South Carolinians daily read about the trials and tribulations of our state's fiscal status. Republican control of the Governor's Mansion, the Legislature and the White House hasn't translated into budgetary answers in tough times.

Our state is not alone. Because of the position The White House budget office and the policy makers there have put them in, governors in most states are reported to be unable to be "choosers."

They must be like California Democrat Gray Davis, not because he's an incumbent or a Democrat but because he can't run for re-election. Not politics, but California's term-limit law forbids it. The state faces a $38 billion deficit he proposes to meet with a $8.3 billion tax raise to fund at least in part a $95.8 billion budget. This will keep cities and counties, as strapped as is the state, from having to raise taxes themselves and turn to higher deficit spending to keep the party in power at all levels from having to ignore the education, health and welfare that Pacific Coast voters insist on.

Republican leader James Brulte in the State Senate seems eager to exploit the situation. He declared: "Punishing taxpayers because liberal Democrats have spent us into bankruptcy doesn't make sense to us. We're willing to negotiate on everything but taxes." Despite Davis having the lowest approval level in 55 years of any California governor, regardless of party, it doesn't seem likely Brulte will lead the Republicans to a legislative victory this fall.

Other states face budget cuts and higher taxes to preserve locally mandated services. There'll be little for higher pay for civil service, ecology (parks and trees), expanded schools, fire and police work, health care, improving roads and traffic control, waste collection and water distribution and utilities modernizing.

We have a point to make about the parties with state and local control, from statehouses to city, town or rural officials. The White House expects them to pay for housing, roads and services and also to pay part of "Homeland Security" costs, a federal expense. This is the kind of federal financial and service help we are accustomed to being reimbursed for at state and lower levels.

Across to the Atlantic in Maryland, a Democratic state, Republicans nominated to be governor a serving representative in the federal Congress, who campaigned on improving education, preserving fish and oysters by doing a better at protecting the Chesapeake Bay, and solving traffic problems in Baltimore-Washington's ever expanding suburbs. He upset "a Kennedy," who opposed slot machines at race tracks. He said he'd use the income to improve horse racing, roads and schools. He also expected federal help. He hasn't gotten any and has been billed instead.

In neighboring Virginia, a Democrat won the governorship but the Republicans won the state legislature. The result: Not quite gridlock, but Republicans aren't enthusiastic. Federal and state relations in Arkansas, Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas, among others, reflect similar situations.

A lot can happen between now and Election Day 2004. An improving overall economy and confidence in security at home could do wonders to boost the economies of South Carolina and other states as tax receipts grow. But wholesale change in the fiscal conditions of states by then is unlikely.

The situation is a far cry from the 1992 campaign ("It's the economy stupid") but the economic situations of states and localities and the impact on individual lives will be a factor in the 2004 election as surely as federal tax cuts and economic policy. Don't look for South Carolina to move away from Republican dominance, but the outcome in other states could alter the balance of power on the national level.

Election Day 2004 is shaping up as a real showdown.

You must be logged in to comment.