Hoover Institution (Stanford, CA) — Federal officials should encourage results over compliance and shy away from recent escalating fights about who is to blame when things go awry.
Those are some of the takeaways for policymakers from an hour-long discussion with three of America's most distinguished former governors—Jeb Bush (Florida), Jerry Brown (California), and Mitch Daniels (Indiana— that explored the critical relationship between states and the federal government.
Moderated by Michael J. Boskin, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, as part of the ongoing Tennenbaum Program for Fact-Based Policy, this conversation examined how these leading public servants managed natural disasters, educational reform, fiscal challenges, and infrastructure development.
“We know that trust in government has been eroding substantially for a very long time,” Boskin said during the discussion. “But it’s an important fact that trust in state and local government is much, much higher than it is in the federal government.”
The conversation built on themes explored in American Federalism Today, a book Boskin edited that features the three governors speaking about their experiences dealing with Washington while in office.
In their discussion, the three distinguished former governors shared candid insights about dealing with federal regulations, balancing budgets during boom-and-bust cycles, and implementing effective education reforms.
Highlights of their terms included Jeb Bush's groundbreaking education initiatives in Florida, Jerry Brown's fiscal management in California, and Mitch Daniels’s efforts to privatize select government functions such that government agencies were allowed to “bid” against private options if they believed they could operate more efficiently.
This timely conversation offered valuable lessons for current policymakers and insights into effective governance at both the state and federal levels.
Boskin also asked the former governors about their views on gubernatorial term limits, how they would characterize their relationships with the federal government, and what has changed since they were in office.
“There’s a lot more finger pointing: who’s responsible, who’s to blame,” Bush said, referring specifically to major weather events — which Florida saw many of during his eight years as governor—as an example of federal-state interaction.
“[Today] it starts immediately on social media, but back then it wasn’t the case, thankfully, so we had a pretty good relationship,” Bush said of his interactions with Washington.
Daniels spoke about his experience in the aftermath of tornadoes in Indiana, where federal officials would visit storm-stricken areas and offer advice when none was needed.
“It’s our job and we appreciate all the help you can bring, but we don’t need guidance, and we don’t need to stop and deliberate with you about the right way to do things,” Daniels said. “Hold us accountable for results and not for compliance or agreement to do things your way.”
For his part, Brown said the volume of legislation, its complexity, and how it hinders service delivery on the ground is what he wished to highlight from his dealings with the federal government.
“The federal government can help, but just like state legislators, they love to pass detailed proscriptions that then entail compliance and lawsuits, and the hiring of administrators to deal with all of this legal complexity.”
Watch the conversation here.
For coverage opportunities, contact Jeffrey Marschner, 202-760-3187, jmarsch@stanford.edu.
