THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, May 14, 1995 TAG: 9505120001
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: PERRY MORGAN
LENGTH: Medium: 68 lines
There's a world of political magic in the concept of turning federal programs and the money to fund them over to the states. ``Big government'' is in bad odor and, much of the time, in gridlock. It's easy to assume that state government can do no worse and may well do better in administering programs.
A key element in the assumption is that state government will be more sensitive, efficient and accountable because it is ``closer'' to the voters. Maybe, but maybe also this nation should be regarded as a proposition rather than as a truth. The ``closeness'' argument is clearly suspect in the age of electronic mail. Long before that dawned, congressmen learned that constituent service has as much or more to do with re-election than political doctrine, and staffed up to provide it. All of us must know of at least one congressman who seems more approachable than a senior state legislator of the sort who likes to begin sentences with the oracular ``In my judgment. . . .''
It's also well to remember how much states have contributed to the growth of government in Washington through abuse of rights and neglect of responsibilities. Their sorry histories are directly responsible for creation of federal bureaucracies dealing with a host of matters as elementary as the right to vote and equal opportunity to schooling. But that is past, right? And we are entitled to assume that the states now hear weak as well as powerful voices and are prepared to take care of business with fairness and dispatch?
After Newt Gingrich led the House to transfer welfare and its reform to the states, The Wall Street Journal put the latter question to John Reeves of Mississippi, a Republican member of that state's House Appropriations Committee. The Contract With America would provide Mississippi with $300 million a year to spend, without federal oversight, on welfare programs. Reeves replied to The Journal this way: ``As a taxpayer and guardian of the public trust, I wouldn't feel safe giving this money to us or any other state. I've seen too many years of good ol' boy politics to know that they shouldn't do this without stricter controls and requirements.''
Mississippi Gov. Kirk Fordyce, also a Republican, holds an opposite view. He wants the money with no strings attached and has been in Washington lobbying the Senate toward that end. ``If they're going to truly block-grant us,'' says the governor, ``Then they should just give us the money without having to jump through all the hoops. But they still refuse to believe that I know what's best for the people of Mississippi.
The governor, one sees, is not overborne by modesty. But of more interest regarding state readiness to handle $300 million a year without strings is his explanation of why Mississippi's current welfare administration is mired in political infighting, investigations and fines for repeated violations of regulations. Fordyce explains that the state operation ``was a disaster when I got there (three years ago). All that history isn't going to be fixed in a few years.'' After Fordyce, the deluge?
The sum of this seems to be: (1) Grass-roots government can still grow rank. (2) The quality of welfare administration will vary widely among 50 states. (3) The superiority of state to federal bureaucracies is asserted more than demonstrated. (4) Big pots of money need oversight everywhere - even at the precinct level.
One reason for congressional enthusiasm for pushing programs down to the states is that Congress can freeze and forget 'em - that is, it can make a one-time cut in costs and wash its hands of the whole business. This makes for quick legislative victories, but there will be unintended consequences if Congress acts as naively as it speaks about the genius of state government. MEMO: Mr. Morgan is a former publisher of The Virginian-Pilot and The
Ledger-Star. by CNB