Recent Columns:
THE STATES AND LOCALITIES
‘Shift-and-Shaft’ Federalism
Twenty years ago, there was a sense of optimism in the states and localities that they could take on new responsibilities for solving national problems — independent of the federal government. It was, wrote John Herbers, then a veteran political reporter for the New York Times, "a change that promises to be both more profound and more permanent than most people have recognized."
Herbers thought the "future seems likely to be one in which the federal government will build its programs around the innovations of the states and localities, rather than returning to the pre-emption by Washington of state and local prerogatives that characterized the 1960s and 1970s."
That prediction turned out to be accurate for a time, as probably best highlighted by the enactment of a national welfare policy overhaul in 1996 that was basically based on programs started in Wisconsin and Michigan.
But today, most state and local officials in both parties, and experts who care about the esoteric subject of federalism, worry that the relationship between Washington and lower-level governments has deteriorated badly. To an extent we've not seen in decades, Washington is trying to dictate what states, counties and cities must do and to disallow them from promoting policies of their own.
The White House intergovernmental office is a sham — a purely political operation manned by junior aides whose sole interest is promoting the administration's policies, and not at all about working with state or local officials to solve problems. Washington lobbyists now are working for more centralization, with the idea that their industries can cut a better deal at the federal level and avoid a patchwork of statutes and regulations.
Ray Scheppach, the executive director of the National Governors Association, says governors are concentrating solely on their home states because they are so frustrated with Washington. Don Borut, who runs the National League of Cities, calls the trend a move to "coercive federalism" or, when he's being more blunt, "shift-and-shaft federalism," with Washington using regulations, mandates and pre-emptions to get its way.
What's more, the feds want a greater say while picking up a declining portion of the bill. "On sheer revenues alone, the federal government isn't as relevant as it once was to the daily operations of cities," in Borut's view. At same time, in the half-century after World War II, mandates on local governments increased more than tenfold.
What's new is that the states are pushing back, and on many key issues federal officials have been backing down, largely because the political imperative rests with the states.
Changing Roles
The Education Department is showing new flexibility on how to proceed with the so-called No Child Left Behind law, not only because a federal appeals court has revived a lawsuit from school districts arguing that the states cannot be forced to do all the required testing unless Washington pays for it, but also because the law is increasingly unpopular with the Republican suburban base.
Late last year, Congress reversed itself on the question of who controls state National Guards, handing clear authority back to the governors rather than the president. The move was driven by perceived overuse of Guard units in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Real ID Act, which few in Washington even know about, is a hot issue in state capitals. The 2005 law — attached to an unrelated measure and never the subject of congressional hearings — was at its core a backdoor, unfunded mandate of a national ID card, by making state motor vehicle departments issue (and pay for) uniform licenses. Seventeen states have called for repeal of or changes in the law. Sensing it was leading a parade with no one else marching, the Homeland Security Department is now allowing up to seven years in delays and cutting the cost of compliance by more than two-thirds. Still, it's offering no federal funding.
Immigration certainly is a federal policy matter, although no national policy is forthcoming. Immigrants, on the other hand, continue to be a pressing state and local concern.
On climate change, the EPA has completely shifted roles — from leading and enforcing to opposing and foot-dragging on state initiatives, leaving it up to the courts to decide if California and 16 other states can take action on cutting carbon emissions from cars.
Finally, the health care dilemma demonstrates the limits of state activism. As the economy weakens, it becomes harder for states such as Massachusetts and California to proceed with their ambitious plans to expand coverage.
There is a general feeling among state and local leaders that we've seen the worst in their relations to Washington. It isn't based on much, aside from some remarks by GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain supporting California's attempt to take the lead on emissions. Nevertheless, there is the hope the next president and Congress will clear the current poisonous atmosphere.
That's the hope.