Recent Columns:
The States and Localities
Who Needs Washington?
Governing's founding editor and publisher wraps up his regular column for Congressional Quarterly's CQ Weekly by reminding Washington policy makers what they have to learn from the states and localities.
This is my final column for CQ Weekly. In semi-retirement I'll limit my efforts to Governing, the magazine for state and local leaders we at Congressional Quarterly started a couple of decades ago.
I regret ending this assignment for a simple reason: There isn't nearly enough attention paid in the nation's capital to the rest of the country — its regions, states and localities, which arguably have played a more dynamic role in governing the nation than the federal government in recent decades.
This is a shame, because it has only helped to make Washington more insular, self-important and disconnected. It has contributed to the surging distrust of the federal government among the populace. And it has resulted in either weaker results or none at all.
So I'm grateful to CQ's editors for the opportunity to pop off every month for the past four years to a largely federal audience that's about as well-targeted as any journalist could hope for.
Over the past several years, I've come to three conclusions about federalism.
First, state and local leaders of every ideology are capable of solving many problems on their own, often in ingenious ways that no one at a higher level might have thought of. To be sure, their solutions are tailored to local circumstances, and any attempt to nationalize them would have to be designed with flexibility — not a concept that fares well in the nation's capital.
Second, citizens are willing to pay more in taxes or fees if they know what the money is being spent for, value the overall goals and trust their government to achieve those goals effectively. There is a reason local government now polls highest in public trust and the feds lowest — a complete turnaround from 30 years ago.
Third, the best policy is formed when the power players on an issue, at all the levels of government responsible for setting the course on that issue, are allowed to participate in its design. When Washington has consulted with state and local leaders on domestic policy issues, the results have been far better than when it hasn't. When there has been no collaboration, just a series of "thou shalts," the result has been friction, frustration and foot-dragging.
The definition of "states' rights" has swung radically in the past half-century or more, from a regional conservative reaction to federal intrusion during the civil rights era to acceptance of the progressive mantle of government activism. The state and local relationship with Washington almost immediately became contentious after George W. Bush moved into the White House. His administration has seemed dismissive of what governors and mayors thought, in large part because so many states and their localities did not share the administration's ideological outlook.
For Two Decades, Going Solo Wasn't So Bad
The deterioration in relations has been a surprise to many state and local leaders, who had reason to be hopeful an administration run by a former governor would be sensitive to their needs — and also to believe the GOP cared about state and local prerogatives. After all, Bush took office only six years after the Republican "revolution" in Congress, one of the first products of which was a law making it more difficult for Washington to mandate state and local actions without providing sufficient funding. A year later came a welfare overhaul influenced significantly by gubernatorial innovations, particularly by Midwestern Republicans. It was signed into law by a Democrat, Bill Clinton, against the wishes of many in his party.
That collaborative spirit disappeared quickly, and the past seven years or so have been marked by tension over an array of issues: No Child Left Behind, environmental policy, the Real ID law mandating what in effect is a national identification card, stem cell research, immigration, consumer product safety, banking regulation, transportation priorities, and so on.
Still, most states and localities have had a good run in the past two decades, perhaps culminating in a June 2007 Time magazine cover in which a smiling California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg posed arm in arm under the headline, "Who Needs Washington?"
It was a valid question. At the time, most states were relatively flush with money. Many cities were staging a remarkable renaissance. As Washington seemed almost pathetically paralyzed, California was seriously considering a universal health care program. New York was the ever shinier Big Apple.
Things have changed dramatically since. Two-thirds of the states are in some form of fiscal distress, with conditions worsening as the financial crisis deepens. California no longer is considering a new health care initiative because it faces a serious deficit. New York City is bracing for the fallout from Wall Street's greatest collapse since 1929.
So today, after years of watching the ebb and flow of federal activism and power, my answer to Time's question is that we all need Washington. And we need our states and locals, as well, to act more in concert, to work as true partners to solve our most pressing problems. No matter who is elected next month, our federal system must become more collaborative.