State government

Phenomenon is widespread. Case resolution time rises in 15 states; case backlog grows in 29.

The Cuomo administration says it is “on track to the rail system of the future,” but but the speediest options — true high-speed rail service — have already been ruled out. The remaining options won’t go all that fast, abandoning the potential benefits that some say true high-speed rail would bring to New York.

Despite the fact that revenues in many states are recovering, budget cuts that were once described as undesirable but unavoidable are being left in place (or even exacerbated) as numerous state legislatures opt to double down on tax cuts.

Oregon legislator: “We get these benchmarks, great, but it’s not doing enough to inform our policy choices.” Can "benchmarks" and "indicators" be implemented in a way to have a real impact? A key question: do indicator systems work by attempting to “insulate” them from politics, or by attempting to have them do battle in the political arena?

Can "benchmarks" and "indicators" be implemented in a way to have a real impact on public policy?

Miss this when it was first reported? What if, instead of persistently undercutting each other, states banded together in interstate agreements? What if they agreed on a common floor for environmental or business regulations? What if states agreed not to fish for jobs in their neighbor’s pond, or sought region-wide revenue increases that would eliminate the fear of being left behind or outgunned?

The "curse" of state reliance on high earners to pay a big share of taxes leaves states "starved for revenue in a bust.” The "root" of California’s woes is "its reliance on taxing the wealthy.” Claims like these mean that a recent Wall Street Journal article will undoubtedly be brandished in tax fights. But the story doesn't add up. And, interestingly, one needn’t go beyond the four corners of the Journal’s “Saturday Essay” feature to figure that out.