|
From Farris Bryant D R A F T
Former Governor of Florida
Director, Office of Emergency Planning
ARE OUR STATES DOOMED?
Are our States doomed to become merely administrative
units for the Federal Government? Many Governors fear that
may be a fact, and uncountable millions of private citizens
have come to the disturbing conclusion that an ever-increasinly
powerful central government is inevitable, resulting in the
decay of State, local and even individual confidence in
self-reliance.
When I was Governor of Florida (1961-65) 1 shared that
fear, and even now after experience in Washington, I see clearly
that the danger still exists. But I see also that powerful
factors are operating to strengthen the States, and to resist
the centripetal force in public activities. In the past year,
as President Johnson's personal representative to the
Governors, I have discussed Federal-State relationships with
every one of the fifty, and have met in conference with
forty-five Governors in their own Capitols and State Houses.
As a result of these meetings, and of actions taken by the
President, I am convinced that a mutually satisfactory
partnership is now coming into being.
The essential first step toward improvement in Federal-
State relations has been taken. The problem, and the dangers,
' ~10
saying:%;=lrz "Remember, whenever a Governor wants to see
me, I want to see him." The President and the Governors
are not natural allies. but they must be on the same team
if the people are to get their money's full worth in the
operation of essential Federal-State programs. All major
domestic problems--poverty, crime, pollution, ignorance and
the others are national in scope, but they exist in States and
localities, and must be fought where they exist, with Washington
helping in the fight.
A problem that is difficult to solve came up often in my
conversations with Governors. They are not given what they
call "lead time". This means they may not know of a grant-in-aid
program in time to take full advantage of it. If a State
legislature meets only every two years it may miss out entirely
on a program. Let me illustrate what they are complaining of
with an example from my own State, Florida. Congress finished
its apprOpriations late last year, as it often does;
Department of Health, Education and welfare officials did not
know until October what funds they would have for higher
education for the fiscal year then already well under way,
ending June 30, l967. Several weeks were needed by the
department's officials to make allocations. Meanwhile in
Florida the legislature did not meet until the following April,
and it, too, as is the way with legislatures, did not finish
its apprOpriations until the last day of the session. Only
-ll
then did the State officials know what funds they would
receive for matching with Federal money. They finally learned
on June 2--just 28 days before the end of the year for which
the money was available.
The lesson seems to be this: Federal matching programs
should allow more "lead time" for States to match, and State
legislatures may need annual and longer sessions. But that's
their decision to make.
Governors themselves will do well to be continuously aware
of what goes on in Washington that affects their States.
Several have taken steps within the past months to keep abreast
of all grants-in-aid programs by appointment of a staff member
ix ** $d* c.&.\
whose assignment is to know about these programs when they are
proposed, when enacted and how to make the best use of them.
I suggest, too, that more Governors appear before
Senate and House committees to testify for or against proposed
legislation affecting their States. Governors often send
representatives, but no representative will get the attention
the Governor himself can get. Governors are busy, but it does
not take much time to fly to Hashington for a day, and the visit
could result in shaping legislation beneficial to their State.
and also in enhancement of their political prestige. Mayors
have been more active than Governors in Washington the past
few years, owl wuek ovhcn lehhlm MA: bks-n ck. rLJvH.
-12
A recent action by Congress illustrates the influence
Governors can have, if they care to use it, even when they
are late in starting. Legislation relating to highway safety--
a field traditionally reserved to States--had worked its way
almost through Congress before Governors paid much attention
to it, though the reSponsibility to enforce it would be theirs.
Finally they became aware of what was on the way, made their
views known to members of Senate and House, and caused the
bill to be changed so that traffic safety money Spent in a
State must have the Governor's approval.
In the light of my own experience as a Governor, and of my
conferences over the past year, there now is no doubt in my
mind that the States can save themselves from deteriorating
into mere administrative units for the Federal Government.
The decision will be made by the people in the States, and by
their leaders. The goal is not how much they can "get from
Washington", but how much they can do as active partners with
Washington. W" M - Ql M.
-osp-
-2
have been identified and defined by both the Federal and the
State governments. President Johnson has taken several
actions and made many statements designed to promote the
importance of Governors, and of State governments. 0f
equal-~perhaps greater-~importance is the fact that the
Governors generally realize that they have been slipping in
political importance, and are determined to reverse the trend.
Responsibility for continuing the improvement rests primarily
with the Governors and the people in their States. The
Federal Government alone cannot create a mutually satisfying
partnership. It must have an alert, informed and cooperative
partner, which is exactly what this Federal Administration is
helping to develop.
The "New Federalism" does not fit the doctrinaire slogans
of Nineteenth Century localism, or the l930s centralism.
We are working toward a new balance that fits the partnership
requirements of modern America. If our States decay as
Oi'usl society, I'{ by wcowuu; {N1 evas*&
influential members f ouraeaaatny, our basic system of .,Q.lwed
government will be in peril of despotic centralism, a conditionv'7
the Founding Fathers so greatly feared. The importance of
States is written into the very name of our country. The
Federal union was formed when the States bound themselves
together; cities, counties, towns and other local units are
legal creations of State governments.
~3
The issue of Federal-State relations is not a new problem.
The Founding Fathers wrestled with it and compromised on it.
It has confronted the American pe0ple many times since the
Constitutional Convention of 1787, most tragically in the era
of Secession and Civil War. It began rising again. we may say,
when world War I required the Federal Government to expand its
Operations. Then came the Great Depression demanding additional
expansion of Federal activities to relieve mass hunger and avoid
domestic revolution in one form or another. Next World war II,
the Cold War, the Korean War. the racing technological
revolution and the war in Viet Nam all have contributed to the
often bewildering social, economic and political changes with
which we are contending chi M-vu J\ h "7"ka "t
rtsiuysq q NV 4s5ov¢\§sm.
Many matters formerly left safely to States now demand
national strategies--poverty, crime, housing, pollution.o£-c£r,
urban congestion, transportation, education and health amon
' ' to militar stren
Long ago in time, and even longer in events. there was
no positive necessity for partnerships in our many levels
of government. Their activities rarely intersected. They
were just friendly, each attending to its own affairs.
at! Not now.
-4
"Today," says President Johnson, "the Federal system
rests on an interlocking network of new relationships and
new partnerships among all levels of government....The
structure is elaborate. It consists of 50 States, over 3,000
counties, 18,000 municipalities, more than l7,000 townships,
and almost 25,000 school districts."
Expansion of government, contrary to what many believe,
is by no means confined to the Federal establishment. The
budgets of State and local governments have expanded more
has Ms \dov.
rapidly in the past twenty years than has the dones+c section
of the Federal budget. State and local governments now
account for more than 65 percent of all expenditures on
civil government, a 20 percent increase in the past two decades.
Generally, all governments have expanded civil activities in
the same period in reSponse to the same underlying public
needs and desires.
Between l955 and l965 employment by State and local
governments increased from 4.7 million to 7.7 million, or
four times the rate of growth of employment on the whole.
It is estimated that by 1975 State and local government
employment will rise to more than ll million. In this year,
1967, some 70 percent of Federal expenditures for domestic
and social programs will be distributed through State and
local governments.
In the late 1920's Federal grants-in-aid came to about
$30 million. In l967 the figure will add up to $15 billion.
-5
By the early l970's the figure is expected to be some $60 billion.
These figures shout at us that governments, from bottom to top,
must be operated cooperatively, each level doing its full,
dedicated and intelligent share.
Now to my experiences with the Governors. Many States,
and Governors admitted it, were not prepared for the huge
new responsibilities imposed by the vast grants-in-aid. In
governmental structures they had not kept up with the swift
pace of change. In some there was a resentful, defeatist
attitude. Many, if not all of them, are now doing something
about this.
The most serious arguments I encountered about grants-in-aid,
or about Federal-State relations in general, were related to
"revenue sharing", and to the so-called "program grants", and
"block grants" as against "categorical" grants. The point is
this: how many strings should there be on Federal funds for ,
"Can u ih we, -. ww. JOlVL W \e-hr.
the States? Some say none. Domination by the Federal
bureaucracy, however technically competent it may be, the "none"
school insists, will be more damaging to the public interest
and to democratic processes in the long run, than errors that
will be made by State and local officials. They admit there
will be errors, but declare that Washington also makes errors,
which certainly is true. Also, it is argued, narrow requirements
by Washington leave the State officials no room for imaginative
applications to meet local needs; and furthermore the needs of
all States, and of all communities within any State, are not
-6
identical in character, timing or urgency. Grants rigidly
controlled from Hashington may lure a State into spending matching
funds for what. within its border, is a low priority purpose.
Opponents of flexible grant guidelines contend that the
Federal Governments responsibilities are national in scope,
hence. use of grant-in-aid funds must be used to achieve the
eets-WWI national purposes ,a-nd- r
standards; that the Federal Government alone sees the entire
Siw*k. diasv~+luhs
national picture; that to allow more than-the-merest-m+n+mum ,
dq u+ autism-1 0341* "u,
oifreedom in the use of grants within States would tanniintiy-
std-ale:>t. A
result in spotty results,widsdivergoneiee-injefficiency, wen.
MW M
hoaca,ia1:::eon¥~ localized political objectives, discrimination
A
and confusion. The standard of technical competence in the
making of regulations. it is said-~but not always out loudc-is
higher in Washington than in many States.
This is an issue that will be debated for a long time,
but if we are imaginative and undoctrinaire. if we hold in
mind the balanced combination we are trying to achieve, we
can work it out. The most satisfactory arrangements are likely
to be found between the extremes, and somewhat flexible to
conform to the ever-changing, always diverse American scene.
15 there ever a rigid permanent solution for any socio-political
problem?
President Johnson has spoken of solutions "tailored to
specific local needs". M M
Governors assume that these Federal aid programs are
here to stay. that they will expand, and--for the most part--that
they are desirable. Hhat they want is more understanding
in Washington of their problems, more respect for the capabilities
of State officials. more couperation in the planning of aid
programs, more coordination between Federal agencies dispensing
grants, and simplification of procedures all the way from "L&
conceptual stage of a program to the use of the provided funds
in the field. They look on Nashington not as a rival or alien
power. but as an often exasperating but still a necessary
Maui uv .
The sins against which their criticisms are directed.
usually, are the sins of strength and action, not of weakness
and inactivity. They spring from creativity of effort, not
from neglect. Some think we are trying to do too much too
rapidly, but they admit-~almost all of them--that the problems
are there, and that Federal help in alleviating them is
essential.
I can understand the bewilderment many feel in their
efforts to comprehend and administer Federal aid programs.
There are just too many of those programs... for anyone
to understand-~more than 600 by one count; they overlap-~four
different Federal agencies are involved in administering
sewerage grants; they often are not coordinated with local
actions--Federal highway builders, for example, with
metropolitan area planning; Federal agencies are not consistent
with one another--in Illinois some communities were ineligible
for urban programs because the Department of Housing and Urban
Development said they were rural, and were not eligible for
farm programs because Agriculture said they were urban; Federal
programs often require a long wait, red tape, inflexible rules,
too many applicatons, different reporting dates, differing
procedures, and so on.
Also, Federal agencies do not divide the whole country into
idential regions. An applicant may go to Dallas for one
program, to Denver for another, and maybe some other place for
a third.
All these and many other criticisms have been reported
to the President, and this is what he has said in reply:
"I have directed the heads of all departments and
agencies to consult on a frequent and systematic basis
with governors and mayors and other local officials in
develOpment and administration of Federal programs...
The development of a workable plan for grant
simplification will demand careful preparation.
The statutes involved are varied and complex.
I have instructed the Director of the Bureau of the
Budget, in cooperation with the Federal agencies
concerned and representatives of the States and local
governments to form a joint Task Force to devise
such a plan...."
What is known as the "Partnership in Health" Act,
already in force, points the way toward simplification.
Under this law fourteen Specific limited "categorical"
health programs have been combined into one general program.
Now a State submits its plan, tailored to its own particular
needs, rather than to particular separate Washington funds,
and submits one whole package. If it fits properly within
the broad area of a national purpose of better health care,
as defined by Congress, then it is approved. There will be,
I am sure, other similar actions by Congress, and parallel
actions by departments. The Governors are not now being igbored!
Hhen they were speaking as individual officials, the most
severe criticism I headd from Governors is that Federal
action often has by~passed the State's chief executive, and
in many cases the State's government, giving financial support
to cities, school districts and other units without the
Governor's knowledge, or State government request or approval.
This makes intelligent, comprehensive State planning difficult
or impossible. Having been a Governor within recent years
I share their feeling on this issue, and can assure them that
something is being done about that, too.
When the President gave me the assignment as his personal
representative to Governors he said his aim was to upgrade the
office of Governor in national affairs. He has established a
direct communications policy with Governors. I recall his
PAGE 1
rui!. ..... .r. s.ir rorm1 1oero lf 'I d ..rct r .ic .f [ .e ge Planr'.in A!?E 1ij l .l th cllED nye ~ ~ B, 1u 1tte do e Io bpl.,r --r l1in s r tv u isf r th fea oe ne t ay ~ v r~r er ta te f Ia o e n r o l r d 1 6 -5 I s a e that roer and eve now aft r ex eri nce n Wa hin len, -s e cl arl
PAGE 2
r I wan t -se i. b't 0r', en an hL, venr i O h e -l a e t et t ir '-:1ey' 1 u1 w", t n opea tono fesentalF-deral -I n t-,og es. A l a do epi ,l I s--p ,vrt I , -:l uI n -n r r~c a the ,ter ,r in l i cop,, -u thI x, n S a e r lo a i i s n u t I f u h t whe th Ixi h 1 wi h Wa h r1 Ie I-in in th 1ig t. .. c n e s io swi h Go e n r .The 1 r, ko r nwh t I~ p o r m i -t tak tf-u '|a v rt g f it jf a 5 t it r p i to l a lTy tye r a it ,fte Io s kn w n il Oc o trwh -' a t hy wo ldh ave r 1 p her pnin ..n ..9 7 .ee a .e k .er n ;dd o h a~~~~~ ~~~ -1 itth-a siewy ih n-ltr., fd 1c n1 ns
PAGE 3
th n d id 1he StIIa t I f I l knI I h 1 u 1he w ld Iho Ic a wr r 'l d Ln flr Sta-e Io m th, nd Sta pe i l tu. ..y nee nnul l anc lde sIs -tn Bu th their dtcsi, tS mak Several~~~~~ ~ av tkn tp wih h at n hs t h, k 1bea
PAGE 4
a o s t t r u h Cbng s .e .r G .v..n.r. pid ru h at Lent-,o F, -1t, th ug h e p n b lt o e~o c t w ud e th i In the 1 h t .1 ny .wr. exp-r e c u, s a G v n and c~ cfer n. .ve .h .a t r h r .o .s o u t in my, mid T h at h-tte -~ __av 'heme .e .o d. triratn-nt .,r, dinistr tiv. r. it f.. or thFede l ..v. .rnm.. n... -h, deI s n w. l .e .ma. c .e 0 ,h peplin -h -a e ,ad by 'leir l lrs. Th, -1a is I-t -onu h they c n elf-l -ahi tn" u wmu ht y 1a :11 -sat ve p rnsw L WasninJtAn
PAGE 5
ern America. If our States decav as gulthat society, if by wr-saiss 9%of our M, our basic syster o
PAGE 6
w-.ich~~~~~ ~~ .-Iecntnig d ea -ldig if tt 1' "0 'I'e ly 16 t lal y t0 StI$ 5 W de nd
PAGE 7
no.
PAGE 8
By the -1rl 1 t7)' L: .....r. s ex c ed t s r bL li n must ae coera d d ctphaiv ..1 e .c n i. .:. 1, ce i at d a d nal i e th shhr i-'on~~~ ~~~ -. .l .xer .n e .l ..' .h Go n r. -n .S. at ., bnd G Ien r -d it e 1 t w-r, '-1 prp1a f r t e new~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ r3:.n i -i~e ~ o e y t e v s r n s i -i .I overnr~~~~~~ental~~ Itict'e hhy h d n t k p s w t h w p1c 11hv' tn set e e w s e e t s I a is
PAGE 9
ICriCC USC D 1 'Jilt-i r-a i d -urlCN libS '. 25 JSCE T.0 JCl'i Cue a .. ..a.. s ..,..,, e-, .. .222 ,a__ ~. 1 :laL cr-al 11.1-ooses M-a9 f Stand rd?' i lot -."-19 etlerdl 30'/Crr-1-erit 2 0 Irsees t. r.tire 9 D Idl :' iltJr!'', 171.1 LD iillo.-. !-cr'------..a .a .! r1 S: ally v'est~ ts -4---'". --,-ir effiC invity .**4... C&ioA. OC .-Z::C 00l liiCO | Ol Ct j -25 .d i Scij -i ||-r: -_ i rir;
PAGE 10
1--l Gov rn rs :Isui~ t at th se F er l, Itd pr ian dr here o bi y, t at t ey w ll e pand arc--fo th ....t....-.h. -hyae desrlr 'ia khywn srneut rtrdn in~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 'fsico ..h i .rbr"s .ir epc c tecpblte oI strh .'i ia s ........ir= i t e ol n ir i trn ~ Iis ...l c t on o r c d re l h ay f o Tdl si s a n t which thi cr ti r Ir I Iec ed usiaally,~~~ ~~~~ r t sn s r ng h n d 1i n nd p fw e n s
PAGE 11
iir ---d r l" b, cway tu l s, f or a f IC, .with -ev opentsai t dyw re rrl nd~ wdr nt 11gi 11 r Trc d r s nd d o 1 n programs Io teve fo n t fnc ma/e sm t i hrpac s thirt A L Fh s .n .rn .t e .rt cim ha ,, bd n-, p rr
PAGE 12
UIde 1'i 1, c -rt e sp ci i lFui e "c 11g r healt prog rus avc b en c mbine int nne ener l ,n ra h S the knu-tl i s p tal r r o i s o n e r i u a nT d ,r t e ha o p riharlp r t a hi~t n f n s ard ub-i s nc w ol p ck ge [ i it p op rl w t'h
|
