What is the State Responsibility to a Federal Government?

Read Disclaimer Clause at the Bottom First and Last

There is a funny country song a student once sang, "My mumma don't like my long hair, my girlfriend don't like my short hair...and I am pullin my hair trying to satisfy both!" Of course the easy answer to this dilemma would be, "Stop being a people pleaser and do what you want - what's best for you. It is your hair...and just hair!" But the answer is not that simple when it comes to the budget, the spending, the deficit and people's real economic needs. It will require a lot of hair pulling!

If you go along with the Conservatives there is going to be a lot of management pain, with cuts and eliminations, in the hope that in a few years our borrowing, spending and lifestyle would become more balanced, sensible, and we'll be on a road to recovery (though not a fast and furious one). If we go along with the Liberals there will be a lot of borrowing and spending, to create more jobs and sustain life and living as we knew it - though the end result will "possibly be a banana republic". Take your pick!

What Americans have not come to grip with is: there are going to be problems and difficulties, now or later, big or bigger, no matter what political choice we go with. As one comedian put it crudely, "We are screwed no matter what!"

Look at the State deficit record (for 2010 and 2011) from My Budget 360
on webpage http://www.mybudget360.com/fiscal-situation-of-50-states-combined-budget-gaps-estimated-at-350-billion-for-2010-and-2011/





The other twenty-one States, including DC, have a deficit of less than 4.50% of the general fund, but with a fluctuating gap that varies from $ 13.2 million (in Mississippi) to   $ 1.7 billion (in New York). The total deficit problem, no matter how small (like in Mississippi), is further compounded by inadequate revenue, population size (large ones requiring more spending) and social problems (that demand attention, sometimes to avoid crises that would add to future costs). In this regard even States with a small deficit (much of it in the South, northern Midwest and among the Mountain States) have serious problems - mostly because they do not have the revenue that States like California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, etc. do. In such a situation even a small deficit would be difficult to resolve.

State efforts to curb their own deficit problems, without allowing Federal debt or its budget needs to contaminate it, is an intelligent move - only if they do the smart thing and the right thing. They have to make the necessary hard decisions without increasing inequality or short changing voters - who are likely to pull them out of office if they don't oblige them. In this regard "battles have already begun" - in States like Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Whatever deficit reduction occurs or do not occur across States, we must wonder what problems will be solved and remain unsolved with what policy medicine - Conservative or Liberal?

The only State that has been successful at offering no taxes - income, sales and corporate, while at the same time avoiding deficit and remarkably running a surplus is "Alaska". It has nothing to do with Ms. Sarah Palin, who has been either overly praised or overly vilified in the press. It has to do with oil money pure and simple...and plenty of it!

The question is, "If States like California provided more than 15% of the national revenue - a huge amount considering there are 50 States, how come States like Alaska are not offering some of their surplus to the Federal deficit - which is connected to State deficits (though not entirely)? Should there not be some shared pain, especially when deficit avoidance and surplus have nothing to do with "hard work, creative work, entrepreneurialism or unique investments"? Oil revenue depends on "excavation and exploitation of the land, over a preciously needed resource" - that's it!

If the Federal Government is responsible for providing "stimulus money, emergency money, disaster relief money, investment money and infrastructure money" to the States...what is the responsibility of the States to the Federal government?

Just five States (yes, five!) alone, California, Texas, New York being three of them, have continuously contributed to 40% of America's GDP (Gross Domestic Product). That's a lot of responsibility for a few States to have assumed for so long. As some of these State residents have vocalized, "Now it is time for others to start giving...and get more productive and creative!"

It is only fair that States, that now face some of the worst housing crisis, like California, that once gave so much to the rest of the United States, get some appropriate help in their time of need. It is what Asians call "reciprocity".

The best analogy is what prompted many women, in the 20th century, to join the women's movement. Many women felt they were "giving, giving and giving" while the men, in their families and communities, were "taking, taking and taking". It was this lack of give-and-take, that included shared rights, responsibilities and pain, that angered many women and encouraged them to join feminism. Asians call this important familial or communal give-and-take "reciprocity"! We can apply such a cultural model of reciprocity to the State and Federal political relationship.

Do we see any debate on this matter in the American press, or the global press: where the question of State rights versus State responsibilities towards their National (or Federal) government, and to each other, is both examined and evaluated?

Without such an exploration and assessment too many States, or Provinces, will be drawing a line on the sand for battles, with their own federal or national governments, that will get divisive and nasty.

The Invisible American Social Divide

More than ten years ago a young Anglo American Californian noted, after returning from a long trip across the Middle East, Asia and Australia:

I never realized how Americanized the world has become. Everywhere I went people were either more Americanized than when I remember them, or they were eager to show me how American they were - in their lifestyles, social beliefs, cultural practices, leisure activities, product preferences...Their language has changed, their clothes have changed, their mannerisms have changed and their attitudes have changed. I did not feel good about this. I felt like I got more of the old world, ethnic world or non-American world, however one wants to put it, back in California where many immigrants and minorities appeared less American. I found this Americanization most acute in many global cities, urban areas, among the middle class, the upwardly mobile and the elites. It made me so distraught that sometimes I feel I cannot breathe on planet earth anymore - it has become culturally stifling and suffocating. Do not get me wrong, I am very American...and one who is very proud of my country. But more American influence I see around the world, more worried for the world and for my own country I become.

This kind of globalization, when few selective societies create a mono-culture, similar to the mono-crop in agriculture (that overtime depletes the land of essential minerals due to lack of crop variety), can not only homogenize the landscape culturally and socially... but politically too. We already find words like "civilized and developed" have acquired a narrow biased definition in many popular discussions.

A late night American TV comedian, part of a group that has now become, in some communities for the younger generation, the exclusive providers of news and analysis, talked about how "wearing pants - jeans in particular, suits, etc." - Western attire, represents "civilization, civility and humanity". In this logic many cowboys in jeans who shot Natives and Blacks must be civilized, and white-collar criminals in expensive three piece suits must be "evolved".

Some of the enlightened critics of dictatorship and oligarchy in the Middle East, without fluency in English, have been dignified natives of their land who wore their traditional garb with pride. The men who drove planes through US buildings on Sept. 11 wore Western clothes and ate a lot of fast food.

When celebrities and the press in the US continuously present a world view that is selective, biased and lack a more sophisticated understanding of culture, community and the collective, both inside and outside the US, we see how judgements on people and cultures - that which can be subtle, is biased by the strict reading of the visible exclusively - or that which is obvious. 

It took decades for the Afro hair and Black dreadlocks to become acceptable and even popular among the Anglo youth, artists and radicals. Now being "Black", with a distinct Black "look" or fashion, is acceptable, popular and even expected.

Similarly nose studs or rings among White or American youngsters is considered acceptable, and may even be cool - meaning trendy and fashionable, in many cities. But nose studs and rings on Asian women, who have traditionally worn them, is considered to be un-American, or signs of inadequate acculturation. What the Anglo majority in some communities, and the Conservative minority in others, do or don't still defines "acceptability, respectability and popularity" in the United States.

As a Black historian and sociologist, Cornell West, once said (paraphrased), "There is a litmus test, sometimes obvious, sometimes subtle and sometimes shifting, that determines whether a culture, an ethnic group or a race will be tolerated, included and/or integrated in the United States".

This litmus test might change, but the test itself remains: sometimes obvious and sometimes not-so-obvious.

If minority cultures, not just minority communities, are constantly regarded in the US as "pathological" or "less than", we now have "American attire, appearance, fashion and mannerism" being exported, by the American press mostly and some conservative commentators, as the very essence of  American justice, liberty, fraternity, freedom and fun. 

The question that is rarely asked in these public forums is, "How does the evolution of the mind occur, or even begin, with a mere 'pant, shirt, vest, coat and a tie?" How do  superficial changes in attire, appearance and physical affliction indicate or affirm changes in attitudes, beliefs and values? And are all values and attitudes from the US equally important, good and helpful to other communities, cultures and countries?

Yet what such changes globally do provide is a "comfort zone" for the American traveller, visitor, immigrant, expatriate and the businessman...and possibly a false sense of change. Some well known American social commentators, like Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Ralph Nader, etc. called this  "American cultural imperialism".

But what such a general critique on "American cultural imperialism"  overlooks, even globally, is the "deep social and political divisions" that exist in the United States - beyond its cultural homogenization or uniformity. A divide that is hard to see, and getting harder to bridge.

Conservatives, who have now begun to dominate many research and academic institutions in the United States, consider "Anti-Americanism" synonymous with "anti-capitalism", "anti-democracy" or "anti-American foreign policy"...while Liberals, a shrinking group in the media, have become the biggest, and at times the only, critical voice of everything popularly, politically and prevalently American.

Hence, added to the "cultural selectivity and myopia", in the way America is marketed to the world, there is a false belief  that "cultural America is synonymous with political America". This overlooks the fact that, while America may appear outwardly "similar, the same or homogeneous" across the United States, politically it remains diverse, and in some core social beliefs it remains divided.

Lets take women's reproductive rights - including safe, affordable and accessible medical termination of unwanted pregnancies. The Right in America, made up of fiscal, religious and social Conservatives, want to limit choices for women...with an emphasis on old fashioned view of women's role in families and societies. Liberals want to protect reproductive choices that have been legally fought for and won, and expand existing rights if possible. This battle, between the social Left and the social Right, has been fought again and again in many elections and public policies. Yet this divide is not evident in the clothes that people wear, or their outward demeanor. But this divide remains deep and political.

While "Americanization" might be a cultural influence that is often popularly adopted or passionately criticized outside the US, "American exactness" in certain social values and mores, demanded by Conservatives domestically, is actively condemned by American Liberals. This social divide is hard to see, and it is growing.

Just as "diversity and individuality" among minorities, immigrants and people of color were rarely recognized, or taken seriously, making it easy to stereotype them and put them in narrow social and cultural boxes, social divisions in the United States, that will have political repercussions, have been ignored by the popular press - or treated trivially.

American social divide, on issues such as women's rights, gay and lesbian rights, strict gun control laws, separation of State and religion, criticisms of bailout for private businesses (that should adhere to strict capitalistic conduct, in a capitalistic society, of paying for their own risks and business failures), etc. is real and deep - though hard to see through its cultural homogeniety.

This explains why, even as "cultural America" is obvious, widely adopted, embraced and popularly discussed around the world, the more subtle, or hidden, social and political divide within the US is barely recognized around the world - let alone understood.

One cannot understand the mind, its beliefs, values and passions, by merely looking at the way the body of the mind dresses, talks, walks, presents itself or parades. That should be common knowledge or common sense to most. But in the "Americanization of the world" the deep internal social divide, with its political face, within the United States remains little understood and mostly unacknowledged.

How the American and the Western Press gets the Middle East rebellion and the Midwest Protests wrong

Read Disclaimer Clause, Given at the Bottom, First and Last

If there are concerns that there are no limits to how far the Right will go to defend their objectives, ideology and irrationality, it also helps to have a press that is either shallow or deceptive in the way it reports on complex social and political issues.

Not only was Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, a State in the Midwestern US, thoughtless in the way he handled the union workers, many of whom were ready to come to the table and find a common ground for negotiations and compromise to reduce the State deficit, he provoked the lions, tigers and bulls, who can now be legitimately extreme and unreasonable in their demands with full public support, out of their cages. Why would Koch brothers, the Conservative funders behind this Governor, support "a not-so-smart" man like him?

It has been both popular and widely prevalent in the US, of late, for the media to constantly connect or link the Middle East rebellion with the Midwest protests, particularly in the liberal press - be it unconscious or deliberate. It gives the Right even more reason to apply strong-arm tactics against the protesters, who are now being accused of alliance with the "Muslim Brotherhood" and/or "Communism": two terms that scare the ethnocentric, insular, politically conservative Right.

Nothing should be more amusing than people on Conservative news channels continuously linking Muslim Brotherhood with Communists. What the American people and the press often forget is that the former believes very strongly in narrow religious doctrines or dogmas in the dictates of politics, while the latter believes strongly in rejection, elimination or subjugation of religion all together in society and State matters. While spirituality, culture, individual freedom and secularism, as opposed to religion, may be similar or different for both, Muslim Brotherhood is committed to religious doctrines and dictates, Communism is not. How do the two get linked? Possible only in the minds and the propaganda of the Right and a deceptive Press!

Muslim Brotherhood in countries like Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain are trying to overthrow "dictators", who are well funded by the oligarchy, foreign governments and even foreign militaries, while the Midwest protesters are trying to overthrow capitalistic interests that are attacking workers' unions and their right to collective bargaining that could lead to fewer choices...and dictatorship.

To claim the two, Muslim Brotherhood and Communism, are linked is outrageous...unless this kind of press coverage is itself an attempt to subvert political action or a social movement. Provocateurs who attempt to manipulate protesters come in many forms and with many faces. They don't have to be trouble makers...they can be the press that may appear sympathetic, but presents information in subtly skewed manner to distort perception and priorities.

How the press presents issues, what language it uses, what links or connections it makes and what story it sells (and note the word "sell")...can decide on the direction of, dictation on, and domination over a social movement and its political repercussions.

Middle Easterners, many of whom are putting their lives on the line and struggling for basic justice, are worried that the press coverage on the Midwest protests may not only take away attention from their struggles...but skew their issues  - which is a fight for basic fundamental rights than mere workers' benefits.

Wisconsin, USA is no Libya, Africa, but the Right likes to squash it all up, while some of the pretentiously Left press likes to use dramatic language that compromises the nuances and the details.

What is an amusing irony is that big corporations, like Facebook, Twitter, etc. have actually supported the protesters in the Middle East...with what intentions we don't know. On the other hand in the Midwest it is the reverse - where corporations are seen as the enemy that is funding Right wing politics while sabotaging workers' rights. Do you see the media - including so-called liberal MS NBC (in the US) or Democracy Now - with the exception of few reporters in these media organizations - making these differentiations?

This is why keeping our minds open to all kinds of analyses, and not merely standing back and allowing the status quo to continue, is important. If narrow ideas, ideologies and economic theories were exported from the West to its colonial subjects once, we now have a diluted, muted, highly contaminated, pretentious and hypocritical version of justice, equality and human rights being exported to the world from countries with a selective media - that may not even present a critique of its own government well. 

The United States does many things right, and it should be admired and applauded for that...but much of the US press, in general, have been avoiding truths, ignoring facts, distorting important information, skewing relevancy and not ranking issues with proper validity - especially on international matters. Though some improvements are occuring, our vigilance, our own independent vantage points (on some issues) and our paradigmatic uniqueness might help provide more accuracy, or better clarity, on social analyses of political protests and movements in the United States, the Middle East and beyond.