For Release Sunday, July 12, 2009
© 2009 Washington Post Writers Group
Quarrelsome, politically hamstrung, dancing on the edge of bankruptcy: are America’s state governments becoming obsolete?
Ten states reached the end of their fiscal year June 30, deadlocked over how to deal with deficits. Illinois, for example, had a $11.8 billion shortfall, Connecticut $8.8 billion, and our once-”golden” California facing (and unable to resolve) a stunning $24.3 billion gap.
Sure, the deep national (and global) recession accounts for much of the pain. But several states, California most glaring of all, have structural deficits–requirements for legislative super-majorities, or unreformed health or welfare or corrections systems that lawmakers lack the courage to change or finance appropriately.
In the midst of all this, there’s the sideshow of gubernatorial imbroglios, highlighted by Illinois’ impeached Rod Blagojevich, South Carolina’s disgraced Mark Sanford, New York’s bitterly opposed David Paterson, and Alaska’s rashly resigning Sarah Palin. ( “Are we doomed to see them (the governors) go bonkers one by one, state by state?” asks Gail Collins in the New York Times).
The state-level theatrics and fiscal feuds reflect a potentially fatal diversion from the challenges of a globalized centurystiff worldwide economic competition, severe energy shortages, imperiled ecosystems, the specter of death-dealing floods and droughts triggered by human behavior, and more.
Brain-active states would be revamping their revenue systems, investing heavily in school reform and higher education to keep their populations–native and immigrant, rich and poor–internationally competitive. They’d be stepping up environmental protections and stopping wasteful sprawl development, while also reforming criminal justice systems to cut back on burgeoning prison populations.
Yet on most such indicators they’re not just inactive but headed downhill.
Example: States are using most of their federal stimulus transportation dollars on building and improving roads. And they’re cheating their metro areas egregiously: the New York Times reports that of the 5,274 transportation projects approved so far, the 100 largest metro areas have received dramatically less than their population share. And very little money is going to energy-saving urban public transit systems, many of which are cash-starved and in urgent need of upgrading and expansion.
For a moment, step back and ask yourself: If we were organizing the United States for the first time, right now, would we repeat our arbitrarily drawn state lines across the continent? And would we stick like glue to our existing political units–roughly 85,000 cities, towns, boroughs, counties and districts, some drawn up in the colonial mist of three centuries past?
We claim to have the world’s longest-standing democracy. But our Constitution was written by representatives from a thin string of ex-colonies whose largest city (Philadelphia) had 44,000 people. Suburbs didn’t even exist.
If you believe numbers count, the real America of 2009 is focused in its 363 metro regions, especially the 100 largest–the citistates of our modern world–which account for 65 percent of U.S. population, 74 percent of our economic output, 77 percent of our good-paying “knowledge jobs,” and 94 percent of our venture capital funding.
If we were starting again, these centers of population, global connection, present and future national economic power, would be the logical core.
OK, we aren’t starting anew. The political reality is that massive constitutional power resides in our 50 state governments. The challenge is to wake them up to serving and advancing the real–predominantly metropolitan–America of today.
One critical problem: state legislatures are still heavily influenced by rural lawmakers, even decades after the Supreme Court decreed they had to redistrict for equally populated districts. Usually more conservative, the rural representatives tend to stay in office longer, control key committees.
Plus–rural or not–legislators like to micromanage. That means less freedom to innovate, create wealth and opportunity in the metro regions that are the big economic engines–the “cash cows” producing the most tax revenue.
“Smart” states, like smart corporations, would grant autonomy–rewards, incentives for productivity–to their legal subsidiaries, the regions. In turn the regions would be invited to set goals, fashion their own tax systems, balancing property, sales and income for best results. Most critically, they’d be encouraged to merge their planning and priorities for roads and transit, housing, employment, environmental controls, so that they mesh and undergird each other.
Then the states could focus on their indispensable priorities. A lead item: to restore the quality and affordability of their community colleges and state universities. Another: to provide social safety nets, plus incentives for personal advancement, for underprivileged populations, rural or urban. And finally: to brush aside “dump the tax” movements and courageously raise taxes enough to finance forward-looking investments.
Today’s sometimes bitter state-metro feuds–for example Georgia’s obstinate refusal to let the Atlanta region tax itself for transportation improvements–would be seen as the poison they are.
But the distance is long if states are to prove they’re strong, resourceful enough to deal with the 21st century’s fast-mounting challenges.
Neal Peirce’s e-mail is npeirce@citistates.com.
For reprints of Neal Peirce’s column, please contact Washington Post Permissions, c/o PARS International Corp., WPPermissions@parsintl.com, fax 212-221-9195. For newspaper syndication sales, Washington Post Writers Group, 202-334-5375, wpwgsales@washpost.com.
8 Comments
Are journalists obsolete? Are thinking journalists an oxymoron?
State are not obsolete. People have to realize that there is a certain level of taxation necessary for the service that they require or demand. States will have to increase sales taxes and income taxes by a modest amount to cover their expenses, and possibly reduce some spending on non-core items. States will have to reconsider the inducements that they offer relocating businesses – if a state can induce a move they should anticipate that someone else will try the same maneuver on them later that year with one of their core companies.
No, states are not obsolete. As badly run as some are, that is democracy. Texas balances its budget, even when it means good programs are cut.
Moreover, I am not ready for DC to run my state! Talk about from frying pan to the fire. What is the alternative: have Departements like France?
It doesn’t seem that the first 2 comments reflect much of a response to Mr. Peirce’s provocation. Peirce isn’t offering libertarian anti-tax ideology as a counter to state corruption or mismanagement here. He seems pretty explicit – but to state the obvious, he’s pointing to the possible anachronism (perhaps dangerously so) of state lines as a political organizing tool. Pierce has been continually writing about the need to think about the political viability of organizing “regionally”. This last provocation is just another addition to that objective. This isn’t about DC running your community, but figuring out what your community actually is. There are certainly challenges to this idea regionalism that need to be raised, but these two comments don’t even deal with the question.
Well said, RYAN. I believe you are right on the money.
As always, Mr. Pierce’s insight regarding local, state and national issues is right on. RYAN’S analysis is also correct.
I first came to know Mr. Pierce ten years ago when he wrote about the effort to merge Louisville, KY with Jefferson County, KY. The effort succeeded. As a City of Fresno councilmember at that time (since termed-out), I visited Louisville and discussed with local officials how the merger was accomplished and whether it was working. My attempts to replicate their process in the City of Fresno/Fresno County, unfortunately, failed.
I appreciate Mr. Pierce’s interest in encouraging us to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our local and state government.
Government close to the people is a central tenet in our democracy. California’s state takeover of funding decisions from local governments has been a disaster, and a vital example of taking decisions farther away from people. There is not enough trust in the federal government to increase its powers and responsibilities.
Still, there is a great need for Metros to have more power and autonomy. This may be done by aggressive annexation, or perhaps some form of regional governance, although the latter often has proven powerless and ineffective.
Some states are workig great and helping their local goverments improve. For example, North Carolina. You mighty wan tto read in citymayors about what British Columbia has achieved. That wouldn’t have been possible if the initiative was left up to the local governments.
The problem in US is that whole system needs to be updated. Metro regions aren’t ready to be the players they should be. They need to step up to the plate and so far they have failed. Compare them to the regional districts of British Columbia and the difference is stark.
America has lost its way since the 1960s. Hey that was the time British Columbia started on its path of developing regional districts. Things would have been different if Americans had thought things through then.
By the way, to the gentleman who dissed France.You might want to keep in mind regionalism is a French innovation and has been so since 1890 when first interlocal cooperation units were formed. They have empowered regions, with regional policy first starting out in early 1950s. French were the first to realize that fragmentation needed integration to be more effective-that was in 1890 folks. Meanwhile Mr Peirce is still bleating here for his city states.
I want to add that my use of the word “bleating” in my prior comment is not to cast any aspersions at Mr. Peirce. It was an expression of frustration at how slow the process is here. Mr. Peirce been calling for metro regionalism for years and years.
I do think that he and Myron Orfield, who has recently come out with a plea to use stimulus funds to reform the MPOs are great supporters. I think that both of you are shortchanging yourselves by not bringing foreign examples into the discussion. It makes your task harder.
Myron Orfield was using the argument of inequity in his latest piece (which he has also illustrated graphically in his many maps for MARC), that might go well in certain regions, but won’t go down well in those he needs to persuade to join– the better -off segments of the region.
If he would look outside he would see that economic development is a major European reasoning for regionalism. Governing magazine in 2008 published an article on Stuttgart Region with no mention of either Twin Cities or Portland Metros and went so far as to say America has no such history! I was shocked, not only because it ignored these two older examples, but, also showed no understanding that the Stuttgart Region reflects an approach to governance that has different versions. For instance the New England Town system and the New York City decentralized systems were part of 19th century efforts.
What is termed regionalism is an approach to governance started in France in 1789, which has caught on elsewhere. There have been waves of it: in the 1800s, the 1950s-1960s, then in the 1980s ( a major era for Europe and South East Asia) on to the present time. I mention France because it has all the major versions. Other countries have aspects of these. France has had generations of inter-local cooperation formulas.
The British Columbia Regional Districts are modern examples of this genre .I think even though B.C. Regional Districts have to evolve more (especially in the economic development role), the example set by B.C. is one American states and even European nations can learn from. What B.C. has shown is that consistent support produces evolution. B.C.’s system is also not just limited to urban areas. North Carolina is the only state in the U.S. that has shown this type of effort in its support of its local government finance system. The N.C. system is even older. Both examples illustrate what can be gained by consistent support.
For those wondering why France is the root need to consider that France in 1789 started out with over 40,000 municipal units and over 80 counties. It now has over 36,000 municipal units and 100 counties. So the coordination problem remains. Today ,not only coordination is the issue but also economic development. Such bodies are an effort to help small municipal units punch above their weight economically. The regions were established in a slow evolving way since the 1950s because Paris was becoming the main economic engine to the detriment of the rest of the country. In late 1940s’ there was a book that highlighted this problem. It was entitled aptly ‘Paris and French Desert’. This challenge is what the regions were established to address. The establishment also reveals that perhaps on their own inter-local cooperation efforts may not be sufficient. French evolution shows many of the same dynamics experienced elsewhere. For instance, reluctance of local units to evolve inter-local cooperation . Hence, the creation of follow-up generations of inter-local models devised by the French government with incentives to encourage the same. If France had been consistently attentive like British Columbia, such bodies might just have evolved, rather than what has transpired. Hence, even France which has shown historically the most support for regionalism of any country can learn from this Canadian example. Looking at foreign examples is a helpful source of guidance even in this case. Because regionalism has a long history, there’s a lot that can be learned from its study.