POLITICSnGoing It Alonenby Frank BryannThe Case for Vermont’snSecessionnAs the high lunacy of the 1990nbudget negotiations showed,nAmerica’s federal arrangement hasnbeen replaced by a confederation ofnspecial interests that have less in commonnthan the former colonies — orneven, perhaps, than the states that comprisenthe United Nations. America resemblesnmore a League of Interestsnthan it does a nation.nThe solution is too obvious to benseriously considered. We must spreadnout the work of democracy. We mustndecentralize, deregulate, and reimpower;nnot under the assumption thatnthis will mean less government, butnunder the knowledge that it will meannbetter government. John McClaughrynand I put it this way in The ‘VermontnPapers:nThis then is the great Americannchallenge of the twenty-firstncentury: saving the center bynshoring up its parts, preservingnunion by emphasizing disunion,nmaking cosmopolitanismnVITAL SIGNSnpossible by making parochialismnnecessary, restoring thenrepresentative republic bynrebuilding direct democracy,nstrengthening the nationalncharacter through a rebirth ofnlocal citizenship.nBut a “new” federalism created throughnincrementalism will never happen. It isntime for something different. What wenneed must be radical. It must be dramatic.nVermont should secede.nThere is only one serious argumentnagainst such a move and that is thatnother states might follow suit. The answernto this is to give Vermont thenopportunity to conduct what LangdonnWinner calls “niche” analysis. His hopenfor societal advancement is to allowncertain systems broad latitude in sociopoliticalnexperimentation. We do thisnnow on a very small scale to test outnlimited kinds of public policy. Americanshould give Vermont the slack it needsnto steer its own course. We contributenabout- one-tenth of one percent of thennational tax base. Hence while NewnYork or California could not secedenunder the present circumstances, Vermontncan. What this country needs is angood swift slap alongside the head, andnVermont is just the state to give it.nAs Vermonters we stand on the highnground. For two centuries we havenworked from within to preserve andnenhance the Union. We have beennpatient. We have carried more than ournshare of the load. But enough isnenough. If the federal government appliesnevery red cent Vermonters pay innincome taxes to what it has already lostnin the FMHA, HUD, and S&L scandals,nit will take us until 2052 to pay itnback. Our contribution to the nationalngovernment for the next half centurynhas already been spent. This isn’t wastednmoney. It is lost money.nLast spring, soon after seven ofnseven Vermont communities votednoverwhelmingly to secede from thenunion, I spoke at Blue Mountain HighnSchool in Wells River. The occasion:nthe burning of their mortgage for thennew school building. They were debt-nnnfree. These good people in their threenlittle towns with their litde school andnburdened with big property taxes belliednup every year for twenty years andnpaid back what they owed, principalnplus interest.nIn Washington the interest on thendebt threatens to take one-third of ourntax money each year. To retire the debtnwould require a stack of thousanddollarnbills 204 miles high.nLeaving the Union will involve thenbreaking of no promises. Our contractnwith America made two hundred yearsnago has been trashed by a nationalngovernment with an unquenchablenthirst for power. When we signed on,nthe American Constitution ensured usnthat “the powers not delegated to thenU.S. by the Constitution nor prohibitednby it to the states, are reserved to thenstates respectively, or to the people.” Isnthere anyone left in America todaynover the age of six who does notnunderstand that the reserved powernclause has become a joke? The authornof a leading college textbook puts’ it thisnway: “Actions by Congress and thenFederal Courts have gradually underminednthe 10th Amendment. It hownbears little relevance to the configurationnof American Federalism in then1990’s.”nWhen the Supreme Court held inn1985 that the Congress could controlnthe way localities in the states deal withntheir own municipal employees, a dissentingnjudge said: “All that standsnbetween the remaining essentials ofnstate sovereignty and Congress is thenlatter’s underdeveloped capacity fornself-restraint.” Just this year Vermontndecided it was hopeless to pursue ancase before the courts whereby wensought to retain our right to set anretirement age for our own judges.nAnd when the feds want control overnsomething so clearly a state’s right thatneven the most centrist judge can’t findna way to make it “constitutional,” thenCongress takes the right away bynthreatening to withhold our own moneynfrom us. These are called “crossovernsanctions.” In the I980’s Ronald Reagan,nin an act of mind-wrenching hy-nAPRIL 1991/45n