Devolution chic: why sending power to the states could make a monkey out of Uncle Sam - Cover Story

Washington Monthly, April, 1995 by Gareth G. Cook

Before Reagan, federal aid as a percentage of state and local spending was 26 percent. By 1989, the federal contribution had fallen to 17 percent. That's how Reagan's "new federalism" earned the nickname "shift and shaft."

The new breed appears to be preparing to do both all over again. When GOP governors protested that the central reform of the Republicans' welfare proposal - requiring work - would be too burdensome, the House leadership simply dropped it. A minor sacrifice, they explained toward the larger goal of replacing the current program with block grants that let states spend the money as they like. The block grants, the Republicans have already admitted, will have to do more with less money.

There is, of course, plenty of reinventing to be done in the way the federal government approaches problems, and there are states eager to try new solutions to problems the federal government has not been able to crack.

But let's not get swept away by the rhetoric. Only a few states, for example, have taken bold steps to reform heath care. And only a handful are intent on trying the kind of real welfare reform that Clinton campaigned on. Most are doing very little. The idea of 50 states out there, all ready to try dramatic new solutions but for stodgy Uncle Sam, is ridiculous.

And if state experimentation is the real goal - as Republicans said it was with welfare - then why aren't the states being encouraged to experiment? Why not fund real welfare experiments in the states, and see what works best?

Instead, the devolution debate has become strangely twisted. Everyone agrees that when citizens get involved n their local government, in their schools, in their in neighborhoods, the results can inspire awe. But the high talk of devolution has the equation exactly backwards, amounting to the mother of all unfunded mandates: It would be great if local governments were efficient institutions made vital by active citizen involvement, the thinking goes, so let's get the federal government to declare it so.

The truly dedicated devolutionist should focus on making sure local governments deserve more authority. If the Council of the States, planned for this summer, comes off as planned, then the delegates might take some time away from workshops on the true meaning of the Tenth Amendment, and promise to fix their own houses first.

First, as power and money and well-paid lobbyists pour into the state capitols, the states should at least impose reasonable limits on PAC contributions. They should promise to fund effective, independent election agencies, empowered to seek out and stop corruption.

Better yet, states could truly control the alligator-shoe set by passing public financing laws, much like those for presidential elections. Not an easy promise to make for those addicted to PAC money, but it would demonstrate some real seriousness.

They should also resolve to hold state workers to the same standards as the private sector; workers should be well-paid for innovation and fired for incompetence or laziness. With five million state workers (read: "five million votes") out there, that will not be an easy promise either, but it's essential if state government is to become truly effective.