Lucky Jay Nixon

It’s far too early to say whether Jay Nixon will be a good governor, but Missouri’s new chief executive has one thing going for him: Timing.

Like his two immediate predecessors, Democrat Bob Holden and Republican Matt Blunt, Mr. Nixon took office facing a big hole in his budget. But unlike them, Mr. Nixon assumed office at the same time that the federal government is preparing to pour unprecedented amounts of economic stimulus money into the national economy, much of it on programs that will bail out state governments.

Admittedly, taking office during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression is nobody’s idea of a picnic on the beach. But for Mr. Nixon, at least, it carries a paradoxical bit of political good fortune: He will have to make budget cuts, but perhaps not the deep, politically damaging cuts in popular programs that rocked Mr. Holden and Mr. Blunt in their first months in office.

Thus, in the State of the State speech that he delivered Tuesday night, Mr. Nixon was able to boast that his 2010 state budget will not cut higher education funding. In 2001, Mr. Holden immediately whacked more than $280 million from the higher education budget and took another 10 percent out of the higher ed budget the following year.

Mr. Nixon also proposed expanding health care coverage to 62,000 more Missourians — 35,000 working adults and 27,000 children. In 2005, Mr. Blunt chopped more than 100,000 working adults from the state’s Medicaid program, saving the state $231 million.

Mr. Nixon vowed to fully fund the state’s $3 billion-a-year school foundation formula for K-12 education and to add money for early childhood education and the First Steps program, which helps infants and toddlers with developmental disabilities. In 2005, Mr. Blunt took a lot of heat for proposing a $23 million cut for First Steps.

Mr. Nixon said he would cut 1,329 state jobs and eliminate or reduce about 50 state programs as part of his effort to close a $261 million gap in the current state budget. But he’s counting on federal stimulus money to help him avoid the problems that helped to limit both Mr. Holden and Mr. Blunt to one term in office.

The precise terms of the federal stimulus package still are unknown. The House passed $825 billion package on Wednesday; the Senate’s version is broadly similar, and a consensus bill could be ready for President Barack Obama’s signature by mid-February.

The House version, at least, would bring a massive infusion of federal money into health and education programs, two of the biggest cost sectors for state governments.

States would get $88 billion in additional Medicaid money; Medicaid is the joint federal-state program that pays for health care for poor and disabled people. Nationally, the federal share has been about 57 percent but rising health care costs have strapped state budgets. The House stimulus bill calls for the federal government to pick up 100 percent of the cost of adding newly unemployed Americans to Medicaid rolls.

About one-sixth of the $825 billion in stimulus funds is directed at education, which until now has been mostly a state and local responsibility. States would share $20 billion in construction money for classrooms; $39 billion in direct aid to school districts; $26 billion for provisions in the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and $15 billion for teacher and student testing reform. State governments would gain enormous flexibility in allocating resources.

No one is thinking this far ahead yet — the crisis is now — but what comes next? The stimulus money will be spent over two and a half years. What happens on Oct. 1, 2011? Will the federal government remain as involved in health care and education? Will the economy have rebounded to the point that stimulus no longer would be needed? Will deficits matter again?
Mr. Nixon, who will be preparing to run for reelection by then, had better hope his luck holds out.