The challenges of flexibility.

• Author: Hovey, Hal
• Position: Includes related articles

Once the federal government returns to states some of the programs now run from Washington, legislators will face difficult, but not impossible, choices.

For decades state officials have chafed at restrictive federal rules, steamed at apparently insensitive federal bureaucrats, moaned over piles of federal paperwork, suffered through endless presentations predicting what they might have to do based on predictions of what Congress or some federal agency would require, and seen many of their prime ideas shot down as contrary to some obscure federal rule. Legislators and governors have truthfully been able to excuse many apparently absurd state policies to constituents on the grounds that they were "required by federal policy."

For decades, governors and legislators have made pilgrimages to Washington to assert the need for more flexibility in administration of federally funded programs. Nearly all have argued they could do "more with less" if only the federal government wouldn't be so prescriptive of state policies. The boldest of them have made more specific claims like being able to live with 10 percent, or even 20 percent, less money and still do a better job of delivering services if only they were relieved of excessive federal regulation.

THE SHIFT OF POWER

Now their world is changing. The shift of power from Washington to state capitols seems unstoppable. Although they disagree on important details, federal elected officials of both parties support the concepts: fewer federal programs, less funding and less federal control in the ones that remain, a moratorium on new unfunded mandates, searches for old ones to be eliminated, and common sense in federal rules governing state and local governments as well as the private sector. They also support reform of welfare with states taking the lead - not as in yet another federal reform but as in reforms of their own making with no requirement for national uniformity.

The changes are pervasive. Action in Congress appropriately gets the most attention because many of the federal rules that state officials find most restrictive are old acts of Congress. The executive branch is part of the move - from a president providing new flexibility through waivers for state reform to low-level bureaucrats now less inflexible in dealing with states. Even the federal courts appear to be backing away from decisions to supervise details of state and local operations such as treatments for patients, living circumstances of prison inmates and assignment of pupils to schools.

STATES READY FOR THE CHALLENGE

Legislators now confront the challenges of having responsibility for the decisions they have been quick to criticize. The new task of making policy is bound to be more challenging than the old one of attempting to carry out and influence policy made elsewhere.

Are legislators and other state officials and their institutions capable of handling the challenge? Some people are saying no - that at least some legislatures, governors and state agencies will fail. Some say legislatures can't match Congress because many legislatures don't work full time, aren't as well staffed or aren't properly motivated. Some say states will begin a "race to the bottom" - a contest to see who can do the most the fastest to hurt the poor, the elderly, children, the environment and more.

State officials don't believe this. Even those who fear their state won't adopt the policies they personally favor find it difficult to believe that their state will do worse than the federal government.

Different answers to these questions will produce controversy and...