2005
Occasional #2

Hi

We are back from Seattle, the site of the 2005 national conference of state legislatures and staff. Over 6,000 started off with Bill Gates and what will work to grow our economy, and ended with Mara Liasson, political observer for Public Radio, on political trends. About 150 vendors offered chocolate and the latest proposals in health care, enforcement, environment, insurance, and on and on.

You would have enjoyed the merry mix, but, like the dog that stopped and sat down when three rabbits ran in different directions, all of us wondered how to select four workshops on a day with over 100 options.

In an effort to help you get a flavor of some key thinking, I will do three papers: taxes and the economy, health care, and federalism. The most fun in federalism, so will start there.

'Federalism' is the general term we use for debating the balance of power between the feds and the states. It first hit the headlines when Jefferson ran for president in 1800. Hamilton, who developed the term, thought the federal government should set rules for the states and develop the economy. We are in this together. Jefferson thought states WERE the economy and the feds should stick to defense and post offices.

To greatly simplify history, but to keep us in focus, the Democrat party grew out of Hamilton and the Republican party finds its roots in Jeffersonian 'States Rights' principles. The term 'states rights' is used more than 'federalism' in public debate. Part of what makes this a fun topic to consider is that the parties have switched sides, big time. I and some hardline conservatives talk 'states rights' but we are losing.

Today's Republican administration (not all Republicans!) pushes for federal power. As in "No Child Left Behind," the massive intrusion of the feds into local education and the heaviest federal demand for local reporting in the history of the nation. A national ID requirement was attached to a budget bill and directs how states shall do drivers licenses. The feds want our county offices to be front line immigration agents.

The Democrats (not all, again) cry out that the constitution specifically reserves the operation of public schools to the states, as it does regulation of driving. There are many other examples where states rights are losing it. New bills would preempt states' medical malpractice laws and health consumer protection laws, and establish federal regulations for insurance.

How does this happen? Partly, the party in power is always a bit federalist, trying to increase political influence. But more, it is just the way the country changes as our times become more complex. Jefferson thought traffic on a canal should be stopped at a state line, as at national borders, inspected, regulated and taxed by the next state. Eisenhower thought we should have an Interstate highway system with only a welcome sign at the border. Let the states set the speed limits, but not the road width or anything else.

Jefferson felt the feds could not contract for the Louisiana Purchase without a vote by each state. He wanted the land so badly he broke the law as he saw it and hoped no one objected. Now we object mightily to federal deficits, but none seems to care.

On drivers licenses to be used as federal ID, the patchwork of states' policies leaves all kinds of holes. Some state IDs can be produced on a copier and the bad guys go for those. We need federal regs. We try to control electronic spam on a state by state basis. Hopeless. It is global. At the least, the feds have to set standards. And so it goes for clean air, clean water, airline regs, phone service, cable channels, location of electric power lines and pipelines. Or drilling for oil. An endless list.

Add to our complex world the political instincts of congressional members, which one speaker called "convenient federalism." If one state does a good job at a state task, make it a model for all the states and then force them to use it. Easy and efficient.

What are the trends in this? Our national legislative coalition, which is strictly nonpartisan, has several lobbyists in D.C. Our head fellow sees this record over the last 15 years.

1. Unfunded mandates was a big way to do federalism in the 80s, then they were cut back by a 1995 law. Now that law is ignored. From 30 to 60 billion dollars each year are transferred to state and local taxes. Feds have clever spins to deny this, such as "The states can opt out." Yeah, sure. And lose $$$.

2. State authority is diminishing. Real cuts in grants to states are coming in Medicaid, earned tax credits, entitlement funds. States manage $$$ MUCH better, but we all send $$$ to the feds and they want to keep them.

3. Partisanship is greatly increased. Has turned really ugly. Most grunt work and decisions are made by staff members. "We almost never contact a representative in congress anymore. A senator sometimes. The staff always." A council which enabled states to talk with feds has been dismantled. We plead for flexibility in implementing fed/state "partnerships" but even former governors become federalists when they get to D. C.

I must emphasize some very good people work in federal offices. Ruth's Dad was a fed, as conscientious a worker as could be imagined. His insect research still saves farmers millions every year. However, our relationship and communication with feds has changed.

I will be quoted in a New York Times editorial next week. Wow. The reporter signed off with "The New York Times is watching you (Nebraska)!"

Act like you are being watched.

Lowen