–by Bill Randles
I am entirely supportive of the state sovereignty movement with its challenge to overreaching federal power. As governor, I would place Missouri at the forefront of the movement to restore states to their rightful place and return the federal government to its limited constitutional role. Many conservatives have expressed this sentiment, but too little discussion has been had with respect to how we implement these goals. I not only share the goals; I have a clear, step-by-step plan for victory.
At the outset, it is critical to make a distinction between the two ways the federal government has overstepped its bounds. The first is unfunded mandates, meaning the federal government simply passes rules upon states, localities, schools, or individuals without offering any financial incentive to comply. Unfunded mandates can be summed up as the federal government saying, “Do this because I say so.” The second area of federal intrusion are partially funded mandates. That means the federal government imposes its will upon one of the above groups, but offers to pay part of the cost. These can be summed up as, “Do as I say in exchange for the smallest possible check.” These two different classes of federal intrusion require different strategies.
The unfunded mandates, which include Obamacare, environmental regulations, and a host of other intrusions, have become increasingly sweeping in the last decade. Vast areas reserved for the states by the Constitution such as education, public safety, health, and community development have all been seized upon by an overzealous federal government. The core legal position of my administration would be simple – unfunded mandates are unconstitutional. We will then press back in every respect against federal overreach into areas that rightly belong to the states or individuals. But simply saying we oppose these intrusions is not enough. If we do not bring the proper weapons to the fight, the battle is lost before it begins. I intend to resist the federal government’s domination of the lives of Missourians by following sophisticated legal, regulatory and public relations campaigns that have already proven successful. The two most successful nullification movements of our lifetime are the medical marijuana movement and the sanctuary city movement. The medical marijuana movement is entirely evading federal drug control laws through a web of regulatory and public relations responses. The sanctuary city movement is likewise adopting their own regulations which have the effect of entirely evading federal rules about harboring and reporting illegal immigrants.
Now I want to be clear that I don’t agree with the goals of either of these movements – I am against medical marijuana and sanctuary cities. But the methods used by these nullifiers have worked and show every evidence they will continue to work. It is a complex process that cloaks actual defiance with a covering of regulatory, legal, and public relations tactics. These nullifiers have accomplished their goals through this multi-layered strategy that should serve as a model for how we resist unfunded mandates in healthcare, environmental, educational and other areas in this state.
A different strategy is required to pull Missouri and its citizens out from under the burden of partially funded federal mandates. These are programs where the federal government offers some sort of payment in exchange for our giving up some portion of our individual or states rights. Put simply, every time the federal government shows up with a check in one hand there are a pair of handcuffs in the other. Pulling ourselves out from under this burden must be one area at a time. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency claims vast regulatory powers over how we conduct our affairs here in Missouri, but has a very small enforcement staff of its own. What the EPA does in Missouri is pay the Missouri Department of Natural Resources a few million dollars per year. In exchange, the DNR agrees to serve as the EPA’s cops here in Missouri. Missouri is not obligated to enforce these EPA standards unless we take that money. So, on day one of my administration, I will refuse that federal money and say to the EPA “we will no longer enforce your rules in this state.”
In the area of education, the amounts transferred to the state are more substantial but I would encourage the legislature to reject all federal educational funds in their entirety from the beginning of my administration. Once we are no longer taking federal education money, Missouri’s position reverts back to my view on unfunded mandates – that they are unconstitutional. In other words, we will refuse the federal money and take the position that the federal Department of Education has nothing to say about how Missouri educates its children.
Admittedly, there are areas where the amounts of federal money coming to the state are so huge that those programs will have to be reformed in Washington or it will take some time for Missouri to wean itself off of them. The chief example of this sort of program is Medicaid, which currently consumes 35% of the entire state budget. Of Missouri’s $24 billion state budget, we receive more than $7 billion from the federal government to fund Medicaid. Obviously, we could not immediately refuse that money and balance our budget. So I would consistently press Washington for two related steps. First, I propose that the federal government immediately take the restrictions off Medicaid and transform it into no strings attached block grants so that we may innovate as we see fit. Second, I would press the federal government to stop draining so much tax money out of the state of Missouri. Currently, it takes huge amounts to D.C. and then sends some portion of that money back to us with strings attached. It would be like me robbing your house and then offering to give your television back, but only if you watch the channels I say.
The states are governments of general jurisdiction under our Constitution. The federal government is a government of limited powers. For decades, that notion has been turned on its head and the states have been treated as little more than dependent provinces by the federal government. In the near term, those of us who believe in limited federal government must have a winning strategy to put the federal government back in its place. This will not only defeat specific policies but fan a national movement which will in the long-term put people committed to constitutional limits in congress, the White House, and on the Supreme Court. This will be a lengthy fight, but we must adopt a strategy to win it one battle at a time.
Bill Randles is running for governor in the state of Missouri. Visit his website.
