Last Friday, a person wrote a letter expressing that Hawaii can't survive without federal subsidies.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/02/editorial/letters/help-real-farmers-not-agribusiness/ (go to the 5th letter in that link)
So I thought it was time to get the people of Hawaii to think of the possibilities of how Hawaii can still be economically prosperous without relying on federal subsidies.
So I wrote a letter that was published in today's edition of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/08/editorial/letters/does-matayoshi-deserves-support/?HSA=04262e80d789ec1e84717fa266a7d124ce348574 (look for last letter in that link)
Here it is
Hawaii doesn’t need federal welfareA letter writer dismissed the idea of Hawaii’s independence from the U.S. by saying, “Hawaii couldn’t hold out for 24 hours without the massive welfare payments it receives from the federal government” (“Hawaii depends on federal largesse,” Star-Advertiser, Letters, Dec. 2).But we don’t need to be dependent on federal money. Federal money is taxpayer money.
Why pay taxes to the federal government when we can be independent and keep our tax revenues here?
Also, Hawaii can find alternatives to subsidies to be prosperous. For example, by becoming independent, we are no longer held hostage by the Jones Act, a federal law that makes onerous restrictions on what ships can go from one U.S. port to another.
With independence, Hawaii would no longer be constrained by the Jones Act and would have greater access to international trade.Singapore is an independent, prosperous city-state that doesn’t rely on foreign government subsidies.
If Singapore can do it, why not us?
Pablo Wegesend
Obviously, there's more to making an independent Hawaii prosperous, but it's a letter to the editor, which means I had to compress my thoughts in so many words. But I hope it got some people to think of the possibilities.
One of my facebook friends mentioned that Singapore has an advantage due to its larger population, location near other countries, and its trade pact with Australia.
But still, any location has its pros & cons, it's what you do with it that matters most!
Now, for the comments section to that letter, as listed on
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2016/12/08/editorial/letters/does-matayoshi-deserves-support/?HSA=04262e80d789ec1e84717fa266a7d124ce348574
and also this
Also, check out UH cultural anthropology professor Alan Howard's editorial supporting Hawaii's Independence at
Much of the article was focused on the differing mentalities between blue states (Democrat-voting states) and red states (Republican-voting states), and then it mentioned this
Here's one quote from the article
Unlikely as it is to materialize, there has been post-election sentiment expressed in West Coast states in favor of secession based on the overwhelming desire by a great many people of blue persuasion to dissociate from the reds.
In (blue) Hawaii, we understand these emotions, but we have a better case than most for secession, given that Hawaii was illegally annexed by the United States in the first place. I propose that we engage in serious discussions about the costs and benefits of secession, on the grounds not only of economics but also of a moral commitment to a worldview that differs so radically from red America.
