Fiscal Federalism Conference
Other Voices, Other Views

John Ellwood Professor of Public Policy University of California, Berkeley I've heard a lot of anguished discussion from analysts over the last two days about how difficult it will be to achieve the multiple, often contradictory, goals that are being grafted on safety net programs. My answer to that is: You have just defined politics and public sector activity. There is no way to escape that piling on of objectives, nor the fact that the results are sometimes duplicative and wasteful. You know that there will be costs attached, so you just have to factor them into your analysis. In short, politics matters. Not just short-term electoral politics but political values.

Elizabeth Hill Analyst California Legislative Analyst's Office When I think about the budget, I'm reminded of a little book some of you may have read called, What Have You Learned About Life? One six-year-old boy who is asked that question replies, "I've learned that you can't hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk." Today, I'd like to talk about a few pieces of broccoli that may be lurking in these federalism issues.

Wendell Primus Deputy Assistant Secretary U.S. Department of Health and Human Services In the current political climate, with both parties firing at each other, it's easy to forget that some of these government safety-net programs do work and are doing a lot of good. Just consider: If there had been no government transfers of any kind to poor and otherwise disadvantaged people in 1993, the United States would have had 18.2 million children in families living below the poverty line. Now, add in Social Security, SSI, unemployment compensation, AFDC, general assistance, food stamps and so on, and the number of children in poverty drops to 10 million. Granted, we haven't gotten those numbers down to zero, where in the best of all possible worlds they would be, but it makes my point. There are 8.2 million fewer children living in poverty because of government assistance programs.

Ted Lempert Supervisor San Mateo County, California Counties are the providers of last resort, and if these changes go through, we anticipate a huge increase in demand for county assistance. So naturally our first concern is the impact of fiscal federalism and the block-grant mechanism on our funding. The big question is, Will the state merely supplant the federal government as the source of unfunded mandates? Another major worry is that devolution will result not in the easing of restrictions but in a whole new regulatory scheme, this time emanating from Sacramento instead of Washington. Given California's size and diversity, a lot of people in local government would argue that the bureaucratic morass in Sacramento is every bit as difficult to navigate as the one in Washington.

Sandra Smoley Secretary California Health and Welfare Agency When I look at what has happened to states and localities around the nation, it becomes painfully clear that federally dictated health and welfare programs are not accomplishing what they set out to do. In California in recent years, case loads have mushroomed, costs have skyrocketed, bureaucratic administrative structures have grown at an unmanageable rate, and our most vulnerable citizens are paying the price. The federal government's one-size-fits-all policies simply do not work here. That's why we have supported block grants from day one, even if it means less money for California. We say to Washington: Just give us the money (that was ours in the first place), get out of our way, and we will craft the programs that are relevant to California.

Nick Bollman James Irvine Foundation The pie is shrinking. I wish it were different, but that's the reality. The challenge that we're faced with is how to take the array of forces at our disposal and put them to work in a downsizing environment to actually change health and welfare systems for the better, not just hack away at benefits and services. That will be hard for us because most of us have lived our professional lives in an environment where the pie was growing. We could just keep adding layer upon layer of new services and programs, and no one called us to account. Now we are going to have to learn to do the reverse of that--figure out how to reform systems and downsize simultaneously.

Edmund D. Edelman Senior Fellow RAND This conference, with its mix of analysts and public officials, is a good way to educate ourselves about the impacts of fiscal federalism. But the problems that we've discussed here can only be resolved in a political context. Somehow the political will to tackle these issues has to be engendered in the broad society. That means reaching out and engaging labor and business leaders, nurses and doctors, movers and shakers in the community--getting them to sessions like these. We can talk to ourselves all day and that's good; publish the excellent research papers that were prepared for the conference and that will help. But we can't stop there. We have to build coalitions that lead to initiatives on the ballot, that get the attention of politicians, if we're ultimately to see structural, systemic reforms in Medicaid and welfare programs.

The New Fiscal Federalism and the Social Safety Net: A View from California James Hosek and Robert Levine, editors, RAND/CF-123-RC, 1996, 200pp., ISBN: 0-8330-2411-6, $15.00. The book may be purchased from National Book Network (NBN), (800) 462-6420, or from RAND's Distribution Services, 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138. To place credit card orders: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915. The text appears in its entirety on the World Wide Web: /publications/CF/CF123/

RAND's Home Page