No modern American president would repeat the fiscal mistake of 1932, in which the federal government tried to balance its budget in the face of a severe recession. The Obama administration will put deficit concerns on hold while it fights the economic crisis. But even as Washington tries to rescue the economy, the nation will be reeling from the actions of 50 Herbert Hoovers — state governors who are slashing spending in a time of recession, often at the expense both of their most vulnerable constituents and of the nation's economic future. These state-level cutbacks range from small acts of cruelty to giant acts of panic — from cuts in South Carolina's juvenile justice program, which will force young offenders out of group homes and into prison, to the decision by a committee that manages California state spending to halt all construction outlays for six months. Now, state governors aren't stupid (not all of them, anyway). They're cutting back because they have to — because they're caught in a fiscal trap. But let's step back for a moment and contemplate just how crazy it is, from a national point of view, to be cutting public services and public investment right now. Think about it: is America — not state governments, but the nation as a whole — less able to afford help to troubled teens, medical care for families, or repairs to decaying roads and bridges than it was one or two years ago? Of course not. Our capacity hasn't been diminished; our workers haven't lost their skills; our technological know-how is intact. Why can't we keep doing good things? It's true that the economy is currently shrinking. But that's the result of a slump in private spending. It makes no sense to add to the problem by cutting public spending, too. In fact, the true cost of government programs, especially public investment, is much lower now than in more prosperous times. When the economy is booming, public investment competes with the private sector for scarce resources — for skilled construction workers, for capital. But right now many of the workers employed on infrastructure projects would otherwise be unemployed, and the money borrowed to pay for these projects would otherwise sit idle. And shredding the social safety net at a moment when many more Americans need help isn't just cruel. It adds to the sense of insecurity that is one important factor driving the economy down. So why are we doing this to ourselves? The answer, of course, is that state and local government revenues are plunging along with the economy — and unlike the federal government, lower-level governments can't borrow their way through the crisis. Partly that's because these governments, unlike the feds, are subject to balanced-budget rules. But even if they weren't, running temporary deficits would be difficult. Investors, driven by fear, are refusing to buy anything except federal debt, and those states that can borrow at all are being forced to pay punitive interest rates. Are governors responsible for their own predicament? To some extent. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in particular, deserves some jeers. He became governor in the first place because voters were outraged over his predecessor's budget problems, but he did nothing to secure the state's fiscal future — and he now faces a projected budget deficit bigger than the one that did in Gray Davis. But even the best-run states are in deep trouble. Anyway, we shouldn't punish our fellow citizens and our economy to spite a few local politicians. What can be done? Ted Strickland, the governor of Ohio, is pushing for federal aid to the states on three fronts: help for the neediest, in the form of funding for food stamps and Medicaid; federal funding of state- and local-level infrastructure projects; and federal aid to education. That sounds right — and if the numbers Mr. Strickland proposes are huge, so is the crisis. And once the crisis is behind us, we should rethink the way we pay for key public services. As a nation, we don't believe that our fellow citizens should go without essential health care. Why, then, does a large share of funding for Medicaid come from state governments, which are forced to cut the program precisely when it's needed most? An educated population is a national resource. Why, then, is basic education mainly paid for by local governments, which are forced to neglect the next generation every time the economy hits a rough patch? And why should investments in infrastructure, which will serve the nation for decades, be at the mercy of short-run fluctuations in local budgets? That's for later. The priority right now is to fight off the attack of the 50 Herbert Hoovers, and make sure that the fiscal problems of the states don't make the economic crisis even worse. __
