A Sad "State" of Affairs
Tis the
season for the state budget follies to take place around the
country! The states have increasing difficulties in creating
balanced budgets without rancor and without inflicting pain
and suffering on local governments. It was always a matter of
pride in public administration that the states and local
agencies, unlike the federal government, could not solve
budget problems by increasing the speed of the money printing
presses. These budgets had to be balanced as a sign of
responsible government administration. Yet a combination of
factors seem to be merging to make this process more difficult
than ever before, just when it needs to be more stable than
ever before, in order to provide the services required by law
or public demand.
Paul
McIntosh, chief administrative officer of Butte County in
California has identified the three components of what he
describes as "the perfect storm" going on in his states
budget follies. The three ingredients are coming together in a
way which creates destructive forces that hurt the credibility
of the state, and harms schools and community college
districts as well as counties and cities, which depend on the
state for their own abilities to deliver services.
The first
of the perfect storm components is term limits, which serve to
remove from the legislature the wealth of experience and
process knowledge that help make creative compromises possible
on disruptive issues. Compromise was the method of solving
interpersonal disputes, which made the United States possible
in the first place. It has kept the country nimble in being
able to create public laws capable of meeting social changes.
Our ability to compromise needs to be enhanced, not
restricted.
It is
Americas historic ability to constructively engage in debate,
but come away at the end with a basic consensus that separates
the United States from many of the places in the world where
narrower loyalties and unwillingness to see a situation from
the viewpoint of others leads to paralysis, violence, and
tribal or religious wars.
Part of
the unintended consequence of term limits is the fact that the
candidates for legislative office are in a constant state of
running for re-election. This includes not only re-election to
their last term of office before the limit sets in, but also
running for whatever future they may seek outside of the
legislative service when they are no longer able to serve
another term.
This
constant focus on running for something includes a constant
search for cash to finance campaigns. It also includes full
employment opportunities for lobbyists to work even harder
than they may otherwise have done to seek legislative
favor.
The
second element of the perfect storm is legislative
re-apportionment, that leads to battles to create districts
that are safe for those who would represent a particular
constituency or a particular political philosophy. The search
for a safe haven for a Democrat, a Republican, a conservative,
a liberal, or an ethnic group member combines with term limits
to create districts, which tend to be more focused and more
zealous in support of one philosophy over another. The result,
over time, is a polarizing of attitudes and a further
reduction of our ability to compromise with one
another.
In this
situation, it becomes more difficult to adopt a budget or
adopt a broad view of the public interest on any subject. Even
the exalted power of the speaker or president of one of the
houses of the legislature to "stop the clock" during a debate
fails to inject compromise when positions are frozen by
ideology. The common good suffers and the tens of millions of
people figuratively listening in outside the doorway of the
state legislature dont see progress.
The third
element in McIntoshs analysis is, at first glance, more
specific to Californias current trauma the recall effort
against the incumbent governor. However, in reality, the "rule
by voter initiative" movement, which received a strong boost
in California with the passage of Proposition 13 two decades
ago, is another sign of state governments increasing
problems.
I recall,
if you will pardon the expression, that during my service as a
county chief administrative officer in a California county hit
hard by Proposition 13, I was visited by executives from a
"start up" company that guaranteed, for a large fee of
course that they could qualify any measure imaginable for a
general election ballot.
Now with
experience in Florida and its recently adopted constitutional
amendment mandating protection for pregnant pigs, I can see
that these marketers of "designer" politics were correct.
While the HR Doctor, not to mention the HR Dog Kamala, abhors
animal abuse, Constitution abuse may be even more dangerous in
the long run for the society.
This
combination of factors is not good for any program that
depends on the state government for its survival. Its not
good for the human beings who are behind each of those
programs to receive health service, social services, and
education, nor is it good for the local government or state
employees who make the programs come to life. In the long run,
the viability of state governments in America will be harmed,
the HR Doctor predicts.
What I
mean is that the role and contribution of state governments in
the federal system deserves to be looked at with increasing
scrutiny. The states havent quite figured out what they want
to be when they grow up.
In the
past, the states served critical roles in setting and
regulating public policy. But, as technology, mobility, and a
worldwide scope of doing business kick in (i.e., central
features of the modern world), states find themselves too
small to manage the large issues in the world, and too big to
effectively deal with the problems of an individual in a
particular neighborhood.
They are
becoming, in effect, "middle-men" between local governments
whose service is direct and close to people, and federal and
worldwide forces, which increasingly occupy our attention in
matters of public safety and security, such as
counterterrorism, public health (SARS being only the most
recent example) and worldwide forces involving the Internet,
global markets, or the mass media. Certainly, the appearance
of inept, shortsighted budget follies each year cannot help
but hasten the debate over a diminished future role for
states, and a necessarily increased role for local government
and private corporations.
This
could portend a future in which local governments impose
unfunded mandates on the states! That would be a most
interesting turnaround!
(The
HR Doctor hopes you and your budgets stay in
balance!)
Phil
Rosenberg The HR Doctor http://www.hrdr.net/
|