Devolution: part II?

• Author: Mackey, Scott
• Position: Greater policymaking authority of states

With states stronger than they've been in years, maybe it's time to turn back some programs to local governments.

What a difference a decade can make!

In the late 1980s, states were struggling under the burden of exploding Medicaid costs and revenue shortfalls. New mandates were emanating from Washington as Congress struggled to contain a ballooning federal deficit by shunting costs onto the states.

Now, states have experienced a remarkable reversal of fortune. Former budget busters like Medicaid and corrections are under control. Many states have record surpluses - and they are using them to prepare for a rainy day, pay down debt and catch up on infrastructure needs that languished during the budget strife of the early 1990s.

The resurgence of the states is about more than just money. More importantly, the political and social climate of the country has changed. The American people no longer look to Washington to solve all their problems. Congress is more intent on balancing the federal budget than creating new programs - or mandating them on the states.

In this climate, states have fought federal mandates and preemption of their authority with considerable success. States now have a greater say in welfare and transportation programs and have gained new control over Medicaid. Legislative authority to appropriate federal funds has been preserved and even strengthened in several new laws from Congress.

At the same time states have assumed more control over state federal programs, they have expanded their role in state-local programs. Education is the prime example. States are trying to bring more accountability to local schools by requiring statewide testing. In addition, several supreme courts have ordered states to expand their role in financing K-12 education because of disparities in the wealth of local school districts.

Even in New Hampshire, perhaps the staunchest bastion of local control, the Supreme Court decreed in December that the state must reduce differences in funding between poor and wealthy school districts.

There are other examples as well. New Jersey assumed the cost of the trial court system in 1995. Iowa assumed the costs of mental health programs in 1996. New York approved a massive, $2 billion "homestead exemption" program that will shift funding for schools from the local property tax to the state general fund.

STATES HAVE MORE CLOUT

Is this state encroachment into traditionally local programs a power grab by governors and legislatures? Not really. Local governments have generally welcomed state efforts to reduce the tax most despised by voters - the property tax. And most legislatures have been dragged kicking and screaming by the courts into the education finance morass.

In the American federal system, power ebbs and flows between federal, state and local governments depending upon the political, social and economic climate. This convergence of political and social trends, finds states positioned to wield considerable clout in determining the role that government will play in Americans' lives.

The business world has witnessed successive waves of centralization and decentralization. Mergers and acquisitions aimed at building...