States’ To-Do Lists

Quietly, with not much more than local debate, criticism and news coverage little noticed beyond each state, most of the nation’s governors have now given their 2002 State of the State addresses, laying out detailed economic, educational, social and political blueprints for the next year or so. In many ways these plans, carefully sculpted and staged statements of political and financial intent, have far more practical impact on American lives than a president’s closely chronicled State of the Union shopping list each January.

State of the State speeches provide useful, comprehensive insights into the political priorities of governments closest to American citizens after this country’s worst act of terrorism. What emerges strikingly from dozens of speeches is the presence of familiar social and financial challenges and the actual absence of unease or panic, a comforting sense of normalcy, resolve and continuum less than 180 days after 9/11. To be sure, every governor acknowledges that now infamous date, usually introducing an audience member who helped recovery efforts or a soldier newly returned from Afghanistan--and noting increased security costs. But the dominant themes were perennials. The budget: Virtually every state confronts a deficit with revenues below projections and spending above. Virtually every state is choosing to address the squeeze by carefully apportioned spending cuts, not revenue increases (except for tobacco taxes, still fair game). Education: This is always a top professed priority. Many governors cited improved test scores and vowed new investments, with South Carolina’s Jim Hodges even proposing a copy of Tom Brokaw’s book “The Greatest Generation” for every child. The worst cost overruns are in health care, primarily likely-to-be-cut Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for 39 million poor. Even cost saving is traditional: hiring freezes, delayed spending and maintenance.

The speeches are important rituals, setting a state’s political agenda for debate and action while providing a measuring rod for citizens and media. Interestingly, a new study by the Stateline.org Web site, which analyzes state governments, revealed that governors are far more effective than presidents in achieving their annual speech objectives, even though four of the last five presidents had been governors. Modern voters do like doers when choosing chief executives. But ex-governors find that managing an immense federal bureaucracy and complex, less personal legislative relationships is a lot harder than operating in down-home state capitals where the players run into each other at Rotary lunches and high school basketball games.