Posts tagged with: state government

Lawrence J. McQuillan offers a less than surprising economic assessment for the Golden State in the City Journal, causing people to flee for better opportunities elsewhere. McQuillan states:

California continues to be burdened with high taxes, punitive regulations, huge wealth-transfer programs, out-of-control spending, and lawsuit abuse. And there’s no end in sight to the state’s fiscal madness.

Some entrepreneurial minded residents are finding states like Nevada more hospitable for economic opportunity. Nevada ranks second when it comes to inbound migration. The Pacific Research Institute’s 2008 U.S. Economic Freedom Index ranked Nevada sixth in the country in “economic freedom.” South Dakota secured the top spot for 2008.

The rankings and report PRI has compiled is worth studying. It’s not a bland read either, for example thoughts and quotes concerning the relationship between political and property rights by leaders like James Madison are included.

Undoubtedly the report would be very beneficial for state legislators to use as a tool for serving their constituents. McQuillan also notes in his piece:

Economic freedom—or the lack thereof—affects states in multiple ways. Migration alters the political map through congressional apportionment. Current projections suggest that California’s mass exodus will deprive it of a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives after the 2010 census. Economic freedom also impacts pocketbooks. In 2005, per-capita income in the 15 most economically free states grew 31 percent faster than in the 15 states with the lowest levels of economic freedom. Policies friendly to economic freedom help states shore up their finances, too. The 15 freest states saw their general-fund tax revenues grow at a rate more than 6 percent higher than the 15 states with the least economic freedom.

Blog author: kschmiesing
posted by on Thursday, April 13, 2006

Silla Brush penned an interesting little piece in the latest U.S. News and World Report, using the Massachusetts health care bill as a springboard to a wider observation of policy innovation at the level of state government. Leaving aside what any of us may think about any of the initiatives mentioned (they mostly represent bigger government), the observation is a good one.

But then this:

When the feds stall, leave it to the states. The result may be a hodgepodge. But maybe, just maybe, some of the best ideas will find their way to Washington.

This is a manifestation of just the wrong sort of mentality. Brush views the states as laboratories where legislator-scientists impatient with the pace of change at the federal level experiment with policy ideas. Once the states, with their hodgepodge laws, have worked out the best one, the feds can take it and make it universal.

No, our end-goal should be the hodgepodge, not national uniformity. Various states have various sorts of industry, resources, populations, and cultures. Their different needs and values can be expressed through differing policy approaches to questions such as health care, wages, and the environment (with, of course, certain responsibilities reserved to the national government, per the Constitution). That’s the genius of the federal system. Let’s not view the states as launching pads for national policy; let’s allow the states to make policy and leave it at that.