Our View - Friday

Back to basics

Neo-federalism a return to founding principles

We see nothing wrong with states being able to set clean water or air standards that differ from those set by the federal government, with a few non-negotiable conditions. States should be given freedom to approve lowerthan-federal standards as well as higher-than-federal standards. They should be denied any future federal assistance related to any adverse economic impacts that result from reckless regulating, leaving them to shoulder any consequences. And, finally, they should be prevented by law from using their clout as consumer markets to coerce other states into meeting their standards, as California and a number of other states (possibly to be joined by Colorado) are attempting to do with auto emissions.

With those conditions, we should set the states free to regulate as they please, although always with an eye toward smaller government. Those that do so wisely will flourish. Those that act foolishly will do poorly. And Americans can vote with their feet for the approaches they prefer, once the consequences from these choices start to show. This was the way the Founders meant it to be. And this was the way it was, until the federal government usurped authority over things it wasn’t meant to.

On Dec. 20, the Environmental Protection Agency declared that 17 states seeking to set higher-than-federal standards on carbon dioxide emissions could not do so. That, the agency said, was a federal responsibility, since climate change is a national problem. “The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” EPA administrator Stephen Johnson said. “I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”

But we fear regulatory chaos less than we fear the damage being done to the Constitution by federal command and control. There are practical as well as constitutional reasons to return authority to states.

We believe the time is right for what might be described as “neo-federalism.” But it won’t happen unless EPA regulators, Washington politicians and the interest groups heavily invested in federal control surrender more responsibility and resources to the states. Power is surrendered only begrudgingly, we all know, so states must nudge the process along by reasserting their powers and prerogatives.

Another major obstacle along the road to neo-federalism is politicians (and members of the general public) who talk out of both sides of their mouths on the issue, backing federal dominance when it suits their purposes, while calling for more state control when it doesn’t. These positions are constantly shifting, blown by partisan winds.

We recently heard Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, for instance, arguing that Colorado should have a greater say in a drilling plan for the Roan Plateau, even though this is federal land. And we agree that states should be fuller partners, if not the dominant partner, in such decisions. But Ritter and other Democrats have little credibility arguing for state’s rights, when they enthusiastically welcome federal dictates and control most of the time. Similarly, we see California Sen. Dianne Feinstein decrying the EPA’s attempt to deny her home state the right to approve higher-than-federal emissions controls. But if another state decided to adopt dramatically lower-than-federal standards, or to ignore them altogether, Feinstein would be calling for the feds to bring the hammer down. This lack of consistency undermines their credibility.

As believers in the federalist system the founders laid out, in which the powers and rights not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution were reserved by the states and the people, we would like to see states have much more freedom to go their own ways — as long as they are prevented from shifting the burden elsewhere if their mistakes take a toll. If California wants to strangle its economy with red tape, abide by greenhouse gas treaties, or become a testing ground for whatever nutty idea comes down the pike, that’s its right. Californians will just have to live with the consequences, for good or ill. And if we in Colorado want to follow that same self-destructive path, that should be our prerogative, too. With any luck we’ll recognize the error of our ways in time to avert a disaster.

States, like people, should have the right to be wrong, as long as they take full responsibility for the consequences.

Got a good idea? Tell the governor

We don’t mean to pick on Bill Ritter, but sometimes the first-term governor just makes it so easy. According to a report in Thursday’s Gazette, on Wednesday the governor launched “an effort to solicit the public’s thoughts on how state government can spend tax dollars more efficiently.” There’s nothing wrong with that; government should be responsive to the people and the people should be encouraged to speak up.

What struck us as a little off-kilter, at least for Ritter, was the idea that such solicitations are an efficient means of communicating with government. Didn’t Ritter earlier this year issue an executive order that opened the door to more public employee unions as a way to make it easier for employees to get their ideas to senior managers? At least that was one reason the governor gave for the move. If simply asking for input works, why open the state to the risks Ritter’s move toward unionization provides?

As we noted at the time, we don’t buy the whole “opening the lines of communication” rationale for giving unions a foot in the door. But then, Ritter couldn’t very well have issued a press release noting his executive order was payback for union support, could he?