For the first of these interviews, Governing staff writer Alan Greenblatt talked with two longterm veterans of state policymaking. Bill Pound has served as the executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures since 1987. And Ray Scheppach has led the National Governors Association since 1984.

Alan Greenblatt: Governing's first cover story in 1987 was "Fend for Yourself Federalism," about how Washington was going to give less help to states and let them do more. What's that relationship like now?

Pound

Bill Pound: The states have really grown in authority. So much more of our domestic policy now originates in either state or local government. It gets picked up by the feds, maybe.

But the feds abdicated the playing field, partly because of Reagan and the philosophy that the best government doesn't come from the White House, and partly because the federal budget had been constricted so badly that they couldn't do a lot. They could mandate things, but they couldn't pay for a lot of things that an activist government might want to do. It's the same problem they've got right now over here. If you [talk to federal officials], the first thing you hear is, "Well, we haven't got any money." That doesn't mean that they don't want to do anything, but it's harder than it used to be to just create a new program and say, "Here. Go do this."

Scheppach

Ray Scheppach: Sometimes I think there have been two trends. On the one hand, I think there's been a very, very negative bad trend — in terms of both academic thinkers and engagement by policy people in Washington — about that federalism issue. It's probably, I think, the worst it's ever been, at least [in terms of] mandates and Medicare, and so on and so forth. Really, over the last 10-12 years, we're at, I think, a very, very, low point on that.

On the other hand, Bill's right. What you see now is much more activism at the state level, filling the void on consumer protections—

BP: Environment?

RS: Environment. Exactly. And energy.

AG: The whole Democratic congressional agenda. It's all stuff that's already happened in the states.

RS: That's right, that's right.

AG: We get this interesting confusion, where there's this venue-shopping. States or localities provide a venue for certain issues, then the federal government — Congress — weighs in, mandates something, regularizes the law across states, and the issue always trumps the federalism concerns.

RS: Look at some of the big issues we're facing now. Real ID, which is a huge cost. The scarier things are that they get traction on some of these tax items. We've had well over 200 years of tax sovereignty and a real reluctance of the Congress to strip it. But we see on the Internet, on [the Business Activity Tax]—

BP: And the real worry is, what if we really do have fundamental tax reform [at the federal level], given the environment we were just describing? What would it be? Would it be without much concern for state and local government? Would it be a bull in a china shop? You know, fix the national government problems, but at the expense of state and local government?

AG: Can I ask you, as association heads, how politics have changed within your organizations? Yes, we've had this Democratic year, but over the last 20 years, Republicans have generally done better at the state level. As that shifts, though, and the political mix of your membership changes, how does that affect the organization?

BP: Well I think that within the association, one thing that is apparent is how much more partisan things are than when I started. It has implications for the organization and for politics generally. It's partly because, I think, if you go back 20 some years ago, we were just coming out of a period of heavy one-party dominance: the Democrats in the legislatures. They controlled most of them, their numbers were way out of balance, especially in the South.

It was probably natural that things would get contentious, as things get more even and the stakes get higher. You know, it's easier to throw a sop to the minority when you're not really afraid of them. You know they're going to stay where they are. But then they're not staying where they are anymore and they start growing, and you get into this period of parity, which is where we are today.

That's had implications for our organization. We have largely been successful in not having that be terribly internally divisive. But there's no question about it. The two national parties are playing a greater role than they used to within the organizations, because they are directing or trying to line people up to their position.

And this also applies directly to state legislatures. The national parties play a greater role in state legislative campaigns. It's amazing how much more money they're raising then they were even in 2000 and 2002.

RS: Yes, but we're in Washington, D.C., and partisanship in this city comes over our bow. Left to their own devices, governors continue to be pretty bipartisan. In fact a lot of the times it's their own party in their state that creates more problems for them. So a lot of the times they probably prefer at least one house to belong to the other party, so that they can make a deal or whatever.

AG: Governors do seem to naturally move to the center.

RS: Yes, I think that's true. I don't think I've seen much change in that over time. But it is true that, for example, there was a time when the Democratic Governors' staff and Republican Governors' staff really never caucused. Now they're doing caucuses once a week or even twice a week. I think that governors know that they're better off together with the governors of the other party [than with members of their own party in Washington, D.C.].

AG: In the last 20 years, it seems like the very nature of legislators has changed. There has been so much more professionalization, and there's so much more demand on the time of the legislator, even on part-time people. They probably were saying the same thing 20 years ago, but it might be more true now.

BP: I think it is true. There is a lot more demand on time of the legislator. Partly it's self-inflicted, in the sense that they have assumed a greater constituent-service role. I mean, if you run for office, you want to help people. And that also becomes the currency of the process of how you get re-elected and build support. But also just the nature of the issues, the information that you have to have and process — that requires a lot more time.

AG: Governors' roles have changed a lot in the past 20 years, too. They've become more powerful within the states. There have been states where they've taken on more authority through institutional changes. But just generally they've become much more of a spokesman for a state, much more of an economic development salesman. What do you think?

RS: I think, in terms of actual institutional power, there have been some incremental changes that have probably increased the power of governors. But I'd argue those have been pretty small.

But governors have really just stepped up to the plate. What we've seen over time is this "pushing" on executive authority. I think that's party due to the fact we've been able to attract some of the smarter politicians in America. The traditional career path used to be that you'd spend a term as governor and then move up to the U.S. Senate. But now it essentially goes the other way.

AG: What about the issue mix that states deal with now? How has that changed? It seems like budget pressures have put such an exclusive focus on education and health care, a little bit on corrections.

BP: Not only have the states taken a greater role in policy initiation because of gridlock at the federal level, but they've also taken some of the local haul, on issues like education and solid waste removal.

RS: On health care, I think there's been a real recognition that when you get down to outcomes and quality, all this $2 trillion we put into health care, we don't get very much back. And I don't see the federal government really able to deal with it. It's too big. So I think that's made it more of an issue for states.

AG: And what about the viral nature of ideas today? Certainly, we see legislation moving so much more rapidly among states than it did 20 years ago.

BP: Oh, it clearly does. You could have a bill introduced someplace on a Wednesday afternoon and have it be in 15 other places Friday morning. It's really rapid the way things go now.

© 2006, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.