4. UNITED FRONT---they dropped it includes the NGA. That bypasses deficits.

The second reason it is advantageous to examine the NGA rather than individual governors is that a number of factors suggest that governors would be more effective in securing state-friendly policies for the states at large if they worked together. For example, governors are responsible for handling many of the federal funds that are granted to the states. Thus, they actively lobby Congress for policies that are favorable to them and their states, and it would make sense for governors to take a collective approach to such lobbying efforts. Obviously, the congressional delegation from Texas is unlikely to be swayed by the preferences of the governor of North Dakota, save for ideological or partisan reasons. In contrast, a united front by all governors—the most powerful policy actors within the states, and the central managers of federal funds flowing to the states—is more likely to gain the attention of all key federal policy actors.

However, the effort necessary to align the governors introduces a classic collective action problem (Olson 1965) that is somewhat distinct from those faced by other interest groups. Clearly, it is difficult to achieve unanimity among all governors on every issue that comes before them. Therefore, the NGA provides a place for governors to aggregate their policy preferences in a singularly stated policy position that, ideally, represents the interests of the governors and the states and provides the solution to the collective action problem that the governors face. Thus, the NGA is even more important to study because it provides the tools that governors use to organize their activities so that they can work together for maximum effectiveness.