Connect with us

Federalists

California eyeing State-run bank for marijuana

Published

on

The State of the Union address is over and as expected, the Left side of the aisle is saying everything good in this country right now is because of Obama and Trump is taking credit for his accomplishments.

Conversely, the Right is saying everything good happening in the country is because of Trump. It’s the typical partisan spin put out by both parties. Each goes to their own corner to defend their cause even if they might be wrong.

We have become so accustomed to the divisiveness that any bi-partisan agreement is labeled a sellout and any politician is worthy of a primary challenge if they are marked a sellout because they are not ideologically pure.

It’s the typical Red shirts versus Blue shirts game.

So when you’re the Republican candidate for California State Controller, and the California State Treasurer and Attorney General come out with an idea for a state-run bank for marijuana, I should immediately dismiss it because they are Democrats and I’m a Republican.

Well, not that I don’t have my concerns with a state-run bank, run by a state that can’t properly manage its own finances and the answer to every question is to raise more taxes.

Don’t get me wrong I’m no fan of the quasi-governmental private-public bank that controls monetary policies in the United States called, The Federal Reserve. This does not mean as a Federalist that this idea isn’t worth studying.

Background

According to the Sacramento Bee:

Because of the federal prohibition on marijuana, banks generally will not provide accounts to cannabis companies, forcing them to pay taxes and other expenses in cash. The resulting safety problems and accounting complications have been brought to the fore by the Jan. 1 start of legal recreational pot sales in California.

US Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been on a crusade to stamp out state-legalized marijuana. Thus tensions between the states and the federal government over marijuana are at an all-time high; no pun intended.

Why it’s worth considering

I’m no fan of marijuana, but as a Federalist, the criminalization and regulation of marijuana on the federal level is not an enumerated power given to the federal government. This is a state’s power issue.

If you are okay with what Jeff Sessions is doing, then I’m assuming you were fine when the Obama Administration was working to force banks to dump gun stores.

Remember, you can’t have it both ways. You either want to limit centralized government, or you just want your team to control everything and do what you want.

If you liked the power Obama had then you should be fine with Trump wielding the same powers or vice versa.

If you don’t like the person wearing the other jersey having that much power because of their ability to abuse that power then it is time to reconsider how we do government from the federal government all the way to local government.

Are there concerns with a state-run bank

Yes, there are concerns, and in the same Sacramento Bee article they mentioned a few:

“The obstacles to creating a public financial institution are formidable, including the difficulty of getting deposit insurance, unknown start-up costs, investment likely to measure in the billions of dollars, and the probability of losses for several years or more that taxpayers would have to cover,” the report states.

“For a state that is already plagued with so many economic problems, despite its recent budget surplus, the idea of the state running its own bank should worry every person in California,” said Yaël Ossowski, the Deputy Director for the Consumer Choice Center in Washington, D.C.

There is also another proposal to work within the framework of existing state-chartered banks.

State Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, also is pursuing the idea of a state bank for cannabis businesses. Last week, he introduced a bill that would allow state-chartered banks, credit unions and other financial institutions to open checking and savings accounts and for marijuana businesses.

Principles over Party

So even though California politicians didn’t lift a finger to protect California gun shops from the Obama administration, we should be willing to consider any idea that limits the scope of the federal government’s reach.

You never know, this might just help protect our 2nd Amendment Rights during the next Democratic administration.

Even if the intentions of the State Treasure and State Attorney General are not to your liking, its okay. The point is, if you want to limit the power and scope of the federal government then we should take this opportunity to see how we can best do it.

This does not mean the resulting proposal will be good. I do have real concerns, but before we shut the door to even doing a study on this and discussing it, let’s see what the possibilities are and what we can learn.


Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at cacontroller.com, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Economy

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

Published

on

A reminder to GOP lawmakers from Justin Amash

When Representative Justin Amash (R-MI) hadn’t been in Washington DC for very long when he said this amazing quote. At the time, many weren’t paying much attention. After all, many Republicans say similar things when they get to DC, but over time they become jaded, corrupted, or start to get used to being in the DC Country Club.

Amash is different. He has remained consistent with his message and views throughout his career. Now, it’s time for other Republicans to remember what they were sent to Washington DC to do in the first place. Defense of the Constitution is their top priority as it’s the best protection against a government that wants desperately to control every aspect of our lives. From healthcare to the internet to how we use our energy, government intervention has become so commonplace, it’s often hard to see the fabric of our nation behind all the layers of bureaucracy that has been placed on top of it.

“I follow a set of principles, I follow the Constitution. And that’s what I base my votes on. Limited government, economic freedom and individual liberty.”

If more Republicans followed the same principles and didn’t just use them in campaign speeches, we may actually be able to return liberties that have been taken and remove layers of government that have been formed unnecessarily.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Federalists

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Published

on

Mike Pence on his belief in federalism

Vice President Mike Pence has been a strong proponent for federalism throughout his political and radio careers. While he may have had to push his federalist leanings aside while in the White House as his boss feels the need to expand DC power, but at his core I believe he’s still a federalist.

DC power is out of control. States, cities, and most importantly individual Americans need to do whatever we can to rein in the federal government. They believe they know best despite clear evidence they don’t.

“Our founders insisted that protecting the states’ power to govern themselves was vital to limit the power of Washington and preserve freedom.”

Continue Reading

Federalists

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

Published

on

Why sanctuary cities are not an example of federalism

There’s a false narrative circulating that claims sanctuary cities are an example of the proper use of federalism that keeps law enforcement powers in the hands local, city, county, and state governments as it pertains to illegal immigrant sanctuary status. On the surface, this argument may actually make sense to some. Dig a little deeper and it’s clearly not what federalists should embrace.

Briefly, federalism is the belief that powers should be shared between all levels of government starting with the individual and family unit at the top of the pyramid and working its way down to the bottom level, the federal government. When it was first pushed by the founding father federalists such as James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, they fought to make sure the federal government had enough power to be relevant, as their opposition basically wanted states to have all the power. Today federalist tenets have had to refocus on taking powers away from a bloated federal government and return them to the states, counties, cities, communities, and, of course, the individual.

Proponents of sanctuary areas say they’re simply following the principles of limited government federalism by choosing to ignore federal-initiated holds for illegal immigrants who are detained by local jurisdictions. This is false federalism because it suffers from one major flaw.

For states-rights to kick in, one very important criteria must be met. The actions of one location cannot be allowed to have a major detrimental effect on another location. The federal government should only get involved in states’ affairs when their actions influence other states. Such is the case with sanctuary cities and states. Criminal illegal immigrants are not stuck in the city that ignored the federal hold orders. When they release a criminal illegal immigrant, they’re allowing them to roam free across the nation. That means the actions of a state like California can cause harm to residence of neighboring states.

We’re not talking about residents in a state without legal marijuana crossing into another state to buy a joint. We’re talking about people who have entered the country illegally, broken our right to sovereignty, and who pose a clear and present danger to American citizens.

Moreover, it creates an atmosphere of unfairness. As a legal immigrant to the United States, I receive no sanctuary in California. If I have a federal warrant against me and I’m detained for, say, drunk driving in California, they’re not going to release me so I can avoid my federal warrant. If I were an illegal immigrant instead, they would. How backwards is it that my rights as an American citizen are lower than the rights of an illegal immigrant?

Let’s not confuse the real issue, here. This is all about power. The sentiment towards illegal immigrants is both backwards and illogical in cities and states that offer sanctuary to them. Yet politicians know many will continue to vote for them in states like California because to most leftists, hurt feelings are more powerful than actual facts.

I’m JD Rucker. Thank you for listening.

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report