While the administration of US President Barack Obama commands global attention, the US’ future may be written in and by its largest state. Once the lodestar for American optimism and achievement, California now illustrates the difficulties confronting the US — and how much more can still go wrong domestically.
The most populous and wealthiest US state, California has long been a beacon of opportunity for talented and enterprising people all over the world. One in four California residents was born in a foreign country. California’s two most famous industries, Silicon Valley and Hollywood, depend on infusions of talent from abroad. Its agricultural sector is a massive exporter, benefiting from the growing appetites of consumers in developing countries.
Yet California’s technological and entrepreneurial might — standing alone, the state would be the world’s eighth-largest economy — coexists with a dysfunctional political system that has brought it to the edge of fiscal bankruptcy. On Tuesday, the state’s voters, in a special election, rejected an array of tax increases and spending cuts required to balance its budget. Now, California faces either an embarrassing federal bailout or a prolonged period of rule by judges, who under California law have the power to vacate labor agreements, abrogate contracts, and generally restructure the state’s financial commitments.
For Obama, California’s crisis imperils his own reform agenda. Because other US states also face tough fiscal conditions, the political price of bailing out California may be bailing out dozens of other states too.
A massive state bailout, while adding enormously to pressure on Obama’s government, would expose the weak link in the US system of governance. So-called “unitary” nations such as Britain, France, China or Kenya, essentially have a single set of government obligations: one national police force, one employer for all public school teachers, one overall pension system and so on. By contrast, the US has an “asymmetric” form of government, which allows many overlapping government entities — 7,000 in California alone — to incur debts, hire and fire employees, and impose taxes.
Making sense of these asymmetries is difficult. When financial markets concentrate on the fiscal health of the federal government, they miss the extent of government obligations as a whole.
The complexity of US governance threatens the benefits of Obama’s decision to stimulate the economy through deficit spending. While the national government expands, state governments, such as California’s, contract.
Moreover, California’s crisis is more than an economic one. It is the most diverse US state; more than half of its 37 million people are non-white. For believers in the benefits of diversity, California represents the largest social experiment in human history, bringing people of different backgrounds together in a way unimaginable in, say, Germany or China.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was an immigrant before he was a movie star. In his six years in office, he has repeatedly tried to bypass a polarized state legislature — even the annual budget requires a two-thirds majority — by appealing directly to voters. Ballot initiatives were created 100 years ago to empower ordinary citizens, but the process has been captured by self-serving elites.
Even as California’s roads fall apart and public institutions decline — the result of too little spending and public workers who are too expensive — the state continues to operate the finest set of public universities in the US. But the secret of the University of California’s success is its ability to obtain ever-higher amounts of funding from private sources and the federal government.
Disengagement from the California polity also is true of the state’s economic engines. Intel, the world’s biggest chip maker and a Silicon Valley mainstay, hasn’t built a factory in California for more than 20 years. Hollywood shoots an increasing number of films elsewhere. Agriculture relies heavily on illegal workers from Mexico, who live temporarily near the fields and take their earnings back home.
How to forge a single community out of a state so diverse remains an elusive challenge. Some influential people, including Schwarzenegger, say the state needs a new constitution that would restrict ballot initiatives and make budgets easier to pass. More radical thinkers insist that California is ungovernable and should be broken into two or even three states.
Creating more Californias would of course require the approval of the federal government in Washington, where elected representatives from California — mainly from Obama’s Democratic Party — have more power today than at perhaps any time in US history. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco. Californians run the two most powerful House committees, Energy and Commerce and Education and Labor. Two of the most influential senators also come from California.
Why these Washington politicians are idle while their state slides towards ruin says much about what’s broken in US politics. Schwarzenegger is a Republican, so Democrats privately wish him to fail. There’s a deeper problem: politicians across the spectrum, beholden to special interests, are habituated to denying serious problems.
Obama will be forced to help craft a compromise to keep the state financially afloat. Yet as a condition, he may insist that Californians, who are already among the most heavily taxed Americans, pay more. If Californians refuse, Obama could face a widening revolt — against the idea of expanded government as the chief response to what ails the US at home.
G. Pascal Zachary lives in California and is the author of The Diversity Advantage: Multicultural Identity in the New World Economy.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS