As I write this, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is providing an updated status report on the Golden State's fiscal woes. The mess in Sacramento has prompted me to wonder whether states have become obsolete. More to the point: are they a net asset or detriment to the public good?
Just about every local government agency in California is dependent on funding from the state, whether they be counties, municipalities, school districts or transportation organizations. Officials of all of them have been waiting for this day on pins and needles in hopes that The Terminator will announce that budget woes won't result in drastic reductions in Sacramento's largesse. Schwarzenegger's initial reaction to the state budget deficit was to propose a 10 percent decrease in projected spending across the board. Local officials have, in turn, planned to reduce their own spending. Tuesday night, the Board of Education in the city of San Diego voted to layoff 617 teachers. That followed the firings of 1,200 classified employees. Smaller districts around the county have also let workers go.
None of this was necessary. The state of California was given a valuable lesson in the early-2000s when the tech bubble burst, forcing the government to scramble to cover budget deficits. The legislature, governor and interest groups that back propositions all pushed spending into orbit when times were good, and the local governments gleefully grabbed their extra shares of cash. When the double whammy of the end of the tech bubble and 9/11 struck, they were out of luck. So when the housing bubble came along, did the state change the way it budgets its money? No. Spending increases under Schwarzenegger aren't much less than they were under his predecessor, who was recalled. Then the housing bubble burst and the slowing economy means that California is receiving exponentially larger sums of revenue each year.
So what we have in the Golden State is a great big mess. My more pointed question of whether the state has become an actual detriment to the public good is answered.
What actual services does the state of California provide?
-- It manages our driving through driver's licenses and patrols of freeways and rural highways, and manages highway construction and maintenance,
-- It provides rural fire protection and regionwide fire coordination and command,
-- It operates two large systems of universities, and manages K-12 education,
-- It manages state parks, waterways and wildlife,
-- And it manages the state courts and prison system.
There are hundreds of agencies, including some tasks we've assigned to the state such as the Bureau of Automotive Repair and the California Coastal Commission. Some are strictly duplicative of federal agencies -- see, we can do that, too! -- or are political fiefdoms like the High-Speed Rail Authority (we have no high-speed rail system and are unlikely to get one).
Let's take the major listed functions. I have no quibble with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but the California Department of Transportation might give less bang for the buck than any other state agency. Despite a flood of money, the freeways in California are in pitiful condition. Traffic jams are monstrous. Transportation planning is now done at the county level. With the federal government's interest in the Interstate Highway System, cutting the state out of the freeway business would greatly improve our transportation interests. If the federal government were to directly fund county governments, transportation problems would be reduced.
Like the DMV, I also have little problem with the agency now known as Cal Fire. In covering the San Diego County wildfires of 2003 and 2007, I came to highly respect the incident commanders and firefighters. The captains are great people. Their leaders in Sacramento suck, hampering local firefighting efforts with their policies -- not at the time of the fires but in their previous decisions. Many counties have their own fire departments that handle Cal Fire responsibilities.
The operation of public universities is a well-accepted state function. In California, they are run poorly. Community colleges are funded by the state but are actually operated by local districts.
California also funds K-12 education, which many people have come to believe is the most important thing the state does. However, the education activists who are pushing for ever greater state funding for their cause are the same ones who have made education a federal priority. This is where things get cloudy. I agree that education is one of the top five functions of government, but who is really in charge here? Local districts? Counties? The state which funds them? Or the federal government, which provides additional tax dollars?
Needless to say, there's a lot of layers here, which means too much money is going to administration and too little to classrooms.
The state park system and Department of Fish and Game are more agencies which duplicate federal functions or could be handled at the county level. Neither break the bank, though.
The state courts, except for the courts of appeal and the Supreme Court, are actually run by the counties.
The bogeyman for the state budget crisis is the Department of Corrections. Both Davis and Schwarzenegger have allowed massive pay increases to state prison guards, while a lot of money has gone toward building new penitentiaries, which become overflowing by the time they're open. And the education proponents claim that if they're funded better, the prisons would be less necessary. Of course, if the instruction they provided was effective, the prisons would also be unnecessary.
We've had dueling state and federal justice systems for two centuries. We can't change now. So what we have are states that fund educational systems for citizens who want to get ahead, and prisons for those who do not.
At any rate, go to the Web site of your state government and click on the link that lists all the agencies. If you don't say "huh?" at least three times, then you're officially a wonk. Unless the California Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind or Minnesota's Board of Podiatric Medicine are essential state functions and I'm just missing something.
The bottom line is that, at least in California, so much of the state government is unnecessary or duplicative and that which is needed is operated poorly. I'm sure the situation in many other states is similar, though maybe not as bad.
Other than a couple essential functions listed, states more than anything are becoming little more than giant funding distribution centers, sending money off to local jurisdictions and agencies much like a mother dog to her litter. We're getting to the point where states are going to have to justify their existence. If not in total, then at least for their budgets. California desperately needs to rebuild its structure and budget from the ground up and justify the existence of every department and function. Fortunately, new State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass seems to grasp that current budgeting practices are failing. As a politician, though, she will run into too many entrenched interests to effect real change. That will eventually have to be imposed by voters.
---
I have nothing against states or states' rights. Some of the state functions I listed are well-placed, if not well-executed.
I also think states can be useful in defining differences in geography and Americans as people. Arizona has the desert, Colorado the Rocky Mountains, Texas the plains and New Jersey the ... the ..., well, uh, never mind. As people, we have much in common, but there are also substantial differences between laid-back Southern Californian's and hard-driving New Yorkers, and between San Francisco wine-sippers and Texas oilmen.
That's why I think the Electoral College is brilliant and needs to be maintained, despite the occasional odd 2000 result. There are differences in priorities, needs and desires between people in the state of Washington and residents of Georgia. Presidential candidates would never visit North Dakota if its three electoral votes weren't critical.
So there's plenty to say for keeping states intact.
On the other hand, California might be too big. There's an axis between Los Angeles and San Francisco, no question. I've lived in the suburbs of both, so I know. San Diego has some obvious connections to LA but doesn't have any to the Bay Area as far as I can tell. The Padres and the Giants are both in the National League West, and that's all. America's Finest City has a far more significant relationship with Arizona.
You can divide California into three distinct states, really. Southern California. The Central Valley from south of Bakersfield to north of Sacramento. Northern California from San Luis Obispo north through the Bay Area.
---
Gov. Schwarzenegger announced the budget deficit is up to $17.2 billion but believes he can fully fund education requirements. We'll see.
