The Journal of the New Rules Project - Winter 2001

Table of Contents
Questions
Back Issues

Table of Contents

Departments

editor's note
Now that G.W. is in the White House, we wonder if he'll be able to translate his slogan "Texans can run Texas" into real live devolution. We offer a small yardstick to measure his progress.

place rules
Tierney proposes state health care innovation. Amarillo uses cumulative voting. Australia adopts local purchasing policy. Denmark passes environmental packaging tax.

Features

The Canadian Cure
Just because the federal government can't overhaul the health care system doesn't mean it can't be done. In a similar situation, Canada's provinces established individual systems founded on equity, public administration and decentralized control. Fifty years later, all Canadians are covered and the plan still costs less per capita (and a smaller percentage of the GDP) than U.S. citizens pay. Maybe we should take another look. By Daniel Kraker

Bonding With the Next Generation
Sometimes doing the right thing is almost too simple. Requiring publicly funded construction projects to produce no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions is one example: it's hard to find the down side. By David Morris

Libraries, Liberty and the Pursuit of Public Information
Far from becoming obsolete, public libraries still operate at the heart of their communities. In addition, they've taken on new roles such as "Guide to the Internet," and "Champion of Equal Access." Now they're struggling, on behalf of their patrons, to prevent private companies from passing legislation that restricts the right to read free of charge. By Harriet Barlow, Karen Hering and Stacy Mitchell

State Inspections Revive Local Markets
After years of suffering heavy hits from industry consolidation and low prices, small livestock farmers and independent meat processors are getting a second chance through a long-forgotten policy. The recent resurrection of state meat inspection programs has given farmers the opportunity to market their own meat and is increasing business for small processors. By Brian Levy

[editor's note]

A Devolution Test for George W. Bush

"Shifting Of Power From Washington Is Seen Under Bush"
- New York Times, January 7, 2001, p. 1

"Across the spectrum of domestic policy issues, from health and welfare to education, transportation and environmental protection," reports Robert Pear of the Times, "the new administration promises to shift power from the federal government to the states, and state officials of both parties said they expected the promises to be kept."

I doubt it. When Washington speaks of devolution, it almost always means granting local governments more flexibility in complying with federal directives. That may be a step in the right direction, but it shouldn't be confused with granting local governments real policymaking authority. Indeed, when it comes to power, both Republicans and Democrats are centralists.

In the last 40 years, Republicans as well as Democrats in Washington have voted to increasingly restrain local and state authority. Intriguingly, a systematic study of roll call votes in the 98th through the 101st Congresses that actually found Republicans more prone than Democrats to overrule state and local regulations, according to Pietro S. Nivola of the Brookings Institution.

A genuine "devolutionist" is willing to let governments closest to the people enact measures governments further from the people oppose. As governor, Mr. Bush often declared "Texans can run Texas." If he truly believes that, he is now in the position to translate rhetoric into reality. By doing so, he would fundamentally change the entire national debate about government and governance.

Let me offer three actions George W. could immediately embrace that would signal his party' s new allegiance to local control.

1. Drop federal opposition to state medical marijuana initiatives. Eight states now allow the sick to use marijuana. In all but one (Hawaii, where the legislature passed the law), the law was adopted as a result of direct referendum. Clinton's administration refused to accept the will of the people. Instead, it has tried to strip of their medical licenses doctors who prescribe marijuana. Clinton's Justice Department continues to argue in federal courts (and now before the U.S. Supreme Court) that states lack the authority to enact such initiatives, no matter how popular they may be. President Bush would demonstrate the courage of his convictions by ordering his administration to cease standing in the way of this exercise in local democracy.

2. Ask Congress not to extend the current temporary federal moratorium on state and local taxation of purchases over the internet. Because of Congressional and Supreme Court actions, communities are prohibited from imposing the same sales taxes on purchases from out-of-state firms as they do on purchases from in-state firms. As a result many states are forced to discriminate against their homegrown businesses by giving out-of-state businesses a 6-8 percent price advantage. Both political parties supported this moratorium, which ends in October. George W. Bush should ask his party to honor the maxim "Texans can run Texas" and no longer force communities to treat remote businesses better than they treat local businesses.

3. Ask Congress to grant localities the authority to stop local cable companies from discriminating against local internet service providers. Communities currently do have the authority to give cable companies permission to serve their residents. But federal courts have ruled that communities lack the power to require that these companies offer residents a real choice in internet service providers. As a result, giant cable companies are discriminating in favor of their own internet service subsidiaries by charging local residents twice as much to sign up with a local service provider. In the last six months, three federal courts have overturned local access provisions by Portland, Oregon; Broward County, Florida; and Henrico County, Virginia. The courts insist that federal law preempts local authority in this area. George W. Bush should insist that the Republican Party introduce and enact legislation that lets communities decide whether the high speed information highways of the future should be open to all users on an equal basis.

Centralists will argue that giving communities such power would result in a dizzying array of local regulations. Genuine devolutionists would respond that there is at least as much danger in the one-size-fits-all policies that emanate from Washington.

There are times, of course, when federal preemption is necessary. Yet today, federal preemption is rapidly becoming the rule, not the exception. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to subscribe to the notion that the burden of proof should rest on those who would delegate authority, not on those who would centralize it. The rhetoric of the new Republican administration promises a dramatic change. George W. talks the talk. Let's see if he walks the walk.

--David Morris

David Morris
Vice President, Institute for Local Self-Reliance
© 2001 Institute for Local Self-Reliance

Questions directed to info@ilsr.org

phone: 612-379-3815