In the last six weeks, the pandemic has changed everything: how we interact, work, communicate, learn, travel, eat and recreate. It is also causing heated arguments over the roles and responsibilities of the different levels of government.
Some say the federal government should have shut down the entire nation and been more aggressive in assisting states. Some say state governments were unduly prescriptive, or too weak, in giving directives to local jurisdictions. Responding to COVID-19 is a rigorous test of our federalist system. It’s almost too much for our homebound-enfeebled minds, but we do our best to explain.
How will the federal and state responses to the pandemic alter their relationships? Are the venerable principles of balanced federalism being enhanced or diminished?
Pignanelli: “Federalism has been likened to a layer cake in that no one fully understands how layer cakes are constructed and layer cakes can always assert eminent domain.” —Alexandra Petri, Washington Post
Every family endures longtime comfort arguments — choosing the game for get-togethers, determining holiday decorations, planning travel, etc. (My clan vigorously disputes the best meatball recipes.) These endless quarrels are important because they define us. Tugs of wars between Washington, D.C., and the 50 state capitals must never cease, as they buttress our democracy. We need the fight.
Responses to the pandemic are rapidly altering this debate. Every day, Americans learn of state officials overcoming challenges while implementing creative programs to help their citizens. Contemporaneously, Congress continuously bickers while handing out loads of cash, laced with frustrating bureaucratic obstacles. An unusual twist occurred when left-wing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo pushed back against Pres. Donald Trump’s assertion he had ultimate authority over the states. This was followed by the President lecturing a fellow Republican, and governor, when to reopen Georgia for business.
Some observers believe the pandemic will prompt an even more expansive national presence and control. But the states’ demonstrated ability to innovate and problem-solve refutes the conjecture they are just administrative units of a bloated national government.
What a wonderful episode of a crucial centuries-old squabble.
Webb: Vice President Mike Pence has frequently said the pandemic would be “federally supported, state managed and locally executed.” That is precisely the proper approach, respecting our system of federalism. However, the execution has been untidy and wildly inconsistent. Of course, much of the chaos can be attributed to the “fog of war” — of necessity charging ahead in crisis mode with little information or precedent.
Despite a few erratic statements by President Donald Trump (like he alone has “total authority” reopen the country), the administration has gotten the relationships mostly right. The federal government established guidelines, but states have been free to close or open their economies. Despite harsh criticism from many liberals and the national news media, Trump was correct to allow maximum flexibility to state leaders. One size does not fit all states or localities, even in a national emergency.
In general, states are supposed to play co-equal roles with the federal government. But one area where equality is not even close is in the financial realm — paying for the costs of the crisis and providing financial relief for individuals, businesses, nonprofits and state/local governments.
That’s because only the federal government has the ability to print money and borrow without restraint. I’m not complaining, because this is a true national crisis, and when government forces an economic implosion, it should try to pay some of the costs. But the unfathomable debt produced by the several multitrillion dollar bailout packages may be the most lasting impact of the COVID-19 crisis.
How has Utah state government performed in its relationship with both the federal government and local governments?
Pignanelli: Our troubled history with the federal government paid dividends again. The Herbert administration did not wait for instructions and moved fast to implement a plan that balanced safety and economic security. Utah appreciates the federal minting presses, but established state and private mechanisms to ensure qualified businesses and individuals received funds.
A patchwork of restrictions creates confusion for business in an already chaotic environment, and the state appropriately restricted cities and counties from enhancing restrictions unless extenuating circumstances were present. This consistency was especially important as most Utahns live along the I-15 corridor.
Webb: While critics with 20-20 hindsight are beginning the game of second-guessing crisis-mode decisions made by the Herbert administration, I would challenge any of the naysayers to explain precisely what they would have done in the same situation with the same information (or lack thereof). A crisis is inherently chaotic. Quick decisions have to be made. Expert medical advice has to be followed.
Overall, and in context, the Herbert administration has done an admirable job and citizens should be grateful.
Will the ongoing realignment of politics include a readjustment of support or suspicion of federalism?
Pignanelli: Lefty progressives love D.C. control. Many Trump supporters embrace strong national industrial policy. Conversely, Gen Zers and millennials seem to favor local perspectives. The ground underlying federalism is shifting.
Webb: A real danger of a national crisis is that the resulting “new normal” is bigger, more expensive government, and loss of freedom. But I believe balanced federalism will survive. Certainly, the pandemic has demonstrated the important roles of each level of government and how they need to work collaboratively.
Republican LaVarr Webb is a political consultant and lobbyist. Email: lwebb@exoro.com. Democrat Frank Pignanelli is a Salt Lake attorney, lobbyist and political adviser. Email: frankp@xmission.com.