MISSOURI WATCH: THE NEW GIANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

With little media notice and with almost virtual anonymity among the public at large, a transformation is occurring in Missouri and every other state in-the nation that promises to change the lives of all Americans. This change in the way we are governed -- and more importantly, by whom we are governed -- has been under way for more than a decade. Frankly, those of us who try, and more often than not fail, to notice governmental change have been asleep at the computer.

In one sense of the word, this transformation of which I write was predictable back in the 1970s, if anyone had been wise enough to notice. Its roots started growing in 1976, the year America celebrated its glorious bicentennial and the year voters elected the man with the honey toned voice who had been the governor of Georgia, Jimmy Carter. After Carter came the former governor of California, the only state that could produce a movie-star-turned-politician, and Ronald Reagan added to the executive imprint created by his predecessor. We had four years of Reagan's successor, who wasn't a governor, probably because he didn't have time, having filled many of the important federal jobs as a full-time vocation. After George Bush came the governor of Arkansas, who has just been elected to a second term, the first Democrat since FDR to achieve such a record. The point is, for the past two decades, except for four years, America has been governed by leaders who received their skills and virtually all their knowledge of government at the state level. To say that Carter, Reagan and now Clinton changed the direction of the federal government, while bestowing more and more powers on the states, would be stating the obvious. These three men not only knew how state government works, they recognized the inherent advantages of administering programs within smaller boundaries than the continental United States.

Beyond the transformation created by these three former governors was one of even more significant influence: the change of fiscal balance between Washington and the 50 state capitals. Excluding trust funds, such as Social Security, state governments' general revenue from their own sources in 1960 was only half that realized by the federal government. With subtle pushes by both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, both of whom were sympathetic to states' rights, the disparity between federal and state incomes began to disappear.

By 1993, four years ago, the state-local sector was raising 95 cents for every $1 collected by Washington. Government budget experts now declare, with considerable evidence in hand, that total state revenue now exceeds the federal tax take, perhaps by as much as 10 percent. For the first time since early Colonial days, states have more disposable dollars than the feds, a trend that is virtually certain to continue well into the next century, perhaps forever.

In terms of employees, the combined states have led Washington for quite some time. In 1960, for example, there were 6.4 million state and local employees and 2.4 million on the federal payroll. In 1993, the last year for complete figures, state and local payrolls had more than doubled, reaching 15.6 million. In the meantime, the federal payroll has fallen by a fifth, below 2 million, and it's still declining.

What all of this means, no one is quite certain, but there are several conclusions that can be safely arrived at. First, states are not only becoming more powerful because of the Republican-inspired devolution that enjoyed increased speed from Speaker Newt Gingrich and his allies, but also because they receive larger spendable incomes than the central government. The power to fund carries with it the power to govern, and this is particularly true if at least half the Congress favors such a change. Secondly, Washington is gradually recognizing the truth of the old argument that citizens are best served by the governments closest to them, which in this case is the state. Thirdly, governors have been producing results in such areas as welfare and improved education financing that have eluded Washington for years. Such successes serve as a source of empowerment for state executives, giving them an impetus to continue, even enhance, the trend. And, lastly, if one needs more proof, note who is making the new rules for social programs that began in the nation's capital: the states.

States' rights have not only increased, they are in the process of replacing federal revenue and power. Hallelujah!

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.