      |
|
State Legislatures Magazine: September 2000Editor's Note: This article appeared in the September 2000 issue of NCSL's magazine, State Legislatures. To order copies or to subscribe, contact the marketing department at (303) 830-2200. Bush and Gore: The States' Stakes in NovemberThe
Candidates: Bush
Bush and Gore: The States' Stake in
November
By Norman Ornstein and John Fortier Neither Bush nor Gore has run a scintillating campaign and both are racing hard to capture the middle ground where majorities reside. While each side has worked mightily to show the differences between Bush and Gore on issues like Social Security-and there are real differences-slogans like "compassionate conservatism" and "progress and prosperity" suggest this is not a race between a Barry Goldwater, barn-burning, eviscerate-government taxes conservative and a Lyndon Johnson, fire-breathing, tax-and-spend liberal. But the broad boredom, even if it reflects mid-summer doldrums and strong economy complacency, is unjustified. The 2000 election will go down as one of the most interesting and consequential of our lifetime. For one thing, this is the first contest since 1952 in which everything is up for grabs-the White House, the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the state legislative balance for redistricting in 2002. The presidential choice is at the center of all this critical change, and is more important for the direction of change than anything else. The next president will face a Congress with extremely close partisan margins in both houses making presidential leadership even more important. He will possibly have two, three or more Supreme Court vacancies to fill, along with hundreds of lower court positions. He will have a significant say over how future budget surpluses are used, including how much will revert to states and localities, and under what conditions. Even if the only differences between the candidates were in personal background and style, the choice would be important. But in addition, there are important differences between the candidates and the parties-differences that will have a major effect on the federal system. THE CANDIDATES: BUSH But there are also major differences. Bush's governmental experience is more limited than Gore's. His experience is grounded in Austin, as a governor, while Gore's is grounded in Washington, as a congressman, senator and vice president. If where you stand depends on where you sit, combine Bush's party and ideology with his experience, and you find a state-oriented politician; combine Gore's, and you find one more oriented to Washington. Of course, orientations do not invariably lead to policy positions, much less policy outcomes. It is worth remembering that Bill Clinton was more like George W. Bush than Al Gore in his experience. Clinton has been an activist president, but one quite sensitive to states, especially through his administration's expansive grants of waivers in many areas of social policy. Some of that sensitivity has probably rubbed off on Gore. What can we learn about George Bush from his governing years? He has been a pragmatic, bipartisan governor. He had four priorities for reform: juvenile justice, welfare, tort law and education, and he focused on them relentlessly. Working with Democratic majorities in both legislative chambers, Bush compromised on the details, but delivered on the general principles he espoused. In his second term, Bush has taken more risks and not always succeeded, for example, in reforming Texas's tax structure. But he has not ventured much beyond a handful of top issues. Some describe him as a modern CEO, employing a wide range of advisers and delegating the details to subordinates. His critics grant that Bush is involved in his priorities, but worry that he is not so well versed in other issues and is liable to be blindsided by events. His big picture focus and ability to work with Democrats could serve him well in Washington, but his experience as governor is not wholly transferable; the Texas governorship is a weak executive office and Texas Democrats are a lot more conservative than their brethren in Washington. Most observers and friends say Governor Bush is more conservative than his father. But his world view, as shown both in his governorship and his campaign, is of an activist, if limited, government. In his presidential campaign, he has proposed an extensive series of new federal government programs. To pick just one area-his approach to the disabled-he has proposed a "technology transfer fund" to subsidize small business efforts to adapt for handicapped individuals; a program to purchase computers to enable the disabled to telecommute; money to subsidize churches and synagogues to build wheelchair ramps; and to triple the federal funding for disability research. In many respects, his approach parallels that of Bill Clinton-many small, often symbolic, government programs across a wide range of social areas. Columnist Michael Kinsley has pointed out that in Bush's June speech on reinventing government, he calls for more government half a dozen times while giving his own vision of government action as settled around three principles: government should be "citizen-centered, results-oriented and, wherever possible, market-based." Those principles could easily mean an extremely constrained role for the federal government-but the programmatic initiatives, even if they are quite small in budget terms, suggest otherwise. The place to start on Bush and federalism is with his association with fellow Republican governors. Bush came into office in 1994 with a Republican tide. In addition to the takeover of the House, 1994 saw the first majority of GOP governors since 1970. On the whole, these governors were pragmatic problem solvers in contrast to the more ideological congressional Republicans. They were united in their advocacy of state flexibility in administering welfare reform, education and other policy areas. The governors became close, exchanging ideas and lobbying Congress for more autonomy. Bush became extraordinarily popular among his fellow Republican governors. The governors clearly wanted one of their own to get the nomination. They almost unanimously endorsed him in the primaries. Even on the campaign trail, Bush holds regular conference calls with the other Republican governors. They have become a clear point of reference for him and represent a storehouse of advisers and cabinet members should he become president. At the same time, Bush's background before his run for governor was as a businessman. Many of his closest advisers, friends and supporters come from the business world, as does a considerable share of the money he has raised for his campaign. Bush's sympathy for states' rights will likely be tempered by big business' desire for uniformity, via federal standards, in areas like torts and bankruptcy. Welfare reform provides a good example of Bush's handling of federal devolution of power. It was a pillar of Bush's first campaign, and he moved quickly as governor to fulfill his promise and enact a plan. It was not the first state welfare reform plan. It tracked closely with other state initiatives, providing for a cut off of benefits after a time limit (which differed depending on the circumstances of the recipient) and tying benefits to compliance with work and training requirements. Texas's welfare benefit has historically been one of the lowest in the country. This continues to be the case despite an increase in the monthly cash payment from $188 to $201 in 1999. Bush did not veto the increase, but tried to tighten eligibility requirements. In one area, welfare reform in Texas was less punitive than in other states in that it did not cut off benefits to children, only adults. This feature was a priority of the Texas Legislature; Bush had called for a complete family cutoff, but compromised with the Democrats. Bush also attempted to have welfare benefits and food stamps administered by private contractors, but failed in his attempt to get a federal waiver. The most innovative aspect of the Texas welfare reform package is in its experimentation with the "charitable choice" provision of the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation, which allows private and religious groups to administer various programs. Texas was the first state to implement this provision. Bush has pushed for private and religious groups to administer prison programs, drug programs and others. Reliance on faith-based institutions for delivery of programs is a linchpin of the Bush presidential campaign agenda. THE CANDIDATES: GORE If Gore did not invent the Internet (as we all know), he was a key early figure in foreseeing the potential of Darpanet, an obscure device created by a Defense Department-sponsored research for defense communications as the key to an information superhighway. Gore's tireless promotion of the information revolution accelerated the pace of development of Darpanet into the Internet. His role was crucial. He also played a major role in raising the problem of global warming to a level of national debate. Gore's attention to policy detail and his knack for moving nascent issues onto the national agenda were his strengths in the House and Senate. He was not as successful at building legislative coalitions and was viewed by some of his peers as arrogant and aloof; he was privately called "Prince Albert" by a few of his colleagues. Many Republicans also saw him as excessively partisan. As vice president, Gore has had a more significant role than virtually any of his predecessors, with substantive responsibilities and a clear role as close adviser to the president. The issues in which he has played a central role have included government reform and reorganization and U.S.-Russian relations (via the Gore-Chernomyrdin dialogue.) While his campaign rhetoric has recently taken on a populist tone, Gore's world view throughout his political career is closer to Clinton and the New Democrats than to old line liberalism. The era of big government is over, replaced by an era of significant, responsible, and efficient government. Gore has continually stressed that government must be credible in putting its fiscal house in order if it is to be effective in helping the people. "Fiscal discipline is a foundation, a new generation of investments, the empowerment of our people, and the unleashing of their potential," he said in a speech to the Democratic Readership Council in July. A reinvented government is responsive, flexible and efficient at delivering services and treats clients like customers, he says. Gore vows to "tear down all the barriers between the different departments and agencies of our government, and obliterate the barriers between you and the clear, understandable, responsive common sense that you have a right to expect," in his June e-government speech. Finally, common sense government uses small practical initiatives as opposed to the grand programmatic fix, he says. Gore's areas of interest have not generally focused on issues of federalism or partnerships with other levels of government. Other than Bill Clinton, he has not particularly bonded with governors. For most of his career in Congress, he did not have particularly close relations with the Tennessee governor. When he was first elected in 1976, much of the Tennessee delegation had strained relations with Democratic Governor Roy Blanton. From 1979 to 1987 Republican Lamar Alexander held the office. It was not until Gore's final four years in Congress, when Democrat Ned McWherter was governor, that he had a close ally in Nashville. As vice president, Gore has cultivated relationships outside of Washington, but notably more with the mayors than governors. To the extent that Gore is interested in the devolution of government, it often has the flavor of more power to the cities than to the states (e.g., enterprise zones)-which of course is not atypical for a Democrat. What do we know about Gore's attitudes about federalism? On the issues in which he specialized, including technology and the environment, Gore's focus clearly has been on the central role of the federal government. On the environment, he has not shown a particular sensitivity to local governments where the burden has often been heavy. But on other issues, Gore's rhetoric has been more befitting his long time status as a New Democrat, generally advocating greater flexibility than traditional Democrats in the administration of various social programs by states, localities and groups. By most accounts, Gore has been supportive of welfare reform and most of the other social policy initiatives of the Clinton administration. He has also supported state waivers to experiment in areas of health, education and social welfare. He has adopted for his campaign the Clintonian approach of focusing on small, concrete proposals, often involving giving states money as incentives to do things (for instance, to hire 100,000 new teachers or 100,000 police officers) rather than through broad block grants. Still, it is not clear that Gore would govern with the flexibility toward the states shown by Clinton. Two policy areas of interest to Gore do indicate a willingness to devolve power: reinventing government and enterprise zones. One of Gore's major projects as vice president was to head the effort to reinvent government. This ambitious project looked at the government as a whole and tried to improve customer service. In doing so, Gore advocated flexible work rules, partnerships and new technologies. In quite a few instances, this meant giving more of a role to state governments. But it could also mean strict performance standards for federal programs the states administer. Working with his close ally, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Gore has also been a strong proponent of empowerment zones for cities, which would provide tax breaks to businesses and individuals who revitalize poor areas. In promoting these zones, Gore has relied on vintage "new federalism" rhetoric. But this program could also be seen as a revival of Johnson-era urban programs that by-passed state governments to build a federal constituency in the cities. ISSUES AND POLICIES The positions of the two political parties on issues of federalism have been articulated repeatedly in their platforms. Republicans put great emphasis on devolution of power to states and communities (especially states) and on simple block grants. Governor Bush has emphasized this principle repeatedly, extending it to areas beyond education and welfare. For example, in his Sand Harbor State Park speech about conservation, he criticized the Clinton administration's approach of designating large areas of federal land as national monuments as a "Washington-centered mindset" and declared, "It's time to build conservation partnerships between the federal government and state governments, local communities and private landowners." The 1996 Democratic Party platform also emphasized federalism principles, but put its emphasis on cities, not states. Gore's approach to conservation, not surprisingly, is a proud recitation of the administration's actions, including "the creation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, protecting 1.7 million acres of spectacular red rock canyon lands; an agreement to protect Yellowstone National Park from mining, toxic runoff and other threats, a bold $1.5 billion plan to help restore the Everglades and ensure clean, safe water for South Florida; an agreement to preserve California's Headwaters Forest, the largest privately held grove of old growth redwoods; and the creation and improvement of nearly 120 national parks, trails, rivers and historical sites." No mention by him of the role of states. COMPROMISE WILL BE NECESSARY But that does not mean the candidates are indistinguishable. A Bush administration would move slowly but surely toward a greater flexibility for states in social policy, even as the size and role of the federal government would probably grow rather than shrink. Business pressure to create uniform federal standards in areas like bankruptcy and torts would limit the march toward state power. Former governors would be all over Washington in key positions. A Bush Supreme Court would serve to cut back the leeway of Congress to dictate to states or preempt their role. A Gore administration would give more flexibility to the cities rather than states while emphasizing an expansive and activist regulatory role for Washington. Former mayors would be much in evidence, and aggressive roles could be expected for agencies like the Federal Communications Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. A Gore Supreme Court would give more deference to Congress to superimpose its preferences on states and localities. In short, this election is more than mere spectator sport for state legislators and others watching from a vantage point outside the Beltway. Norman Ornstein and John Fortier are with the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C.
The People Around Them
The nature and direction of an administration is shaped mightily by the people picked by the president to populate it. George W. Bush would likely draw heavily on his fraternity of Republican governors to staff his White House and administration. Bush allies John Engler, Tommy Thompson, Marc Racicot, Paul Cellucci, Jim Gilmore and a number of others, including Christy Todd Whitman, have been mentioned regularly as candidates for key positions. Tom Ridge was on the short list for vice president from an early point, and George Pataki and Frank Keating also received serious consideration. These governors are not only familiar with issues affecting states, but are committed to moving money and discretion to the state level. If Tommy Thompson were to become secretary of Health and Human Services, as has been rumored, it would no doubt lead to policies that would further empower states on welfare and health care programs. And Florida Governor Jeb Bush would no doubt be a close adviser to his brother. As for the recent experience with governors who have become president, Carter and Clinton started slowly and stumbled early because of a combination of hubris and a lack of Washington experience. Reagan fared much better. Although he ran as an outsider, he managed to integrate Washington establishment types like James Baker smoothly with his California circle, and is generally regarded as having one of the most successful transitions into office. Is Bush more likely to suffer from Carter and Clinton's problems or to duplicate Reagan's success? The initial signs are that Bush will follow Reagan's model, by bringing in some Washington insiders to supplement his Texas confidants. He has enlisted a "Who's Who" of Republican establishment figures as advisers, drawing especially on Reagan and Bush administration veterans who now populate think tanks like the Hoover Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. His economic advisers have tended to be more market conservatives than moderates, but they have worked with him to craft approaches to policy that fit the theme of "compassionate conservatism." Vice President Al Gore, in staffing his administration, would be in a different position from Bush. He is heavy on Washington experience and associates, but the pool of governors he would draw from is smaller and less experienced. Gore's domestic policy advisers are headed by longtime "New Democrat" Elaine Kamarck, with a significant role for her frequent collaborator and noted communitarian thinker Bill Galston. Pragmatists like Jack Quinn and Ron Klain on domestic matters and Leon Fuerth on foreign affairs round out his team. One would expect popular mayors like Dennis Archer of Detroit and Michael White of Cleveland, along with Ed Rendell, formerly of Philadelphia, to play significant roles in a Gore administration. Gore's friends and allies in the administration have included HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala and Commerce Secretary Bill Daley, whom he recently tapped to head his presidential campaign. Some, like Education Secretary Richard Riley and Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner, have significant prior state experience. Gore also has an extensive network of Washington insiders from his time in Congress, like former Representative Tom Downey and Representative Norm Dicks. As for Democratic governors in a Gore administration, Gore might tap Vermont's Howard Dean or John Kitzhaber of Oregon, both doctors, for a health position. Two New Democrats, Governor Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and former Indiana governor, now Senator Evan Bayh, would play significant roles.
WHERE THEY STAND
There are important differences between the presidential candidates on issues important to states. Here's where they stand on some of them: EDUCATION Governor George W. Bush has strongly advocated the idea of state and local control of education. His plan to restructure the way that Title I education funds are provided to schools to help educate poor children, much like his brother Jeb's in Florida, would require states to develop standards of performance. Schools that succeed in improving the performance of Title I students would receive extra funds. Schools that fail to meet standards would be given three years to reform. If at the end of that period, the schools still did not meet standards, then the students would be given the option of transferring to another school or taking $1,500 as a voucher to pay tuition at a private school. Al Gore's major initiative is to use a portion of the existing surplus to create an education reform trust fund. To receive money from the trust fund, states would have to set standards for student achievement, schools and teachers. The fund could also be tapped for school construction, preschool and after-school activities, and recruitment of more and better teachers. Neither the Bush plan, providing money with more flexibility for the states, nor the Gore plan, providing more money with a federal structure to guide state action, is without controversy in Washington. Bush's call for vouchers would be opposed by most Democrats; Gore's call for a trust fund and federal standards would be opposed by many Republicans. Whichever man becomes president will face a Congress with partisan margins likely to be in the low single digits in both houses, requiring horse trading and bipartisan compromise to enact policies. So neither pure block grants nor detailed strings are likely to prevail. BLOCK GRANTS Take the issue of law enforcement. Vice President Gore, on his Web site, says, "One of the most essential weapons in the war against crime is our nation's law enforcement-which is why Al Gore fought hard to enact the Clinton-Gore anti-crime bill that is putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets of America." Bush has not specifically addressed this issue; his Republican allies in Congress supported the $8.8 billion over six years authorized in the 1994 crime bill for the 100,000 community police officers, but, in contrast with Gore, would allow localities to use the money either to hire new officers or to pay for training or new equipment. The GOP approach to federal education money is similar; where Clinton and Gore supported funding specifically for 100,000 new teachers and school construction, Republicans wanted the money given without such targeting. INTERNET TAXATION Both Bush and Gore supported the Internet Tax Freedom Act, but left the door open for a tax solution down the road. Neither candidate has addressed a larger issue of federalism here-namely, that if a three-year moratorium stretches to five years, it is likely to become permanent. A permanent ban on Internet taxes on sales will erode state and local tax bases. This in turn will create pressure to move toward a national sales tax or value-added tax-an ironic and unintended consequence, particularly for the ardent anti-government anti-taxers. THE SUPREME COURT States vs. Lopez (1995), the Court said the Gun Free School Zones Act was an infringement on state jurisdiction. In Printz vs. U.S. (1997), the Court struck down a part of the Brady bill that required local law enforcement to conduct background checks. In Seminole Tribe vs. Florida, the Court ruled against part of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Finally, most recently in United States vs. Morrison (2000), the Court ruled that Congress had overstepped its grounds with the Violence Against Women Act. Each of these cases involved a recognition by the high court either that the Commerce Clause does not justify federal legislation in all areas or that the federal government could not always tell a state what to do. Each of these cases was a 5-4 decision, with Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor on one side and John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer on the other. No one knows whether any of the nine current justices will leave during the next four years, but three are more than 70 years of age, with one (Stevens) over 80. Several justices, including O'Connor, Rehnquist and Ginsberg, have had health problems. One change in membership could make a huge difference in the direction of the Court on federal and state powers. Despite their common refusal to adopt litmus tests for Court nominations, Governor Bush almost certainly would nominate justices who would ally with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, while Vice President Gore would nominate justices who would ally with Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter and Stevens. ©2000, National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. |
