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.
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.
Excellent post. But your liberal position is showing. States do not have to share...just as Federal government is only obliged to manage, not create revenue.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great blog Dr. Who is talking about this? After consuming all the excess pork from the federal government they want to hide, hoarde and humiliate others. This is what we call narcissism. Fedral government counts only when they want money or something...and then they want their State rights. Let the Feds take over. Come on!
ReplyDeleteThis post is not intended to be Liberal or Conservative...I explain well that solutions from both sides have their own pain and weaknesses. It is really about State responsibilty - during times of national economic difficulties. But thank you for writing. Keep on reading!
ReplyDelete