Tag Archives: Newsom

Federalism

In the United States, states have a long history of being considerably less than united. The Articles of Confederation were so focused on protecting the prerogatives of the individual colonies that they proved unworkable, and were replaced by a Constitution that made its own significant concessions to “states’ rights.”

As the country modernized and experienced increasing economic and social integration, the need for national standards became more obvious. Lawmakers recognized that federal agencies regulating things like health or clean air and water needed to issue regulations that would operate similarly in all the states. The Uniform Law Commission (also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), was created to draft legislation that would bring stability and conformity to state statutory law in areas where such uniformity is seen as desirable and practical. And there is an obvious need for federal law enforcement to enforce its criminal laws nationally.

But there is still room for considerable variation. Justice Brandeis memorably called the states in our federalist system “laboratories of democracy.”

Americans increasingly operate, live and do business in multiple states–a situation that led me to discount the importance of federalism for a long time. (Different laws in different states, after all, caused some very silly situations; before the Supreme Court found same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right, people who were married in one state weren’t considered married in others.) I focused on the downside and failed to appreciate the upside.

The Trump administration has reminded me of federalism’s importance. Governors like Jay Pritzker in Illinois and Gavin Newsom in California, among others, have illustrated that importance, and a recent article from Vox called federalism a “hidden constraint” on Trump.

So far, the biggest successes against President Donald Trump’s second-term assault on democracy have come not from Congress and the Supreme Court, but more unusual sources: lower-court judges, “No Kings” protests, a Disney+ subscriber boycott, and Trump’s own indiscipline and incompetence.

After the 2025 elections, we can add the states to the list. And in some ways, this avenue of resistance may prove to be the most consequential one.

The article noted that the United States’ federalist system is unusual among backsliding democracies– and that it creates some “major opportunities for institutional pushback” that aren’t possible elsewhere. It also notes the irony of where we are today, since for most of our history, states (especially in the South) “have been places where pockets of authoritarianism could exist in a nationally democratic society.”

Certain of the powers that are, in our system, remitted to the states — very much including control over the administration of elections — are mechanisms through which we can resist this administration’s authoritarian power grab. We can see this most vividly in Trump’s effort to rig the upcoming midterm elections by asking Red states to engage in improper mid-cycle gerrymanders.

Because election administration is almost entirely devolved to the states in the American system, Trump has very limited powers to actually try and rig elections from DC. Instead, gerrymandering at the state level — threatening and cajoling governors and state legislatures into drawing as many safe seats for Republicans as possible — is his best shot at actually stacking the deck in the GOP’s favor in 2026.

As we are seeing, that effort is currently failing. Not only have Blue states “counter-gerrymandered,” but legislators in Red states like Indiana have (at least so far) refused to go along, deferring to the huge majorities of their constituents who disapprove.

As the article points out, would-be autocrats follow a well-worn path that requires consolidating formal power in their own hands and neutering independent checks on their authority. It’s a lot harder to rig elections or prosecute your political opponents when you don’t control the necessary levels of power. True, strong federalism cannot guarantee democracy: (Our history has ample examples of authoritarianism flourishing at local levels) But that system creates “opportunities for contestation” when the national government is moving in an unAmerican direction.

It’s hard to imagine a more unAmerican–not to mention demented– administration than the one we currently have. In just the last week, our mad would-be King has accepted a bribe from Saudi Arabia, authorized extra-judicial killings of Venezuelan fishermen, called for the death of political opponents who had the temerity to remind our troops that they took an oath to defy manifestly illegal orders, and responded to a legitimate question from a reporter by calling her “piggy.”

Given the fact that we have a Congress of eunuchs and a corrupt majority on the Supreme Court, I have a new appreciation for the role of federalism in America’s system of checks and balances.

Comments

This Is Encouraging

Regular readers of this blog are aware that I favor a UBI–a universal basic income. I’m certainly familiar with the arguments against it, and even more aware of the “devil in the details” that can make or break most policies. What I find encouraging is the slow but steady spread of pilot programs testing the concept.

The New York Times article at the link reports that at least twenty U.S. cities are currently conducting pilot programs meant to test the idea.

More than 48 guaranteed income programs have been started in cities nationwide since 2020, according to Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a network of leaders supporting such efforts at the local, state and federal levels. Some efforts are publicly funded, and others have nongovernmental support. Jack Dorsey, the former chief executive of Twitter, donated $18 million to help the initiative.

At its essence, a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a stipend  that would be sent to every U.S. adult citizen, with no strings attached– no requirement to work, or to spend the money on certain items and not others. It’s a cash grant sufficient to insure basic sustenance. (A number of proponents advocate $1000 per month).

Andy Stern, former President of the Service Employee’s International Union, points out that a UBI is simple to administer, treats all people equally, rewards hard work and entrepreneurship, and trusts the poor to make their own decisions about what to do with their money. “Because it only offers a floor, people are encouraged to make additional income through their own efforts… Welfare, on the other hand, discourages people from working because, if your income increases, you lose benefits.”

With a UBI, in contrast to welfare, there’s no phase-out, no marriage penalties, no people falsifying information–and no costly bureaucracy. My more extended arguments for a UBI can be accessed here and here.

For obvious reasons, the programs described in the Times article focus on impoverished Americans, rather than testing universal payments.

Damon Jones, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, who has studied such programs, noted that unrestricted cash — including stimulus payments — was used broadly by the federal government to stem the economic devastation of Covid-19.

“Policymakers were surprisingly open to this idea following the onset of the pandemic,” Mr. Jones said. Now the emergency aid programs have largely lapsed, ending what for some was a lifeline.

A number of conservatives argue against a UBI, asserting that it would dis-incentivize work and/or that it would make more sense to reform programs already in place–something easier said than done. But support for a universal income has not been limited to progressives. Milton Friedman famously proposed a “negative income tax,” and F.A. Hayek, the libertarian economist, wrote “There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend.”

More recently, In 2016, Samuel Hammond of the libertarian Niskanen Center wrote about the “ideal” features of a UBI: its unconditional structure avoids creating poverty traps; it sets a minimum income floor, which raises worker bargaining power without wage or price controls; it decouples benefits from a particular workplace or jurisdiction; since it’s cash, it respects a diversity of needs and values; and it simplifies and streamlines bureaucracy, eliminating rent seeking and other sources of inefficiency.

One of the earliest of the pilot programs was in Stockton, California, and analysis of its results confirmed several of Hammond’s points.

Preliminary research from a pair of college professors, based on the first year of Stockton’s two-year program, found that giving families $500 each month reduced those households’ income fluctuations, enabling recipients to find full-time employment.

Researchers, for example, found that 28 percent of recipients had full-time employment when the program started in February 2019; a year later, the figure was 40 percent.

In one case, a participant had been studying to get his real estate license for more than a year — a pathway to more consistent, higher-paying work — but could not find time to study while piecing together an income doing gig jobs. The money from the pilot program, researchers found, gave him the time to study and get his license.

California–unsurprisingly–has most of the pilot programs currently underway, and the Times reports that Governor Newsom is an advocate of the UBI.

As I’ve previously noted, pilot projects to date have debunked predictions that poor folks would spend the money on drugs and liquor. Instead, most has gone for items like food, medicine, diapers and education.

It will be interesting to see the results of these current pilot programs–and assuming they continue to be positive, even more interesting to see how the nay-sayers respond.

Comments