)
    Virginia ($17.68 billion)
    Pennsylvania ($15.58 billion)
    Illinois ($13.18 billion)
    Ohio ($12.57 billion)

    I don’t think CA, NY, VA, PA and IL are red states.

    No charge for the education.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Lewis typed: No charge for the education.

      “No charge” is still too much.

      Risibly, Lewis typed:

      The ten states with the highest total federal funding are:
      California ($43.61 billion)
      Texas ($26.90 billion)
      Florida ($23.77 billion)
      New York ($22.06 billion)
      Virginia ($17.68 billion)
      Pennsylvania ($15.58 billion)
      Illinois ($13.18 billion)
      Ohio ($12.57 billion)

      We’re certain it’s just a coincidence but those are the same states with the highest GDPs and that SEND THE MOST to federal coffers!.

      Would a better measure be which states receive the most from DC above what they send?

      Even better, since states like CA, TX, FL, NY etc have the greatest populations wouldn’t the dreaded (by connies) per capita amounts be most telling? Or how about fed taxes received per tax dollar sent?

      The Top Twelve States on Federal Payouts per $1 in Federal Taxes

      (1)New Mexico, West Virginia, Mississippi, Alaska, Hawaii, Alabama, Montana, Maine, Arizona, South Carolina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Vermont, Virginia, North Dakota, Louisiana, DC, Idaho, South Dakota, (20)Wyoming

      For example, New Mexico receives over $4 for every $1 of federal taxes they pay.

      There are a lot of poor folks in these states, typically lower GDP (lower tax base), govt/military facilites, etc. It’s no surprise that many of our state brethren receive help from high GDP states like TX, CA, FL, NY, IL etc. State GDP is the best predictor of dependency on the feds. High GDP means less dependence.

      Delaware, New Jersey, Nebraska, Washington, Illinois, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio pay in less than they receive. California receives $1 for every $1 they pay.

      Overall, DC and Virginia get the most federal funds per person because of all the federal paychecks going there.

  9. CarolAnn says:

    As the rich democrat donors in their vile little fiefdoms don’t pay their fair share of taxes Elwood complains they pay too much compared to the poorer among us. I guess how much one earns is not as important to the left as who they vote for. If they come from poorer usually red states then f’em, right Elwood? It doesn’t matter that those blue states are really paying more because of a few blue cities full of democrat millionaires and billionaires who steal off us middle class people then piss on or heads. That’s the kind of person Elwood is. He loves the rich and hates the rest. What horrible people these “Martha’s Vineyard” types are. They don’t even have a conscience as they berate and belittle the working men and women of America.

    The good news is we are waking up when we read this kind of crap from people like Elwood. The people I meet, regular people are full up with democrats and most tell me they won’t vote before they’ll vote for these corrupt thieves. LOL

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      Do you support, as do I, that our income tax system become more progressive so rich liberals pay more? Do you also support, as do I, closing the rich liberal loopholes.

      Maybe we can give the working class a break for once.

      As we’ve pointed out many times, our system is rigged for the wealthy – both libs and cons. Do you agree that the working and middle class deserve more of the fruits of THEIR labors?

      Is your hatred of Democrats so white hot that you can’t act in your family’s best interest?

      • Jl says:

        “Rigged for the wealth”? How so? We have one of the most progressive systems in the world, where a small number of people pay most of the tax. When the bottom 50% of wage earners pay about 3% of the total income tax bill, the system isn’t rigged toward the wealthy, sorry

      • david7134 says:

        Our income tax system is a tyrannical instrument. The rich pay enough tax and the poor working man pays hardly any. Why do you desire to harm prosperous people? Is it because you are a bitter failure. As to loopholes, you have used all of them. If you feel so bad about the working man, why do you flood our country with wetbacks? Dems are bent on the destruction of our country, so shouldn’t we resent them. They steal and lie. Biden, a corrupt, demented piece of shit is the perfect picture of a Dem.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:


          We appreciate your position, that of a man who became wealthy from government payments.

          Cons who whine about taxes only report on federal income taxes, ignoring payroll taxes and State and Local Taxes (SALT). The wealthy pay little Social Security tax. Most state income taxes are not progressive. All sales taxes are oppressively regressive. So yes, working men and women pay plenty of tax.

          The nation is not flooded with those you slur as ‘wetbacks’. In fact, America has a worker shortage. When did your Fish-Belly ancestors reach our golden shores?

  10. IOpian says:

    I would ask those who keep talking about our Democracy to point out a document that establishes a Democracy.

    I would also ask what federal governmental mechanism allows the People to directly interact with legislation. Where is our federal referendum ?

    The problem is that, due to their ignorance, they trying to fit the square peg of Democracy into the round hole of a Republic.

    But the thing that would probably cause a great disturbance in the mental well-being of most self-aggrandizing Leftist is that the founders weren’t all that into the people. They recognized the irrational impulsiveness of large groups of people. As Hamilton called them a great beast. I agree. The Constitutional Republic places law above the will of the people.

    • UnkleC says:

      IOpian, I think you are more correct than you would like. I graduated from H.S. in the ’60’s and my Civics education was woefully thin, then, just the basics. As I got older and took a serious interest in our country, I studied more. Not even talking about the current state of education.
      Most folks don’t have enough interest to learn about our system and simply believe what they hear from the usual sources whom are trying to sell their leftist / elitist point of view. Everyone should read and have a copy of the Constitution as well as knowing the difference between a democracy and a republic.
      Additionally, if people actually understood socialism-naziism-communism-facism etc. or how other governments operate, it is my belief that the people would be clamoring and voting for a change. Just my 2 cents.

    • Zachriel says:

      IOpian: I would ask those who keep talking about our Democracy to point out a document that establishes a Democracy.

      You can start with Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes a House of Representatives chosen by the people. Then you can move on to the Fifteenth Amendment, which guarantees that the right to vote shall not be abridged on account of race. The Seventeenth Amendment mandates Senate elections. The Nineteenth Amendment extends suffrage to women. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment eliminates poll taxes for voting. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment extends voting to people eighteen and older. It’s pretty clear that democratic elections are part of the constitutional system, making the U.S. a representative democracy.

      • CarolAnn says:

        You just described our constitutional republic. You still haven’t shown the “democracy” part. The word “democracy” now implies the established order and the semi-permanent ruling elite. Things change.

        When leftists say democracy it’s like spitting on the constitution because that’s what they mean. They want to establish themselves as a one party state and be damned with everyone else. After all they are the blue states/cities so they are special.

        BTW, is Martha’s Vineyard a democracy? Was the brutal forcing of all the brown people from the island by military force “democratic”? Yes, it was that’s what democracy is all about. Majority rule and fuk everyone else. That’s what you and your tribe want. 50%+One is democracy and no rights for the minority.

        Isn’t that why your comrades want Puerto Rico and DC made states? To establish an unbeatable democracy? Isn’t that why your tribe wants to eliminate the filibuster? To eliminate minority voices in the senate? Isn’t that why your pals want to expand the SC so you can legally override any policy you don’t like? That’s the evil that is democracy and that is precisely the sort of thing we would expect a person like you to endorse.

        You just can’t stand having a working man benefit from the same rights as you. You’re special.

        • Zachriel says:

          CarolAnn: You still haven’t shown the “democracy” part.

          Voting for representatives is called representative democracy. What did you think it was?

          CarolAnn: BTW, is Martha’s Vineyard a democracy?

          Yes. The government comprises elected representatives.

          CarolAnn: Was the brutal forcing of all the brown people from the island by military force “democratic”?

          What the heck are you talking about? 20% of permanent residents are Brazilian immigrants. The Venezuelan refugees were voluntarily moved to a military base where there were facilities set up for them.

          This isn’t new. The segregationists did the same thing of using ordinary people as pawns in their power games. Reverse Freedom Rides.

  11. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    This is the crux: The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election.

    The nuGOP position is now “Why have elections? We’re not a democracy.”

    That position IS a threat to America.

    The nuGOP^ must be defeated. Once they seize power there is no turning back.


  12. Professor Hale says:

    1. Manufacturing millions of votes in the middle of the night is not “democracy”.

    2. Using the power of government to pursue and punish your political opponents is not “democracy”.

    3. Using a complicated scheme of state by state voting, normalized by number of electors, is not “democracy”.

    But sure. Let’s go with how important it is to defend democracy.

    • Professor Hale says:

      And who can forget:

      Creating a system of super-delegates to make sure the mob of other delegates doesn’t select anyone the party insiders don’t want isn’t “democracy”.

  13. Professor Hale says:

    Re: 17th Amendment:
    As long as we are doing fantasy constitution changes,

    1. Abolish the Senate. It’s just a redundant House with different rules. It served a purpose back when they had to mitigate the extremes of the parties, now they cooperate to get the votes the Dems need and use the Senate to stonewall what Republican voters want. Role all their duties into the House.

    2. Make the Speaker of the House an elected office, not a representative of any district. Abolish office of VP. Speaker of house can act as president until a special election is held, then speaker goes back to the house. Special election in 30 days. The political parties can speed this up by having a candidate pre-approved as an alternate, even if never needed. No more Gerald Fords.

    3. Term limits. 8 years in congress. 10 years in Supreme Court and lower Federal courts.

    4. Supreme court justices must be approved by 2/3rds of the congress. If they can’t agree, the seat stays empty.

    5. Immediately after the election, any office holder who is not re-elected loses the power to vote in office as if they still retain the confidence of the voters. No last minute midnight bills passed by the losing party that is being turned out of office. No last day pardons or appointments. Every public act by an office holder should be taken as if the voters have a say.

    6. Abolish the electoral college. I really don’t care if Rhode Island has the same power as Texas or if 3 cities will dominate all future elections. If you live in the rural part of any state that has a big city, even Texas, then you already know that the cities already dominate power distribution.

    7. National ID. Use it for everything from exercising gun buying rights to voting to driving to flying on an airplane and as a passport. One card that lists your rights and privileges. And you have to physically insert your card in the voting machine to have your vote counted… in person. This is 1960’s technology. I don’t care if this is somehow abused by some future tyrannical government. The current tyrannical government is already doing worse.

    8. Every spending item over $100,000 must be individually voted on in Congress. They can all be lumped into a single bill, but every spending item gets an up-down vote with a by-name record of who said yes. This is 1980’s technology. A high school science club could design it.

    9. Define Citizen as the children of at least one citizen, or those who are naturalized by a legal process. End the insanity of Birth-right citizenship for children of invaders and foreign visitors.

    10. Change the 1st amendment to specifically state that Scientology is not a religion and can be regulated as consumer fraud. Further define a religion, for the purposed of constitutional protection, as having over 1 million members in this country, was created prior to 1800, and has a live and let live policy with regard to other sanctioned religions. Specify that religious institutions and people will receive the same tax treatment as other similar people, property, and organizations in their jurisdiction.

    11. End the constitutional right to bail. A judge should decide to hold or release you only on the basis of being dangerous, not even considering being a flight risk. The current system benefits no one by bail bondsmen and the rich.

    12. Amend the 13th amendment to include language that defines any form of military draft or involuntary community service, except as court ordered, is slavery under this context.

    13. No public money can be used to transfer to a foreign government. Money taken from American taxpayers should be used for their benefit exclusively.

    That should do it. Note that my own ideas have nothing to do with shaping the landscape to help one party or another “win” the next time, but in learning from the mistakes of our last attempt and making it better for ourselves and our posterity

  14. Professor hale says:

    States don’t feed anyone. Farmers and ranchers do. Every state has some. Bigger states have more than smaller states. Cities have the fewest.

    But as a matter of policy, look at what California is doing to kill off their agriculture. It was probably going to happen anyway since California doesn’t have enough water for that sort of thing. Loosing 50K acres/year.

Pirate's Cove