The blogosphere is still rumbling this week after a suggestion by Texas Governor Rick Perry that the (now literally) Lone Star state secede from the embattled union. It does not help, of course, that a poll released on Thursday by Research2000 merely confirms the unfortunate truth that Perry's comments may have resonated among some Texans: In the survey, nearly 35 percent of respondents, mostly Republicans, indicated they felt Texas would be better off as an "independent nation."

It would be naive to take these findings seriously; gauging public opinion on any topic is difficult and daunting, especially when the questions themselves are indulgent and practically invite silliness. It is likely that many of the survey's respondents answered only out of jest, submitting to Perry's gaffe without the slightest contemplation of what secession would actually mean for their state, personal or geographic.

But that hasn't stopped a plethora of pundits from jokingly hypothesizing on their behalf. Earlier this week, Daily Kos noted a few drawbacks to Texan secession: the loss of its coveted military bases, exorbitant NASA funding and most of its dirty industry. Preceding that prediction was Nate Silver, who reminded politicos at FiveThirtyEight that an America without Texas would have catapulted the Democrats to a filibuster-proof supermajority in Congress -- even without Al Franken's help -- and ensured that not another Bush family member could have won the White House in 2004.

Indeed, we can attribute to Texas' departure a number of interesting benefits (that only those wary voters who stuck out the economy's apoplexy could reap). For example...

(CLICK TO READ MORE...)

Get the new
PD toolbar!

In the realm of higher education, an America without Texas would save the federal government more than $1 billion in Pell Grants (.xls), the program provided annually to college students who demonstrate significant financial need. In the 2006-2007 academic year, the Department of Education awarded Texas enough Pell Grant assistance to cover more than 440,000 college students -- money that would obviously disappear if the state left the union. To give this figure more perspective, recall that the most recent federal stimulus included a provision to increase Pell Grant funding by more than $13 billion dollars, almost $300 per student. When you subtract Texas from that equation and add the money saved by its absence, the United States could opt to cover more students or increase eligible students' current awards (even if only by a tiny amount).

A more substantial benefit from Texas' exit, however, is environmental in nature. According to The New York Times' assessment of state environmental quality, Texas emitted 224.76 million metric tons of CO2 last year -- ranking it first in total pollution. Presumably, this is because Texas also boasts the second largest population in the United States, weighing in at well over 22 million residents. Unfortunately, population totals matter little when state or federal agencies must offset carbon output. It currently costs the country anywhere between $1-30 per metric ton to address troublesome emissions, which would translate in Texas' case to anywhere between $224.76 million and $6.7 billion in CO2 offset fees. Of course, the Lone Star state's withdrawal would not exactly address the root environmental problem here; Texas would still emit pollutants at an alarming rate. However, secession would absolve the United States of its responsibility to pay for or fix it -- good news to the few voters who still weep openly about deficit spending.

And, finally, for those in the nation's capitol still bitter at Sen. John Cornyn's, R-Texas, vote against D.C. voting rights, Texas's exit would permit the District -- should it ever receive statehood -- a spot on the flag. Unlikely, but nonetheless important to the same cadre of cynical voters who first brought you Hippos for Hypocrites.

Indeed, many of these "benefits" are moot; the Lone Star state's exit would severely dent U.S. exports, among other areas of the economy, and test President Obama's foreign policy credentials. Then again, perhaps Obama too stands to gain from Texas' secession -- in some perverted sense, it would finally offer the ersatz Lincoln-ite the chance to walk in his idol's footsteps in more than just name.


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!