by Gene Rose
Forget "follow the money." The mantra, according to a couple of speakers at NCSL's Fall Froum last week, should be "lead with the money."
State legislators and staff know full well that the budget is where hundreds of policy decisions are made. Sometimes parts of budgets represent significant change, but most often the decisions made within state budgets fly under the radar of public scrutiny.
On Wednesday, medical author Marianne J. Legato, M.D., presented research information suggesting that -- despite significant research -- men die at all age groups at a higher rate than women do. While her comments caught the attention of this male, she said something at the end of her remarks that I found nearly as intriguing.
She suggested that if state legislators believe more research needs to be done in particular health areas, then they should create funding opportunities for scientists and researchers to do that type of research. They will, she said, "follow the money." In other words, if prostate cancer rates are becoming unacceptable, then states should create funds to attract research in that area. Through the budget process, "you have great power," she said.
On Thursday, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters encouraged more public-private partnerships on transportation projects, noting that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley made public statements recently that the private sector may do a better job on transportation projects than the public sector.
The presentations prompt several questions. Should legislatures take a more active role in generating funds that attract research (not just in health, but any public policy area)? Should more seed funds be created that prompt public-private partnerships to address critical areas (like transportation) that maybe have outgrown government capabilities? Or should these types of decisions be left to the agencies in charge of these activities?
One can easily argue that state budgets don't allow for the types of discretionary spending to "lead with the money." Others will say that this is not a proper role for state governments and that innovation and research should come from the private sector. There are plenty of small examples where states have directed money for economic development or offered tax incentives to encourage investment. Should these be considered for other public policy issues, too? What do you think?



