This week's question has to do with fiscal federalism, the relationship where the national government collects tax money and then returns it to state and local governments in the form of grants. I want you to focus on some key points. First, fiscal federalism is a major source of money for state and local governments, accounting for about 25% of their revenue. Second, the national government attaches strings to some of that revenue, known as "conditions of aid". These serve to get around the 10th Amendment and allow the national government to gain more power.
You'll recall that the 10th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) said that if a power wasn't given to the national government by the Constitution (and if the Constitution didn't say that the states CAN'T do it), that power went to the states. Now the McCulloch v. Maryland decision weakened the 10th Amendment (through the Implied Powers Doctrine, or Necessary and Proper Clause), but even after that, there are still things that the national government can't require states to do. The national government has worked around this through fiscal federalism.
The way it works is the national government passes a law that says if states don't do some particular thing, they will lose a certain percentage of their federal funding for some particular purpose. Examples include using the threat of losing highway grant money to get states to: raise the drinking age to 21, lower the speed limit to 55 (no longer in effect), or lower the cutoff for DUI from .10% to .08%. These were laws predominantly passed by Democrats (though the speed limit law was more Easterners vs. Westerners, and Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the law effectively raising the drinking age) who argued that they were simply providing the states with incentives to provide good public policy. Republicans (and others) opposing those laws said they were simply an example of the national government bullying the states into doing things they couldn't require them to do.
The ideological debate shifted, though, with the passage of the "No Child Left Behind" Act, a major
initiative of President George W. Bush. Part of that act specified that states and school districts would lose some of their education funding if they didn't meet certain targets on student testing. Suddenly, some Republicans who had claimed other initiatives were bullying found that this one was OK. And some Democrats who had supported the other initiatives became born-again supporters of states' rights. One could argue hypocrisy on both sides.
Here are two short pieces on the controversy surrounding the drinking age law. Please read them before you comment.
http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=91
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole
You can find a great deal more out there on conditions of aid if you are creative, including some scholarly articles. You should address the question of whether you believe the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states. If so, what limitations, if any, should be placed on this procedure? You should NOT address the question of what you think the drinking age should be. Please feel free to debate with one another, so long as you keep your discussion respectful. You may also refer to class lectures and discussions. Comments should be posted by 1:00 pm on Monday, September 16, and, again, you can earn between 1/2 point and 3 points toward the blog portion of your grade.--NB
I am a supporter of states' rights. To me, fiscal federalism, in cases such as the loss of highway funding if states do not raise their drinking age, is nothing short of blackmail. It is the federal government using it's power to force the states into doing things they don't necessarily want to do. I personally feel that the beauty of the USA is that we are supposed to have separate states, each with their own laws and rules. That way a person can choose where they want to live based on the laws in that state. Fiscal federalism, however, is basically trying to make all the states exactly alike by having the same rules. It's a prime example of big government vs. the state governments. This is essentially what the civil war was fought over.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your statements. If the national government is just going to abuse their power and basically make all the states agree with them, then whats the point of even having seperate states.
DeleteI agree with you both! I think that it is wrong of the national government to bully the states into doing what they want.
DeleteI agree with this 100%! It does seem like blackmail. It doesn't seem fair. States should have the freedom to decide yes or no without having something taken away in return for disagreeing with whatever law is being issued.
DeleteThis is a timeless form of manipulation and not to mention blackmail that people have been forced to encounter throughout centuries. The United States has just perfected it. If you are not going to do what we say then we are not going to giving your state the 10% of your annual funding ,but of course the choice is yours. Or, you can just comply with us and do what we want and we all win is basically the ultimatum the states are given. In this particular example it was with increasing the drinking age to 21. Although it is an effective means to get people to do what you want, I don't believe it is fair or morally ethical to take away something that was already negotiated in order to get people to conform to your way of thinking. In a sense this takes away peoples freewill and makes them fill obligated to agree to something that they may not necessarily think is right simply because they can not afford to pick another option (literally and figuratively). I believe fiscal federalism is a good idea and started with good intentions but once there was conflict and the government realized they could withhold the money from the states and the people, which was theirs to begin with mind you, that's when the system became corrupt.
DeleteConditions of aid can be beneficial when they involve our safety. The example where President Reagan passed the NMDAA and the national government unfunded the states that did not comply with the act was done so to discredit states that were not willing to make an attempt to drop death rates, and highway accidents.
DeleteI certainly agree that states should be more independent in their decisions in regards to topics such as these. On the other side I can see why, although blackmail, that the national government wants all states to be on the same page with these rules. If the drinking age law for example varied from state to state there would be many problems and strange laws that would need to be created.
DeleteThe original idea of fiscal federalism was a justified one. The state governments really cannot function without financial aid from the national government. In U.S government it can be very difficult to get laws passed and changed. Every state has its own individual agenda and values. To get everyone on the same page can be very difficult and challenging. That is the way government works though you have to appeal to many different needs and agendas. The national government really started crossing the line on infringing on states’ rights when Ronald Regan used the unfunded mandate. Regan wanted to pass a bill to change the drinking age to 21. In order to get every state on board he created the unfunded mandate which stated that if any state didn’t accept the law then the government would take away 10% of their highway funds. Even though the law change was not demanded it still is clearly blackmail. That in my mind is crossing the line. If a state is misbehaving or partaking in illegal activities then it’s totally justified to take away funds. However having the government threatening to take away funds in the wake of a decision is blackmail and a little bit corrupt. The national government is over stepping their powers. This could allow the national government to obtain a massive amount of power, while states powers diminish. Fiscal federalism is acceptable but there needs to be clear and straight forward limitation son how far the government can go.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely the same way I'm looking at the big picture.
DeleteI completely agree. We've seen over and over again how difficult it can be for our government to work together and actually agree on something, but Congress using their power just to get the states to do whatever they want is totally unjustifiable to me.
DeleteI agree with what you said, it is clearly blackmail when aid's held over the states. I agree with when you said if the states are doing illegal things with the money or anything along those lines then cutting funding is definitely justifiable. This is a case of national government overstepping their power.
DeleteDefinitely agree with your view. Fiscal Federalism has been turned from a relatively benign instrument into a tool that the national government uses to leverage power over the states. What makes this even worse is that, most of the time, the national government doesn't take into consideration factors unique to particular states. The 55 mph speed limit in states like Colorado was a clear example of this.
DeleteI also agree with your view. Fiscal federalism was a great idea years ago, but as our government has proved time and time again that what they say money goes to, can sometimes be false. The national government should have the power that they want, however the way they seem to go about it is not the right way. The states should not be bullied into agreeing with the national government on things they don't agree with. Stating that the national government is okay with this plan, but then turning the tables to get what they want is just a clear abuse of their power.
DeleteI fully agree that the national government uses these aids to basically manipulate the states into doing what they want. It is an unfair system but it seems to be the only way to get the states to all reach consensus agreements.
DeleteIt's essential for state governments to rely on federal aid from the national government. The national government knows this too. When the national governments needs something like a law changed or bill passed their presented with the challenge of having the states to agree with them. The government then holds the federal aid money they give each state over their head. So if the states don't agree with the certain law or bill on the table then the government punishes them by some degree just like in the example of states losing money towards high ways just because they disagree with raising the drinking age.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this isn't fair to the states, it's essentially the national government abusing their power by taking aid money from states just so they can get what they want. There should be a another way to go about bargaining or debating about a law being change or bill being pass not just "you disagree, now pay the consequences." That just doesn't seem right to me, if a state disagrees with something the national governments doing it's probably for a good reason. The national government doesn't need to take away aid to bully or blackmail the states, it needs revaluate what's being change and try to sort the matter out in another way. It's unjust the way it is now.
I totally agree that the federal government can and does abuse its power through conditions of aid. Make sure you consider though, that conditions of aid aren't necessarily all bad. I would argue that it makes, and sometimes forces states, to become more efficient. As a citizen, I want my government working as hard as they can for me because they were elected by us to do so. I think conditions of aid are one more incentive that our state officials have to be smarter and more efficient with the funds they have at hand. Often times the condition of aid can even be a good thing for the states, not just the federal government being a bully with their power. So there are benefits to this power of the federal government, not always just them bullying the states.
DeleteFiscal federalism is pertinent to all government. With this being said, the federal government will probably always keep on using this system of power against the states because it gets the states to do exactly what they want with almost no fight. It is unfortunate for the states though because their power is constantly dwindling all for government money.
DeleteOverall, fiscal federalism is very much justified when looking at the fact that state and local governments need the financial support from the national government. But with the national government having this in the back of their mind, it is recently common that someone will become power hungry. I personally think that yes it is good that the national government provides financial support to state governments, but there has to be an even balance of power among the states too. Each state has different laws and regulations, and the act of blackmailing states in order to get a bill pass is unjust and is unconstitutional. Taking aid money from states in order to persuade states to pass a certain bill is clearly abusing national governmental powers and that cannot happen. When Reagan was in office, and his administration wanted to have states raise the drinking age to 21, that should be a fair vote. It should not have been a "vote our way or your screwed" type of situation. There should be no consequence for a states vote/decision if its not criminal or unconstitutional. Overall, fiscal federalism now needs to change before it gets out of hand.
ReplyDeleteIf the state is not following the same ideology on a certain topic as the national government, why should they continue to receive the same amount of funding other states do that fully comply? If the state wants to set themselves apart from the entire country when it comes to a law, shouldn't they also be able to support themselves financially? If the states are part of a national government, there has to be some give and take. I do see your point where the funding cuts are similar to a "punishment," however, the percentage of the funding cut was relatively small, not enough to completely "screw" over a state.
DeleteI agree with Connor, this is black mail and the national government should not abuse their power to distribute funding to states because of a law they want passed. Hattie, the consequence of not passing the law is rather small as 5%-10%. However, many, if not all, states rely on that money to build or rebuild their public roads and to pay the workers to do it. If there is any pay cut that means everything gets cut. So if a state loses that money from the government, they then pay the workers less for their hard work and then states can raise taxes to make up for the money lost. It's not only a matter of money lose from the state but it's also money lose for the workers and residents. You must look at the big picture, not just dollar signs.
DeleteFiscal federalism can be interpreted in many ways, as displayed throughout the history of America. The relationship between the states and the national government has been a controvertial topic ever since our forefathers established any sort of semblance of government for the United States. Too much federalism, or leaving too large of a portion of power to the states can be detrimental in ways that the country would be extremely divided on many topics. However, too much power in the hands of a central government was one of the main reasons for immigration in the first place. Finally, a balance of federalism was reached and the states and national government seemed to have an agreement regarding seperation of powers. Dating back several years, there was a debacle between whether the laws applied to the national government, such as the Bill of Rights, were always applicable to the states. After supreme court cases, it was established that no matter what individual state one was in, the laws of the national government still applied to the citizens. Transferring to fiscal federalism, I believe that it is decently fair to put monetary conditions on laws to influence the states. If they want to be different and individual from the national government, they should not receive the same amount of funding that other states whom fully comply with the national government. It is fair that they are given the option of whether they want to apply the law or not, considering this is the land of the free. However, if their individualism is more important than following the suggestions of the national government about various policies, they do not exactly deserve the same kind of aid as states who fully comply with the United States government system as a whole. I agree with some individualism among states, considering this is a democracy, not a dictatorship. However, different opinions on some issues that are not as detrimental as others, (i.e. drinking age)should be enforced with funding cuts on something with the same influence. Highway safety seems to be a more vital issue than whether an 18 year old can have a beer in a bar, and the two policies seem as comparable as apples to oranges. If the government distributed the aid cuts on policies of the same importance, I believe fiscal federalism would be more efficient.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement to a certain degree. However the idea that if a state has a different political agenda than what the national government thinks then it should be punished is a obstructing on the states rights. If this keeps going on without resistance than the government will soon use it to pose any law and restriction that feel is appropriate and make every state agree to it. That idea is most definitely leaning towards a dictatorship than a democracy.
DeleteThe federal government has strong influence on state governments by applying conditions by which the state must agree and use the federally proposed law, or they could lose funding in other areas. This act of compliance by the state governments determines whether or not they get funding for things like education, construction, and other important issues that affect that state solely. Personally, I think it is a shady way for the federal government to do business with government of each individual state.
ReplyDeleteThe example of conditions set by the federal government I disagree with most is the No Child Left Behind Act proposed by President Bush. The law in itself has a negative effect on the education of each individual child. But, if a state didn't meet the stipulations set by the act, that state was penalized by a decrease in funds for education. Really, it's a loss for the children and educators of each state either way. No Child Left Behind was always an act I had great displeasure for, as I'm sure many of my colleagues did since we were probably all in the public education system at the time. As for the bill making the federal drinking age 21, I tend to disagree with that as well. But President Reagan was able to ensure every state made the law mandatory by threatening to cut funding for highway projects within the state. The lowering of the drinking age resulted in a loss of tax money for most states. And in the long run, hasn't exactly cut down and the safety hazards of drinking. The United States has the highest drinking age in the world, which is pretty crazy when you think that West Virginia University is ranked the 4th biggest party school, despite the average age of students being 20, thus proving that this law has little influence on the national youth. Federal government will continue to use this practice because it practically forces the states to do what the federal government wants. And as unfortunate as it may be, there isn't much we can do about it.
Fiscal Federalism has its up and downs, just the same and other policies that the government have. Fiscal Federalism is good, because it helps fund states actives such as highways which is a very important project. I don't think it is fair that some states have to comply with it completely and others do some or not at all. Other things i strongly disagree with is passing laws that require someone to be a certain age to drink a beer or purchase tobacco products, it seems to be a bit unreasonable that someone at 18 years old is forced to enroll with the military and could go to war, but can't drink a beer or rub snuff. So overall some policies with fiscal federalism are very good and should remain the same, but others need to be revised and changed or done away with completely.
ReplyDeleteI am a big believer in states having the power to make their own decisions without being interfered. By regional, cultural, geographical, and economical differences, states naturally have different needs amongst each other. For example, as Professor Berch said in class, Montana should have different rules on speed limits than New Jersey. The same idea is applicable to several issues. Fiscal federalism, however, I believe the federal government has every right to use conditions of aid in the grant process. This forces states to be more efficient and productive with the money that they have at their disposal. The federal government should absolutely be limited in their ability to use conditions of aid though. They should not be allowed to abuse this power because then it would defeat the purpose of the 10th amendment entirely. If the states are to retain their already limited powers, then the federal government must be limited in their ability to apply conditions of aid in their grants. It would be foolish to allow them unrestricted conditions of aid because they would certainly use this power to advance their policies. Conditions of aid are great motivators for states, and I am all for that, but the federal government has to have some sort of limitations so that they do not abuse this power.
ReplyDeleteI believe what you are proposing is a fair compromise between state and national governments. Sometimes a little push is what states need, but it all entirely depends on the situation. I think the drinking age mandate was a little extreme, so perhaps there are some loopholes that needs to be closed.
DeleteI agree with you because each state is unique and has unique needs The federal government should not tax the states and then tell them they will only return it to them unless the states use it the way they want them to.
DeleteAt first, reading about fiscal federalism, I did not completely disagree with the actions that the government was taking to almost force states into doing something without violating the tenth amendment. However, when I read the articles on the drinking age and read more in depth about the “unfunded federal mandate” I came to a realization that the government is in a way taking advantage of the states. It looks to me that the government is stretching the tenth amendment a bit too far in such situations as raising the drinking age. I do not agree with the “unfunded” part of the fiscal federalism. I think that if the government is threating to decrease funding to states if they choose not to forego a request from the government, then the government should be willing to fund the change. I do believe, however, that the loop hole around the tenth amendment that the government utilizes is a smart one. Some states do take advantage of their rights at times, and threatening a decrease in funding from the government as an incentive is a sure way to persuade states in a certain direction. The tenth amendment was a way to grant the states a feeling of independence and power, and for the government to overstep their bounds at times when unnecessary, I disagree with. Ultimately, I believe that the government should utilize the fiscal federalism as an incenctive only when completely necessary, and they should (depending on the situation) at least help fund the change requested for the state. Other than that, I believe that states’ powers are something that is important and help move this country in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI also believe that if the government wants to push certain changes on states then they should be responsible to help fund these changes in return for the support of the states.
DeleteIt most certainly is not a stretch to assert that states could not meet financial needs without the aid of the federal government. Thus, it is quite apparent that fiscal federalism plays an important role in the functionality of states. However, like most government issues, fiscal federalism has its pitfalls to accompany its triumphs, and the use of unfunded federal mandates is certainly a pitfall from the state perspective. (To the federal government, they’re golden – obviously). It is also obvious that the federal government has a high level of awareness about the states’ reliance on federal aid. This is why unfunded federal mandates work so phenomenally in the federal government’s favor. It is so incredibly obvious why so many of my classmates find the federal government to be abusing their financial power over the states. From the federal perspective, it is brilliant. They assert their power in a backward way that affords them their desired outcome while sneaking around the constitutional limits of their power. While I do find the use of unfunded federal mandates to be brilliant on the part of the federal government, I do believe that funded federal mandates would be equally affective – and more reasonably rewarding for the states. Funded federal mandates give the states financial aid to assist the federal government in carrying out the mandate. Ultimately through funded federal mandates, the federal government would be backwardly asserting their power and accomplishing goals while affording states a beneficial reward. Maybe funded federal mandates are the fence straddling approach, but they seem so, so very obvious.
ReplyDeleteIts obvious that states need and rely on the federal aid from the national government and the national government realizes that so I personally think they are using fiscal federalism to take advantage of the states. It is basically blackmail to the states. The national government isn't literally forcing the states to do what they say, but at the same time they basically are because they know the states won't disagree with them due to losing federal aid. I thinks that is pretty shady. I believe that states should have the power to make their own laws and decisions. I think that fiscal federalism goes against the tenth amendment one hundred percent. I don't think that conditions of aid should have be able to have any influence on the states at all because its not fair to the states. The national government is just abusing their rights and powers.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the conditions of aid policy definitely has its pros and cons, but overall should not be allowed. For example, some of he policies that the national government imposes on states can easily be justified and simply direct the states in a completely efficient path. If the national government did not threaten to take away their fiscal mandate states wouldn't abide by rules that are obviously safer and/or more reasonable, like drinking regulations. The overwhelming cons of this policy are that when the government threatens to take away up to 10% of their federal aid, it is hard for the states to make its own big decisions, which is one of the important things about our country. With that being said, the government is essentially bullying the states, and that is something that should not happen or be allowed at all.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states. For one, each state is unique in its own way and the differences between New York and Wyoming vary greatly. For the national government to regulate the same rules between two states that are geographically on other sides of the country and are socially on total opposite ends of the spectrum does not make sense to me. Although there are some issues that need to be handed down from the national level, the extent to how much the national government regulates should be lowered. I agree with the “No Child Left Behind” Act because as a nation I feel that we need to represent and produce the best possible scores and for the nation to receive the best education there is, not just a certain state receiving this. In contrast to that, when it comes to the national government using conditions of aid to influence states on other issues, I feel that the power is being abused. The national government should not have the right to “punish” states for them not following what the national level wants when the states are doing what the citizens of that state want. That is my main issue and if the influence that the national government had was lowered, then I would not have a problem with this.
ReplyDelete-Anthony
I completely agree with you on this. I feel that the national government has no way to regulate the same rules between two states that are geographically on other sides of the country and are socially on total opposite ends of the spectrum. States would know what works for them more than the national government would. States put more time into the little details such as speed limits, which are not on the national governments top list.
DeleteI also said many similar things to this. The needs and wants are different in New York in Wyoming for many reasons. I agree with your statement that some issues need to be handed down from the national level, but the national government once only did some things and now there are more than some. By letting the national government have a little they have now taken a lot.
DeleteI do not believe that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states. This is not only a way of black mail it also contradicts the 10th Amendment. If the national government can pass laws that say if states do not do some particular thing they will lose a percentage of funding then what is the point of states having power at all. If the idea is by the national government using this form of black mail will improve public policy through incentives. I do not consider saying “if you do not follow our rule you will lose funding” an incentive. An incentive should give a positive outcome never have a negative effect. According to the 10th Amendment if power isn’t given to the national government through the Constitution then that power goes to the state. Since the national government used fiscal federalism to work around this, frankly the 10th Amendment is close to irrelevant for states. I agree with Steve Accardi that if a state is misbehaving or partaking in illegal activities then it is justified to take away funding, but not just because they do not want to partake in the decision of the national government.
ReplyDeleteThreating to cut funding’s by 10% if a state does not lower their speed limit is just complete abuse of powering and bullying. The state government would know better than the national government the safe and logically speed for a vehicle to travel. The state government knows the roads and statistics that the national government would never take the time to gather. Fiscal Federalism accounts for about 25% of states and local government’s revenue. I do not think it is ethically for the national government to use that to their advantage and as a way to gain more power over the states. The 10th Amendment was created to give the state government more power and the national government turned around and took the power back. In conclusion, taking aid money to persuade states is abuse of power and the national government should not be able to do this.
-Athena White
Honestly, I am a little torn on this issue. At surface level, it does not seem fair for the federal government to attach strings to mandates. In a way, the federal government is giving the state governments an ultimatum that benefits the federal government no matter the choice of the individual states. Furthermore, this idea seems somewhat contradictory to the ideas of states rights and displays an unbalanced power in the federal government over the state government. The idea of expenditure cuts seem especially extreme because of fiscal federalism making up 25% of state and local revenue (Athena White makes a good point).
ReplyDeleteHowever, when reading about the Supreme Court case South Dakota v. Dole, I can also see why the court ruled that the attachment of strings to mandates does not infringe on constitutionality. Specifically, the five rules regarding this expenditure cuts seem to make the cuts more justifiable.
What the national government is doing in these situations is just a simple case of political dishonesty. It is exactly what the Constitution was trying to avoid. The U.S. Constitution is special because it limits the power of the national government by giving state governments more power. The 10th Amendment is very clear about this. So there is no doubt in my mind, what the national government is doing is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAll this being said, it is very difficult to stop it from happening. What you would have to do is take away the ability of the national government to do so which either requires the national government to lose these privileges which would mess with the Constitution and cause a gigantic problem. The other option is to find a way to put a group together to watch over this situation so that it does not occur. Unfortunately, this calls on politicians to be fair and honest, something politicians are not synonymous with.
When the national government does this “bullying” it is not simply threatening to take away leisurely things from the states but rather necessities that these states need. This puts states in situations where they must look out for what’s best for their individual states. This practice makes a mockery of the Constitution and everything our country is supposed to stand for. It is important that the national government stays small to avoid a government that we have been fortunate to avoid since this country began.
I believe that under certain circumstances the national government should be allowed to excersise conditions of aid to influence states. However, under these "certain circumstances" the government should be looking to influence states for the betterment of the people, not just for personal gain. So in other words, instead of pressuring states to raise the legal drinking age, the government should be stepping in to promote better health care or higher quality education (not just teaching kids how to successfully pass a test). The national government should only be allowed to step in and use their financial influence in order to raise the quality of life here in the United States with better facilities, helpful personel, and affordable resources. Otherwise, fiscal federalism is an excuse to bully states into doing whatever the national government pleases. Nobody should be above the law, so for national government to blantantly abuse their power and go around the tenth amendment for silly things like raising the drinking age, to me, is kind of like saying they are above it.
ReplyDeleteI believe it is necessary for the government to pay the states for certain things. We all know some states need more help than others but the taxes we pay should go back to the states in which we live in. However, that money given to the states should stay given to the states. It should not be an amount that can be adjusted in what ever way seems fit for the national government. Many states such as Alaska or Michigan need more money for highways due to higher population or cold temperatures in Alaska. As far as passing laws, decision should be a vote amongst the states to choose freely with not consequence. It should be not a threat to make the state do what the nation wants. Truth is the state has to choose which is more important, lose money to do what they need for their state and pay for the workers to do it or pass because they have to even though they may have good reasoning why the new law shouldn't be passed.
ReplyDeleteHowever, mentioned by a few students who think the government should be able to change condition of aid to better our people, who is to say what is good or bad for the people? Which is worse, allowing an 18 year old to drink in a bar or taking money and potentially causing a family to go hungry because they have to pay more taxes due to the pay cut from the government? If the money doesn't come from the government then who does it come from? The people living in the state that says "no".
On the articles discussing raising the drinking age passed by Reagan, the law if not forced probably wouldn't have passed. I believe if you can serve the country, you can drink in your country. I wouldn't be surprised if the law wouldn't have passed in 1984.
I pretty much agree with Lauren above. States shouldn't be bullied by the national government to do whatever the national government wants, but there is a problem with that: some states do stupid shit. Really, that's the most basic way to put it, but sometimes the national government actually has the better idea. For example (from my viewpoint), Colorado and Washington have the better idea on pot legalization, and shouldn't be bullied by the national government to ban marijuana again just because most states outlaw it. But at the same time, Arizona probably should be bullied by the national government over the draconian immigration laws the state passed recently (the law that any police officer could ask for your immigration papers at any time, could even pull you over and ask for your papers regardless of if you had broken any driving laws, etc.) because they're a violation of the Fourth and Ninth Amendments, and likely one or two more. They're bad policy to fix a problem that really isn't even much of a problem, just to appeal to the radical voters to increase the chances of reelection for the politicians responsible. Fiscal federalism is essentially a very sharp double-edged sword, in my opinion. There's not really any good way to regulate it or attach rules to its use; there's only to use it or not use it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal government should be allowed to use conditions of aid to influence states when it comes to certain policies. These policies should promote the general welfare of each state and its citizens. Deciding on which policies fall into this category may cause some controversy. I also believe by using these conditions of aid, it allows states to come together as a united front. Each state is receiving money from the national government, and I believe the national government should put limitations and restrictions on the money the states are receiving. When states comply with the government regulations for laws, they will receive the money allotted to them. States then have the freedom to decide how to enforce the mandates handed down by the federal government. In this way, they are not completely under the total control of the federal government. States are able to be creative with the way in which they want to implement the new laws and can cater to their population better than the federal government can.
ReplyDeleteIf the states decide not to comply with the regulations the federal government wants implemented they will not receive a certain percentage of their federal funding. The federal government is not asking the states to do outrageous things. They are simply asking states to implement laws that will make the United States a more cohesive, positive, and safe living environment. Allowing states to have different laws (especially when it comes to drinking age) would inevitably cause chaos between states.
When it comes to “No Child Left Behind” I feel a little bit differently. Punishing students and teachers because of test scores is not okay. Some students are just not good test takers and there are underlying causes to why students continually do badly on tests. NCLB has a negative effect on education. The major problem is that each state does not have the same standardized tests and this causes an unfair advantage for some states. To allow for the federal government to regulate the NCLB they need to regulate the type of testing each state has to make it fair for the students and teachers.
I feel that the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to use conditions of aid to influence the states unless they are dealing with the same purpose (ex. No child left behind; withholding money from schools if they do not get the grades). Going along the same lines as Justice O’Connor I think the federal government’s conditions of aid must be "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds." I also agree with Lauren’s view on how the federal government should be handling funds for the betterment of the people, not just for [federal] gain.” So with those two ideas together I would agree with the use of conditions of aid. I think these two ideas would not only provide incentive to the states, but also positive results that would benefit the citizens.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I used the example above of no child left behind to explain the purpose of using conditions of aid I don’t agree with how they implemented the program. I do believe with programs as such they should take a deeper look into the schools rather than looking at a test score. Using the conditions of aid this way for the betterment of the people and a better implementation I think that the states and the federal government would benefit greatly.
Fiscal federalism was a great concept when first introduced by the Reagan Administration. Cutting state funding for not doing what the national government asks is a good way to get states to listen. The states lose power in the process, but ultimately gain dollars by listening to federal policy.
ReplyDeleteFor example, take the national speed limit being changed to 55 mph. Montana obviously disagreed with the decision. If they choose not to listen, they get a cut in funding. However, if Montana sides with the national government they will get the funding dollars needed. This concept is known as Conditions of Aid. The national government should have power over the states, and be able to make the necessary budget cuts when the states go against them.
Fiscal federalism ultimately benefits the states and her citizens. When reading classmates posts, I found it interesting that so many people were against the concept. Ryan Petrovich states that "it's essential for the states to rely on the national government for funding." This could not be said better. States must listen to the national government. In addition, part of being united is following the rules. If states were to disagree on a consistent basis, we would be in danger of losing states and becoming the United 35. The system was put in place to make the country united and on the same team.
Brian Beck had this to say about fiscal federalism in response to Ryan Petrovich.
"I totally agree that the federal government can and does abuse its power through conditions of aid. Make sure you consider though, that conditions of aid aren't necessarily all bad. I would argue that it makes, and sometimes forces states, to become more efficient. As a citizen, I want my government working as hard as they can for me because they were elected by us to do so. I think conditions of aid are one more incentive that our state officials have to be smarter and more efficient with the funds they have at hand. Often times the condition of aid can even be a good thing for the states, not just the federal government being a bully with their power. So there are benefits to this power of the federal government, not always just them bullying the states."
I would have to agree that I want my government working as hard as possible. It seems at times the government gets lazy. In addition, I also agree that the funding cuts are incentive for the states. Without the national government playing bully, it's hard to tell what would happen in states.
Fiscal Federalism is a great idea, and challenges states to be more efficient and good listeners.
Each working citizen of each individual state pays taxes. With fiscal federalism, however, the federal government confiscates their tax dollars and then mandates how and for what purposes those tax dollars can be used. The national government uses fiscal federalism and abuses their power to make states go along with or cooperate to get their agendas passed. In the case of the national drinking age, the federal government does not mandate that it be 21 years of age, but withholds highway funds if it is not. Ultimately withholding money that ultimately belongs to that particular states' citizens.
ReplyDeleteThe more equitable way of dispersing federal tax dollars is to provide individual states block grants so that the individual states can then use their citizens tax dollars as they see best for their particular state.
Alexandra Yazbek
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism is a great concept. Withhold money to get the states to do what you want them to. As Hannah West talked about above, it helps keep the US as one stable unit. But as with anything, the federal government isn’t always correct about what’s best, and they tend to take advantage of their power.
ReplyDeletePoorer states, such as West Virginia, have less of an option to say no to what the federal government wants because they need the money more, giving more freedom to states like New York. Also, take “No Child Left Behind” for example. The federal government has no idea what it’s like to be a teacher who teaches to the best of their ability, yet has students who don’t want to learn. In states with a high poverty level, this is a huge problem. If a child’s parents are uneducated, then statistically, the child won’t place as much value on getting an education. Still, the federal government will retract their funding if states don’t meet certain test score criteria.
Another thing I don’t understand is in South Dakota v. Dole, the fifth condition that the Supreme Court set was “The condition must not be coercive.” In my opinion, fiscal federalism is at least softly coercive in nature.
All in all, I agree with fiscal federalism because without it, it would be much harder to stay together as one nation.
I agree with Zach Naegele and Haley Shepard who say that the national government is overstepping its bounds and through policies such as changing the national drinking age takes away the states rights and their individual identity.
ReplyDeleteEvery state should have its own set of laws and policies. A state should not be coerced into passing legislation out of fear of losing government aid and support.
It seems as though the national government is a sore loser and will change the rules when it wants something done and knows that individual states may not mandate it.
As we noted in class with the passage of the 16th amendment in which states federal government collects income tax, then returns it in the form of grants to state and local governments. This gives he national government more power than the states because they have the power to control spending which can be expanded then to when they want policies enacted and will take away spending to the states if they do not go along with the policy.
Policies such as the drinking age or the speed limit on the highway (as discussed in class) should be left up for the states to decide on the premise that state and local government officials generally know what will work for their state. Each state is different and not all policies will work the same.
To begin with I just want to apologize for myself, because as an exchange student I feel that it is difficult to have really strong feelings and opinions about subjects like this one. So think about my comment as a stranger "looking in".
ReplyDeleteAs many of my fellow students have pointed out, states are different from each other and their populations are as well. Therefore I understand why it can be so difficult to make laws that apply to all states. I do believe that in overall cases the national government should use their power to "force" laws upon states - as an example it could be the total years an individual must attend school, to ensure that everyone has the same fundamental opportunities. In more detail cases where it is more specific, I think the states know what is best for their population, and as Zack Neagele points out, that is what makes USA so different from other countries, because you have separate states which have their own laws and rules.
I believe that the reason why the national government use "cuts in federal fundings" as a means to achieve the introduction of laws, is because it is the only way that is efficient enough that the states will respond and care about it. I can not see another mean that the national government can use except for that. Until the various states can agree on a procedure, where the national government does not use money as a means, I think that this is the best solution so far.
The idea of fiscal federalism isn't so crazy. As others have pointed out, it is difficult if not sometimes impossible for every state to agree on anything, the reason being the often wildly differing ideology, geography and individual needs. As such, it is not unreasonable to me that the federal government came up with a way to gently coerce the states into working as a homogenous unit -- something necessary for the country to function.
ReplyDeleteThis sometimes results in unintended and unhelpful circumstances, like the case of the change to the speed limit to 55. In hindsight, it's obvious that a change like that cannot possibly work on a national level, and that the government needed to be more considerate of individual needs. The case of raising the drinking age is an example of fiscal federalism working to bring the United States unity, and for the most part I believe it has served that purpose.
I believe that, in general, fiscal federalism is both a constitutionally legal and necessary part of government. It is also a thing that states themselves need to check, and the opponents should be loud, as the federal government needs their help in knowing if what its doing is right or wrong, works or doesn't work. Through that, the United States can have a system that works for both the individual and the group at once.
The federal government does abuse its right of power. Basically, the government is attaching rules to their aid, saying they won't give you money unless you pass a certain law. States have to abide by these particular rules in order to receive the government money. What is the point of having different states if they don't have the control of forming the laws in their state based on how they agree to live. States lose their ability to make their own decisions. It makes our government difficult to work with because they hold such a power over us, not in the best way. The federal government knows that the states are dependent on the federal aid and will comply just to get the funding. This isn't fair to the states though and this is how the national government is abusing their power because they know they can get what they want out of the states. In the end, there needs to be a balance of power because forcing states seems to lie on the unconstitutional side.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the relationship between the state governments and the federal government, I am clearly on the fence about the issue. I could argue for both sides, so I will. I do believe that states should have rights to pass certain laws and policies. Every state is different geographically, economically, and politically. So it should be up to the states to have the right to pass certain laws and policies that fulfill the needs of its people. US citizens are more connected to state governments rather than the federal government because it can be more easily influenced. In such cases as the legalization of marijuana or the legalization of gay marriage, state governments were able to choose whether or not to legalize these issues without any help/pressure from the federal government. Because these laws are very controversial, I feel states should have the right to chose what to pass and what not to pass. The states chose what were best for them. The USA has different states for a reason and because each and every one of them are so different, they should be able to exercise their own rights without the interference of the federal government.
ReplyDeleteIn certain circumstances however, the federal government should be able to use condition of aid to influence the states' decisions about certain laws and policies. I feel as if some laws should be nationally recognized by states such as, the legal drinking age being 21 or the voting age being 18. In this case these laws are very straight forward and easy for states to accommodate. In this way, states come together as a whole, unifying the USA. But at times, the federal government can and will step over the boundaries and bully or black mail states into doing what they want. All in all, depending on the circumstance, the relationship between state governments and the federal government can be argued both ways.
-Taylor Shipley
I am undecided on this issue, I am strong supporter in states' rights like many other people but I feel that it is necessary that states rely on the national government for financial aid. The states must rely on this to survive and advance. The national government knows this and that is why I feel that the national government then uses to this power and abuses it to get what they want. As states they should be able to make their own decisions without interference. All states have different want and needs and that mostly depends on the culture and economic differences between the states. New York is very different both economically and geographically than Wyoming. New York needs aid for many different things and the same goes for other states that’s why some laws should not be the same. Laws should be based on the needs and wants of that state, but then there are many road blocks that were discussed in class like the drinking age being different in one state and all of the 18 years olds that were not allowed to drink just traveled an hour to the one where they were allowed. This is the reason why there is such a debate about the drinking age to begin with. After further research and time I believe that overall, fiscal federalism is good and needed when taking in to account that the state and local governments need the financial aid from the national government. The national government should always be influencing the states for the better of the people never for their own gain.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the 10th amendment and the use of the “purse” by congress to control state actions has been a hotly discussed debate since McCulloch v. Maryland. This question is not easily answered. In 1832 Andrew Jackson said no, and John C. Calhoun of South Carolina resigned to say yes. However, the question remains to what extent congress will go in order to keep its supreme dominance over the states. It is my belief like that of John McCardell in the book titled Debating Reform, that the national government is stretching their powers too far. Since the enactment of No Child Left Behind and the subsequent taking over of schools by the federal government the educational system has suffered a dramatic drop in overall education. However, without the aid the states would be hard pressed to find the funds to continue any type of decent education. I feel that while sometimes the federal government might think they are pushing the states to enact policies they feel are best with the use of the purse it is nearly impossible for congress to understand what is needed from state to state. I do believe that in some circumstances categorical grants can be very useful to make sure certain funds are spent in ways that the states would otherwise avoid. However, there does not seem to be enough freedom for the state government to use the money as it sees fit. Withholding funds from states to make them enact laws to circumvent the normal process of an amendment seems particularly wrong. I do not believe the founding fathers that were so afraid of a tyrannical federal government would be appalled at the way the applied powers are being used. The federal government has become so involved in every aspect of the states that in many cases it is hard to even seen the line between local, state, and federal levels of government. The federal government continues to grow more powerful decade after decade and I do not feel that they have each and every states best interest in their agenda. I would like to see a reversal of the federal oversight into the state and a more independent push from the local governments. Unfortunately, until the strings of Congress’s purse become more open and less forceful there will never been an independence. States are so reliant now on federal monies for everything that they will comply with nearly anything congress puts forth in order to keep those funds coming. So in the end while I would like to see a change in policy, it does not seem to be likely anytime in the near future.
ReplyDelete-Reid Widders-
Our country is called the UNITED States of America, not, as many supporters of states' rights will seem to think the SOVEREIGN States of America. While each state undoubtedly has certain rights and powers (and I do believe is entitled to them) the ultimate power of our country comes from the Federal government. I believe that for cases involving the federal government and states' rights, the government is entitled to any and all conditions of aid so long as the aid meets the requirements established in the five point rule of South Dakota v. Dole.
ReplyDelete1.The spending must promote "the general welfare";
2.The condition must be unambiguous;
3.The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs";
4.The condition imposed on the States must not in itself be unconstitutional; and
5.The condition must not be coercive.
Perhaps my opinion renders a more liberal analysis, but anyone possessing the same moral values on which this country was founded (goodwill, integrity, freedom) can see that although conditions of aid may restrict states from making certain decisions, following this doctrine it only encourages them to make a better decision. I believe that one of the keys to a happy and healthy America is promoting goodwill among people, and good character for that matter. Obviously I realize that an ideal society in which no one under the age of 21 wishes to consume alcohol in unrealistic, but I do not think it is unrealistic to promote rules such as these by means of conditions of aid. Because lets face it, nearly every decision we make in life comes with conditions, good or bad.
I can see both points of view. I don't like that the national government almost "bullies" the states into what they want. I think that the states usually have a better understanding of what they need. For example when the national government tried to make the speed limit everywhere 55, some states knew that it wasn't right for them. I also understand that sometimes the states can make very dumb decisions. I don't really see a problem with the drinking age. When I was younger I may have, but now I realize it really isn't that bad. I do think that the national government should have a better way of asking states to enforces laws rather than punishing them for it.
ReplyDelete- Aimee Minor
Fiscal federalism is a great idea for states, especially since every state is different and has different needs. After a while, the national government started using fiscal federalism to black mail the state governments by reducing the amount of money the states receive if the states didn’t agree with the national government’s decisions. Ronald Reagan wanted the states to all change the drinking age to 21 and would decrease the state’s highway funds by 10% if they didn’t. Using fiscal federalism to black mail the states isn’t right. The national government could use this in their favor in the future and it wouldn’t be fair to the states. The national government needs to know when to use this power because they shouldn’t be abusing it.
ReplyDeleteThe conditions of aid instituted by the national government is an intelligent loophole around the 10th Amendment that persuades (or blackmail as some students say?) states into mandating laws they deem necessary. States though, have also found a way to install exceptions to some of the laws. In the case of underage drinking, certain states will allow minors to consume alcohol, though they can not purchase it. These instances for example are for medical or religious purposes, when purchased by an adult, etc. Here is a link with detailed information: http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002591
ReplyDeleteAlso, as Mr.Berch stated in class, states can decide whether they ultimately enforce the adopted law. For example, when traveling in a certain state that would require a faster speed to travel across like Wyoming, police could ignore the speeder. Also, the state officials could misdirect the federal investigators when they ask where to set up for conducting a report when tracking speeders. This is not possible though for certain federal mandates. In the case of the Department of Housing and Urban Development guidelines or "one strike you're out", Section 8 authorities have discretion on public housing evicts or subsidies cut off of those on public assistance if a relative is convicted of a crime.
Ultimately though, fiscal federalism does limit the power of states to govern themselves. I believe this does not allow the people to govern the state as it should be.
I think that fiscal federalism has its up and downs. It's difficult to get every state to agree on the same rules and I also think that the states should be able to choose which laws they think are best for their states. The national government has to go through a lot to get laws changed and bills passed by having states to agree with them. As they disagree with raising the drinking age because of states losing money towards high ways is an example of a law not being passed and then the government punishes them. A reason I do agree with fiscal federalism is because it helps everyone stay together as a nation. Some of the policies I think are just wrong like raising the drinking age because there is no reason that people of the age of 18 can't drink or purchase
ReplyDeletetobacco because either way they do it anyways. There needs to be limitations to how far they government can go with making all of these laws and rules.
I see this issue in a way that can be easily translated into a situation that we all may or may not have experienced. Let's take the debate over state drinking ages and translate it into a scenario. Let's assume the 50 states are all children and the national government is the parent. Now lets assume that every month the parent gives each child a small allowance. This allowance goes on month after month in order to keep the status quo and everyone happy. Now some children mow the lawn every month, other children (states) do not. The Parent notices the children that mow the lawn and now require all children to mow the lawn in order to receive their allowance. This is not fair to the states that didn't mow the lawn in the first place. If no concern or issues were brought up before then why should it change now because of the actions of other children? I don't believe that the National Government should have the authority to withhold money from certain states just because of a policy or ideal that they hold is different than other states. If the national government wants to change the drinking age then it should do so in a different manner. Not to just withhold money that has nothing to do with the situation.
ReplyDelete-Jordan O'Brian
In my opinion, it's hard to look at any governmental issue as just black or white. Abigail Miller is right; fiscal federalism has its ups and downs. As citizens, we want to possess and exercise as many rights as possible. We hold ourselves in very high regard, and generally agree that we know what's best. Yet, at the same time, we want to feel as though both the state and national governments are looking out for their constituents (that the government "has out backs" so to speak). But let's take the given example of the drinking age. Before the 21 minimum legal drinking age was implemented by all states, underage drunk drivers were involved in over twice as many fatal traffic crashes as today (http://www.madd.org/underage-drinking/why21/?). Those accidents cost money, and much like the way insurance works, Federalism operates by "spreading the risk". When a natural disaster happens in one state, the national government gives resources to that state to re-build, as long as they follow certain codes, etc. In the constitution, the National government was given the ability to do whatever was "necessary and proper" to keep the country running smoothly. Thus, when it comes to laws that protect the people in said country, I am 100% okay with conditions in aid. It does take a lot to bring everyone to agreement to pass laws, so I personally view conditions in aid as the national governments "trump card". They essentially provide incentive for states to pass laws that will benefit them in the long run anyways, and as long as it's all in the name of citizens' welfare, I don't see many negatives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zach Naegele that fiscal federalism is more or less blackmailing states. It completely takes away the freedom of the states to decide on a law without worrying about what the "consequence" will be if the state decides no against the law being issued at the time. For example telling the states if they vote against changing the drinking age to 21 that the government would take away highway funding. That to me is blackmail and unfair. Fiscal federalism takes away our freedom as a state. I feel like the government takes advantage of the power they have. They don't always know what is best. I understand it is hard for everyone to come to an agreement on a law especially one as important as the drinking age but the way the government handles the states decision isn't exactly the best way. I also really like jordan O'brien's scenario. It really explains the situation rather well and makes perfect sense. It simply just is not fair of the government to withhold money from certain states just because that particular state does not agree. That state should not be punished for not agreeing to a certain law. This issue is also similar when the government tried changing the speed limit in every state. It just doesn't work for some states and that shouldn't be an issue as long as each state abides by the laws and comes up with solutions for the ones they don't agree with then there shouldn't be an issue or any money being taken away. Fiscal federalism is an iffy subject. I can see from both sides but have to say i lean more towards the fact that it just seems to bully the states.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the national government should be able to use conditions of aid to influence the states. In line with the South Dakota vs. Dole decision, I mostly agree with the five point rule established by the Supreme Court, with the most important point being number four: that "the condition imposed on the States must not in itself be unconstitutional." To also comment on state's rights that many of my classmates have brought up, it is of my opinion that since Congress (representatives chosen by each individual state to act in the state's best interests) passed the bill, the states have no one to be angry towards but their own representatives who let it happen. Although not a popular idea, I think that because of this Congressional approval is essentially state approval. My final argument is that the states are free to take a budget cut and continue to do things they want to. Beggars can't be choosers and states that want to maintain some independence from the national government's policies must also assert some independence on the fiscal side.
ReplyDeleteI can see both sides of the story-- states feel bullied into doing something because the federal government will take away their funds if they don't. They see it as blackmail; the federal government sees it as incentives. Personally, I lean more toward state's rights than the federal government's right to use fiscal federalism because each state is so different (geographically, personality, culturally, etc. speaking.) Since this is the case, each state probably knows what laws and rules are best for them--whether that be the speed limit, drinking age, whatever.
ReplyDeleteI think if fiscal federalism is allowed, then there should be some limitations on it to make it more of a compromise. The cause and effect should be "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds," like O'Connor said. For example, I like the idea of lowering the speed limit or lose highway funding, or the example of take on No Child Left Behind or lose educational funding. When the two things are relevant to each each other (the cause and effect,) it seems a lot less like bullying and more like getting something accomplished.
I believe that fiscal federalism is wrong because it is an abuse of the national government's power. The writers of the constitution did not intend on the gov.t using fiscal federalism to bully the states into their policy's and we should respect our founder's wishes. Also some of the national government's policies are ridiculous. For example the No Child Left Behind policy is not only unhelpful but harmful to students in the state of West Virginia. Instead of my teachers teaching us the subject matters we often learned about test taking strategies and we could not expand our learning in things we were interested in. For example my history class was very interested in the Salem witch trials but once our few pages in our textbook were dome with it we had to move on because it was not on the west test. Also tests like the west test do not actually cover what we talk about in class and it is fairly easy to guess the answers. For example I did not take the history class that we were tested on and I still scored o the mastery level. Also in English classes teachers are having students write less essays and doing more reading comprehension and teaching for the test practices because there is not an essay section on the west test. This is a problem because it is still very important for children to know how to write and present their views effectively but because it is not on the test it is not being covered. For example, in my A.P. English classes I can not remember writing more than two essays in two years because we spent so much time on reading essays to prepare for the A.P. test and the West Test.http://chronicle.com/blogs/conversation/2013/03/12/law-professors-see-the-damage-done-by-no-child-left-behind/
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of fiscal federalism I believe that it is the right of the national government to control certain aspects of the states such as the drinking age because we are supposed to work as a whole to keep this country safe. States should be able to make their own rules and laws on topics that will not effect this country as a whole such as how they choose to spend their money in their state. However, I do not believe it is right to penalize states by limiting their funding because states need funding to be functional. I think that if the national government wants to impose a law or rule through federal mandate that they should all be a funded federal mandate so that there will be no confrontation between the state and national governments.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of fiscal federalism isn’t really ideal to me. It’s another way for the national government to basically force the states to agree with them or not give not give them the opportunity to run efficiently. For example if states didn’t raise the drinking age to 21, lower the speed limit to 55, or lower the dui cutoff they wouldn’t have received money needed to expand there highway. So the state would have to dig into another fund and shorten their spending budget for that specific institution and eventually the state would run out of money. It is absolute blackmail in my eyes but some of those issues are brought up for the better safety of the citizens so necessarily isn’t too bad of the national government to do so. But on the other hand unman dated fiscal federalism like “No Child Left Behind” is just absurd. When George W. Bush initiated the act it stated that districts would lose money for education funding if they didn’t meet certain test scores. Our school system has been built and improved over hundreds of years and to force teachers to push their students even harder or they’ll cut spending budgets wouldn’t solve anything. You’d just be trying to push for something and rush the children who need the time to learn and hurt them even more in the long run for not making the test grades and cutting their funding. Fiscal federalism will do nothing but keep giving more power to national government while the states are losing theirs so even if their proposals are for the better of the nation they shouldn’t have such control over the states to get everything they propose.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the national government should be able to use conditions of aid with the state governments. There is no denying the controversy of all the programs instituted by this clause. However, these actions must be limited in their influence on significant programs such as education. The No Child Left Behind Act allows the federal government to cut funding to education budgets if the state does not perform to a certain criteria in school. It is impossible to hold each and every state to the same academic standard. States such as Louisiana have many more issues with poverty and drop outs than say the likes of Connecticut or Wisconsin. Therefore, fiscal federalism should remain with the policies such as drinking age and promoting the general welfare of the nation. So, the federal government should not punish a state for not doing its bidding, but guide them into policy making. Moreover, the federal government should take a different approach at how to handle different states rather than holding all to the same criteria.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the states must realize that they are not obligated to accept the federal aid. However, they must recognize the federal government's supremacy. The Articles of Confederation taught us an important lesson that a bunch of independent states with a weak central government created a mess in policy making. So, fiscal federalism provides for a better functioning, unified nation.
George Bostic.
Like many other students, I am also unsure of my opinion on fiscal federalism. There are definitely pros/cons and reasons in why fiscal federalism is around. I understand that the states don’t want to be pressured into doing something that they don’t find necessary by getting their funds taken away, but than again, these funds are coming from the federal government, so wouldn’t that mean the government has 100% control over what they can and can not do with their money? The states totally rely on funds from the national government, so with that being said, by making these threats like losing highway funds if drinking age isn’t changed to 21, the national government gains a great amount of control and ends up getting the law they want passed. A con of fiscal federalism is that it takes away from the whole point of having states. What is so wonderful about the USA is that it is broken up into 50 state governments, in which can have their own laws and regulations so people can choose where to live to meet their preferences, but if the national government is trying to control that, doesn’t this take away from the state government? The big problem I see in fiscal federalism is that the national government is abusing their power and the whole idea of a democracy is being put aside. If fiscal federalism is in action, than I think their should be limitations put into place, like the law the national government wants passed must interrelate to the funds they are threatening to take away.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal government should have a great deal of power over the states. For the entire country to function properly.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brice Games. On the matter of the five points set by the Supreme Court of the United States. In the case of South Dakota v. Dole. But for me the first point (the spending must promote "the general welfare") is the most important. To promote the general welfare should always be the primary objective for the government, and if the federal government finds that some states fail to do this, it should have the power to overrule the local governments. We have to keep in mind that there are only attracted strings to some of the money from the national government to the states. It is not as if the states have lost all their power, as it seems some of my classmates indicate. All that said, I do not like the way the national government arbitrary tie different parts of the budget together. Like in the case of minimum drinking age and funding for highways. In other words, I do not buy into the notion about drunk driving. For me the limitations for use of this federal power should make sense, or at least be tied to the entire budget, instead of holding some parts hostage.
Fiscal federalism is a complicated topic that has many sides to its argument, and I believe almost everyone can agree that it has both pros and cons. However, I am a firm believer in the federal government having lesser power and state governments having more. State government officials know their people and the people of their state's specific needs. The federal government may pass a law threatening to take away state funding and arguing that they are doing so because it is in the peoples' best interest, but I think that this completely belittles state governments' roles and duties. For example, when Reagan threatened to cut highway grant money from states if they did not pass the NMDAA, or when Bush threatened to cut educational funding from states if they didn't meet student testing requirements, does this not completely defeat the purpose of what the government is supposed to do for its people? This debate is not so much party-based as it is based on big vs. small government. The federal government should not have the right to bribe smaller state and local governments into doing things they don't believe best for their people, just because it cannot afford to carry on certain programs without federal grants. Since fiscal federalism is undoubtedly here to stay, there should at least be a statute saying that if the federal government is going to impose an unwanted law on its people, they must give state and local governments the funding to carry these laws out.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government chooses to use Fiscal Federalism in insignificant situations and I believe that a lot of students are getting hung up on small issues like the drinking age or the speed limit and are not looking at bigger picture problems. I do agree that fiscal federalism is a harsh way for the national government to control the states and that it would be ideal for the national government to come up with a less abrasive way to use incentives for the states, but then again federal funding is the biggest power that the national government has over the states and there may be no other way to get the states to abide. In the case of NCLB, I think fiscal federalism was a great example of a way to promote educational standards across the US, even though NCLB became a failure due to many issues within the outline of the legislation (http://www.ernweb.com/public/892.cfm#.UjZXaBZAsts). If the national government used fiscal federalism to help combat issues like poverty and a revamped piece of sweeping education policy among other important issues, then I believe the idea of fiscal federalism would be debated less.
ReplyDeleteI believe that fiscal federalism has a place in American politics. Governmental aid is instrumental for the states to receive the funds necessary to give their inhabitants the best standard of living possible. The money states get from the government goes towards vital applications such as highways and schools and should not be denied to any states. The problem throughout history with the power of the federal government is determining how much power it will have over the states and how that power will grow. I feel that fiscal federalism is a necessary part of the political process but I do not support all of the ways in which the process is implemented. The use of theses powers by Regan to get all states to raise the drinking age limit to 21 may seem like a small price to pay in order to improve the quality of the highways, but I don’t agree that benefits to the states should be dictated by a higher power with the ability to restrict funds so said power can get what they wanted. I argue that allowing the federal government to use a sub form of blackmail may eventually cause an unwanted increase in the already robust power of the central government. Power is nothing without limitations and I feel that states should still be able to receive federal money to improve highways without giving up the ability to determine when its citizens can drink.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is essential to the unity of the United States. I believe this is a necessity because the Federal government strictly uses it to protect the people. The Federal government uses it as a tool to address the nation in its entirety when certain things become an issue, like the drinking age or test scores. I think this is a way to encourage states to out perform the standards the federal government sets for them and also provides them for a goal to meet each year.
ReplyDeleteIf the government were to place restrictions on the unfunded mandates, I think the first and most important would be to put a limit on how much they can threaten to withhold if they don’t follow the mandate. This would give the states the ability to choose whether or not they have the capacity to abide by it. Another restriction could be to allow states to regulate their own prices of consumer goods. For example, regulating prices on things like cigarettes and food should be left to the states because each state has different standards of living. States like California and New York should typically have higher prices because it is more expensive to live there as opposed to states like West Virginia or North Dakota where the standard of living isn’t as expensive.
All in all however, I believe the system works. The founders created the 10th amendment to preserve the rights not given to the federal government to the states. Even though the federal government has found various ways around it, it’s still apparent that each state has their own sovereignty while still being unified as one country. It’s evident from the past that the federal government uses these mandates to better the country as a whole, not to infringe on the rights of the states.
I do believe the government should use aid to influence state policy, but to a very limited extent. The states reserve the right to create policy that best serves their citizens. In some cases, state policy priorities may be very different than the national policy agenda. In other cases, states may have circumstances that warrant a different policy decision than the national view. Because of the many factors than can influence policy, the states need the power to cater a policy to their benefits. The national government’s involvement will simply put unnecessary pressure on the states to create a uniformed policy as opposed to individualized programs. Policy will become shallow and ultimately ineffective in some places.
ReplyDeleteThe government should only use financial manipulation if the state policy poses clear and present danger to citizens. I’ll use the drinking age law as an example. If California decided eliminate the drinking age and allow all citizens access to alcohol (far-fetched), the government would be justified in interfering with state policy. The government can then threaten to withhold aid if all citizens were granted access to alcohol. It may be difficult, however in determining what exactly “clear and present danger” is. This is essentially the battle for balance in fiscal federalism.
I really liked a point brought up that Katherine Lilly brought up in her post. She raised concern that the national government is nit-picking policy and focusing on small issues and not focusing on the larger policy outlook. Citizens get caught up in the blunt aspects of policy (drinking age, marijuana legalization, etc.), but fail to understand the logic behind the policy or the unintended outcomes of policy decisions. This can mislead citizens into supporting an ineffective policy.
I support fiscal federalism with reasonable limits on how much money the federal government can withhold from states. I think the federal government should be able exert some control over states without going outside of the limitations placed in the constitution. Setting national standards in areas like the drinking age, healthcare, education, economic issues, etc. are important in keeping the overall population competitive in an increasingly globalized world and to the overall public welfare. That being said, I do not think states should be penalized excessively for not meeting or refusing to adhere to a federal initiatives of this type. If the law does not absolutely require a state do something, it is the state’s right to not do it and federal government should be able to withhold a reasonable amount of funding from the state for not do what the federal government wanted it to do. For example, the federal government withholding 10% of a state’s highway funding for not meet the drinking age requirement, passed in the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, is what I would consider reasonable in that it penalizes the state without severely limiting the amount of funding the state would of gotten otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government grants the states 25% of their money under the circumstances of, "conditions of aid" which enforce policies on the states to receive their full grant if complied. I believe this condition of aid to influence the states has a positive impact on our country. For instance, http://www.legalflip.com/Article.aspx?id=20&pageid=91 explains to us why the states satisfied Reagan's rising drinking age policy, because they could lose 10% of their highway grant money if they did not listen. Although this seems threatening, the new law is proposing a more responsible drinking crowd because now people that can legally drink are more mature due to older age, and this indirectly benefits everyone. I think that conditions of aid are positive for everybody because the federal government suggests favorable policies for the country. This is also evident when the national government wanted to make a speed limit ceiling of 55 MPH in the states. This is obviously a valuable policy because it reduces citizen's speed limits and can prevent major accidents and deaths. Although I believe these are beneficial, I do think that the states deserve more freedom.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to put limitations on this, I would only suggest that the states get to refuse a certain number of policies to retain their freedom. This way, the states do not feel the need to rebel against the national government, and also get to keep their full income from the federal government with some elasticity.
Fiscal federalism, when used in a productive manner, can help the national government to get support for important laws. The “No Child Left Behind” Act, though some may arguably state was ineffective, did have a positive idea on trying to raise the bar of America’s public education. Laws like this do have positive effects on states and their citizens. Although I do I agree fiscal federalism is sometimes necessary, I also agree that it can be a way for the national government to push unpopular laws onto states and their citizens. Each state is different and may require a different set of laws than that of another state to help its citizens. For the federal government to push unpopular laws on a state through fiscal federalism resembles black mail, and can be seen as an abuse of power by the national government to pass its laws. I think that there can be a system that can have some states be excluded for certain laws that do not regard citizen welfare or public safety. Such laws including the national maximum speed limit being 55 mph should be left up to the states to determine a proper speed limit for that road. The federal government needs to take into consideration the different needs of a state and its people when passing national legislation through fiscal federalism.
ReplyDeleteEric Russo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the national government should use conditions of aid as a way to influence states. To me it is an example of bullying the states and making it so that they feel pressured to make sure things are always the way the national government wants them or else they won't receive the aid necessary for highway projects and for schools. For example, if a school district doesn't do well on the state assessment tests, the stats shouldn't be punished by not receiving the same aid as other states who's schools did well and received the full benefits. To me, adding incentives for states to receive funding is ultimately giving them an ultimatum. The no child left behind act, for example was something that was implemented in order to make sure all students received the same educational opportunities and were given the tools necessary to succeed. However, the government came in and threatened states by saying if they didn't meet certain scores on the state assessment tests then the state would lose educational funds. How is that helping students succeed? To me this is an example of using something that started as a good thing into a scare tactic telling states that student must do well on standardized testing or else. The national government should not be able to use tactics like this to scare states and hold onto funds. They should have to give all states the proper amount of funding necessary to succeed and make strides to become better.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a really interesting topic and fiscal federalism has some good and bad points of view. I think that fiscal federalism is a really good concept because it gives revenue to the states and in some cases those states rely heavily on that revenue. On the other hand, the balance of power has shifted to where the states are going to have to obey the national government and that makes the national government more powerful. I feel like the balance of power will never be equal and the states, in some cases, will have more power than the national government and, in some cases like this one, the national government will have more power than the states. I do believe that the national government should put "conditions of aid" for issues like lowering the DUI cutoff to .08 because it protects the citizens of the nation and maintains order in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteI feel the states should have complete power over themselves. The national government has so much power anyways, the states have the right to set their own laws and regulations. It is essential that the national government allows the states to have control over themselves because if not then it can lead to conflict with governors which can hurt political parties and connections. But bottom line, the states need power too and the government should accept and allow it.
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I disagree with this and I don't think states should be able to have complete power over themselves as it would essentially separate the country and could cause widespread problems among many different demographics of people living within the country. There needs to be a balance of powers within the system to make it work efficiently.
DeleteI think fiscal federalism depends on the situation. I feel mandates can be good in some cases, but also bad in other cases. In cases like raising the drinking age to 21, I feel that mandates are unnecessary. States shouldn't lose funding just because they feel that the drinking age should be 19 instead of 21, especially if the state has limitations to what a 19 year old can purchase. There may be mandates that are good for a state to follow. Maybe the federal government might make it a mandate to issue a curfew. This would in the long run help protect citizens, and instead of taking away from a state that doesn't follow, maybe the federal government would increasing funding if a state cooperates.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the national government should have the right to "conditions of aid" to only a certain extent. The states should use this as an incentive to earn revenue. However, the national government shouldn't use this to gain power. It should be used to balance the power between the states and the national government and better the well-being of citizens. The national government should have power to the bigger issues like the drinking age and education regulations because this will benefit every citizen and there shouldn't be limitations, which could happen if the states had the power to regulate these. The states should use "conditions of aid" to their advantage to get money from the national government. The national government should be limited to "conditions of aid" because some states have different needs for their citizens that need to be met that may differ from another states needs. This procedure would help to give both states and the national government power but also to keep them balanced so that neither one has power over the other.
ReplyDeleteThere are both advantages and disadvantages of fiscal federalism. Even the founding fathers disagreed on how much power should be given to the states. Some believed that a strong, centralized government would be best while others believed that a strong central government would only recreate another England. So basically, in simple terms, fiscal federalism serves as the framework for what powers belong to different levels of government, and how these levels of government will carry out their duties granted by the oversight of the governing body. For example, states receive money from the federal government, and for the states to continue to receive grants/aid, they must follow the restrictions and rules of the federal government. While the Constitution gives all powers not mentioned within the document to the states, fiscal federalism is the federal government way to still have a hand in influencing states' laws...And I feel that it’s wrong.
ReplyDeleteCertain powers were given to the states for a reason. When dealing with towns and rural areas, the local representatives know better about their communities than some politicians 500 miles away. As Alexis Matson mentioned above, the lowering of the speed limit to 55 was beneficial in some ways. From when the law was passed in 1974 to when it was repealed in 1995, who can say that the speed limit alone was responsible for the lowering of fatalities? In 1974, seat belts were optional, and by 1980 they were a requirement. So isn’t it safe to say that the advancements in automobile safety were just as influential in lowering highway fatalities as the 55mph speed limit?
The next thing I would like to discuss is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). While the core purpose of the NCLB is to promote higher standards of schools among all schools, it fails to do so. In the schools that have a history of academic excellence, they continuously year after year meet the ACT requirements established. So in return, these schools receive the maximum amount of funding granted by the program year after year. With these grants, the schools make improvements: buy new desks, purchase chalkboards, computers, and anything else that can help the schools better educate their students. But what about the schools that are struggling and do not meet the requirements of the NCLB? They tend to be the poorer, more disadvantaged schools who struggle from year to year. As you can see, it’s a repeating pattern. By punishing the schools who don’t meet the NCLB, they cannot improve. They’re unable to purchase the equipment and computers that they desperately need. Shouldn’t we be providing the tools/money to the schools that need it the most?
I do, and this is just one example of the faults of fiscal federalism.
The federal government should greatly reduce the amount of regulations on aid to the states. The states should be able to make their own decisions and maintain their respective states in the best way they see fit. The 10th amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to protect the citizens rights to govern themselves, but it seems to have lost all meaning in today's politics. In a country as geographically large and as diverse as the United States, there is no possible way for the federal government to understand the needs of ALL of the people, but it is much easier for states to make appropriate decisions. The national government should provide aid in the form of block grants, this allows some necessary government regulation, but the states still have the power to make their own decisions. I agree with one of the previous comments, the government absolutely should not use aid as a form of blackmail against the states.
ReplyDeleteThe National Government should be able to have the right to make "Conditions of Aid" because it lets the government accomplish things. Politics is essentially doing what you can to stay in office and with there being so many different points of views on all the legislature being passed nothing would every get accomplished on the national level because states would be against the legislature so that their people would be happy and they would get reelected. The government should be allowed to put "condition of Aid" on to anything that they want, it all comes down to a simple idea, if you don't like the legislature then don't take the money. The states can always say no, and that's what people tend to forget.
ReplyDeleteI agree with other classmates such as Kaitlyn Coviello and Zach Naegle because I feel that I have the same point of view. I believe that the National government is over stepping their boundaries. Even though we are the United States and live in a sense of unity, each state should have its own rights and be able to use them. Each state has different ideologies, population, and individual needs, therefore should be able to go with their own laws and polices. I feel that changing the drinking age to 21 for all states, takes away from states right. Also, states should not feel the need to be forced into passing certain laws or following certain policies just to be sure to be able to continue to get funding and support from the national government. As we discussed in class, the 16th amendment, which allows the government to collect income taxes shows the power of the national government. By collecting income taxes they are able to control what is done with the money and make the decisions. Once again each state may need something different, but the national government is selfish and does what is best for them.
ReplyDelete“The federal-state relationship is in the spotlight because of enormous fiscal challenges facing all levels of government. Tight budgets and slow economic growth are leading to discussions about appropriate levels of public spending and how costs should be allocated among different levels of government. Federal and state policy makers require solid data and analysis to engage in a meaningful debate and truly understand how their tax and spending policies affect other levels of government."
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism has long been a controversial and highly debated subject. This separation of power between the federal and state governments, in my opinion, is needed. In regards to federal mandates, a few of my fellow classmates have stated that the point of having states is for them to all be unique and preserve their own distinctive rules and law. While I agree with those statements , the states are apart of a much bigger society, the U.S., in which the central government is responsible for maintaining a similar law and rule base throughout. They have to maintain this “order” to ensure all states are ran equally well and with the same goal in mind…which is to benefit its people while keeping in mind the costs associated with doing just that. While I do believe some mandates impose on the state’s freedoms, in a general sense I understand why these federal mandates are necessary. In order for the central government to protect its citizens sometimes the mandates are essential . In regards to the drinking age mandate I understand why they did it. The federal government thought that by imposing it, they would be saving innocent lives and risky behavior. If the states couldn't follow suit they would cut funding that the federal government already doesn't have.
I think in order to understand we have to look at the position of the central government. They’re already in debt and if they think something should be done it only seems reasonable to impose it on the states and make money the punishment if not. It’s just the way things work anymore. It works the same in a work place, school, and life in general. The bigger man has more power, that’s all there is to it. And there’s always someone there to critique and say things…it’s damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. They take control and we complain but if they don’t we complain just as much that they don’t help. I do think this interference should be limited and all mandates analyzed on a need basis. Some of them are just insanely ridiculous.
As the quote above says state and federal policy makers have to understand each other in order for them to understand how and where their funds are going. If the government needs to limit funds then the easiest way to do it is impose mandates. (Or they could just raise taxes.) Personally I’d prefer the mandate. In the example given I think I’ll take not drinking until 21 over a raise in income taxes or other ungodly monetary penalties to help with the budget issues.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe quote above is from:
Deletehttp://www.pewstates.org/projects/fiscal-federalism-initiative-328991
I believe that the federal government's conditions of aid rule is vital in keeping a country as large as the United States in tact, however it is not right for the fed to abuse these powers to make the states do what they want. State sovereignty is important and each state has different needs that need to be taken into account but I think that the states have to remember not to bite the hand that feeds. Just because the national government is providing aid does not necessarily constitute that the state has to take it. If a state feels strongly enough about something they should be able to provide the funding necessary for it by other means themselves. I would have to disagree with a lot of students who are saying that the federal government should not have the control that they do for the fact that it is the national government's responsibility to regulate and maintain a safe environment for all of its citizens. Unfortunately, the states must recognize that they have to let go and allow some of their power to shift to the national government to be allowed aid and funding for the things that they want and need. I think it is apparent that balancing powers between national and state government is going to be a never ending struggle and that one side is always going to have to give up some to receive something.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the national government has a right to "conditions to aid", however, I do not believe they have a right in the way they are using it. Over time our government has changed. It all start with our founding fathers who created our government that is "for the people", today this seems to be questionable. In politics, a lot of people just want to have power. They just want the best job to make themselves look good even though they may not be doing the best for our country. To me, the national government uses "conditions to aid" for power. They pick something they want to have, such as a minimum drinking age, or a nation-wide speed limit, and do what ever it takes to achieve that. Even though the drinking age might not have been a problem in a state they were punished by not receiving funding for their highways. In my eyes, this was not for the people, it was for the power of the national government. If the national government would not abuse this power too much I would be all for it. As of right now, I do not believe it should be allowed due to the fact that the states have more of an idea on the safety of their state since they see it personally all the time, compared to the time the national government sees the area.
ReplyDeleteI don’t necessarily think that fiscal federalism is a bad thing, but more state power would be beneficial. When you look at all 50 states, they each have different needs and differ culturally, socially, and ecomonically. West Virginia, for example, tends to have a more rural poor population with smaller business than some other states, and tends to rely heavily on the block grants from the national government. When the national government establishes these decisions, such as a higher drinking age, lower BAC, or even “no child left behind,” they tend to benefit the whole population of the United States, and when they can see it is clearly a failure, such as the national speed limit, they revoke such laws.
ReplyDeleteWhen Regan enacted the law to raise the drinking age to 21, there was a clear threat to 10% of state funding if they did not comply. Though some might think of this as unfair, it was established for the best of our citizen, and I find quite agreeable for the states. When losing that amount of money in comparison to alcohol revenue, there is no question which would be more profitable, and developmentally a safer decision for the nations young adults (who are still going to drink regardless of age requirements.) Though national government is overtaking the states, the examples we have been given aren’t that big of an issue in my opinion.
Fiscal Federalism is a necessary for the United States government. I believe this because the Federal Government uses it to protect the people, address the nation about issues that arise, and try to better the states. When certain things become an issue like health care and roads that are used for transportation. I think that bringing up these issues help urge the states to want to better the standards that they are held to in the federal government and help them preform better than the year before.
ReplyDeleteIf the government were to put a limit on how much money the federal government can withhold from states, I feel that it would give the states the ability to figure out if they have the capacity to withstand it. Another restriction could be that states regulate their own prices of consumer goods. For example, regulating prices on gas and good because each state has a different cost of living. Chicago has a higher cost of living compared to West Virginia.
In the end however, I truly believe that the system works. The 10th amendment was created to make sure the rights of the federal government were preserved to the states. Even though the federal government has found loop holes around it, it still that the states have their own power but still come together as a unified country.
While I agree with several points made, I get the feeling that although the Government is not completely in control of everything, it seems as though they might be abusing its power over the states, when in reality its hard to tell which laws should be held to a higher authority.
ReplyDeleteThe states might tend to have a clearer view of what is needed in their area, more so than the national government most likely. In my opinion the national government should enforce the laws that they have put into place, however if the law is contradictory of a state law, then the state law should be the one to abide by if residing in that state. The National government should allow the states to have a little more power when it comes to the welfare of the people living there.
Each state is unique in it’s own way. They differ geographically, socially and economically. What’s good for one state may not be good for all. Like discussed in class, Montana and New Jersey are on two separate sides of the country, which they differ geographically. It wouldn’t make sense for them to be forced to have the same speed limit laws. Therefore, I believe that states should have the right to make their own decisions without the national government interfering. The national government gained too much power through fiscal federalism. Some may see fiscal federalism as an incentive for states to provide good public policy, but I believe it’s an example of the federal government bullying the state and local government into doing things that they couldn’t constitutionally require them to do. This completely contradicts the 10th amendment. The national government should not use conditions of aid to influence the states. The unfunded federal mandate of National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA) is an example of how the federal government abused this power. “A number of states initially said "no" to NMDAA, but by 1988 every state passed a law raising its minimum drinking age to 21 in order to continue receiving all the federal money they were entitled to under the Federal Aid Highway Act.” This shows how the national government can easily take advantage of state and local government through fiscal federalism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. In my comment I even mentioned how each state has developed their own cultures within.
DeleteI don't believe that the government should use conditions for aid as in to change a certain law the way they want it. We have so many different states because we all have different needs and have developed our own cultures within. We should be following the tenth amendment very strictly without punishment to states on their decisions. The people need power and freedom, not to be controlled completely, that's why we have a voting system.
ReplyDeleteIt is my belief that our national government should adhere to using conditions of aid for influence over the states, for the following reasons: fiscal pressure ensures that states do not exploit their power; the country wont fragment with laws regarding equality; and the fed gov has the power of the purse making the distribution process constitutional. Though the limitations attached to the conditions would be through normal means of restrictions through laws.
ReplyDeleteLet's say the national government gives money to one state and says "Now, we believe it would be best if a No Texting and Driving legislative campaign was adopted, and with some of this money you can make it happen." The fed then goes to another state and says the same thing, except the first state didn't enact a texting and driving state policy, it is likely that deaths due to distracted driving from texting would increase and this would be bad for America. Which is why such conditions are necessary, not harsh in preventing state negligence and keeping everyone on a more even playing field. This push for the broadest equality we can reach is important and can be done under the conglomeration of the federal goverenment who is more than qualified in dealing with cases involving the questions of fairness and distribution equality. I believe it is also fair to assert that since the fed holds the power of the purse, it qualifies as the greatest aid distributor.
It would benefit the political and economic process if the conditions of aid were limited by laws, under the constitution. The people have a right to a social outcry if a pressured condition hurts the peoples' well being. And if the fed is pressuring a specific policy to be pushed then it must have to be given some thought rather than just believing its random or spiteful toward the states.
-Zach Abe
I am a supporter in states being able to make their own decisions but I do believe it’s necessary for the national government to give states money. Some states definitely need it more than others but I don’t think it’s fair the government can change the amount to whatever they think is best for themselves. I feel as though that money decisions should be taken to vote for citizens in the states. For instance let’s say one year WV has a mild winter and there are fewer roads to be prepared, but the government gives them more money for roads than they did for education, they should be able to use that money accordingly instead of wasting it. Although some laws that have come about such as higher drinking age, “No Child Left Behind,” and lower BAC can seem to have a negative effect on a single state, most of the time laws like these improve the country as a whole.
ReplyDeleteMany feel it’s wrong to make states comply to different laws and regulations to be able to attain their money, but it’s not like they’re trying to do anything bad for the most part. Most often they are trying to implement laws that are going to make the states work better and improve the nation as a whole.
In the end fiscal federalism is necessary to keep the government and states working. Every state has different needs so if the government can help them out and aid them, that’s a great thing. The states need to have good communication with the government to keep them updated on their needs. This can make things run more smoothly within our government systems
Yes, fiscal federalism does seem necessary as shown throughout history, and states complying to rules and regulations may improve the country as a whole, but I also believe that the way the national government is doing it is wrong and violates the U.S. Constitution. It also takes away the voice of U.S. Citizens.
DeleteI am in favor of the fiscal federalism that goes on between the national government and the states. One reason that I believe in this concept of government spending is because it allows the national government to make real change in the nation. So many countries besides the United States don't give their state governments options concerning money, they just act because they are the over powering governmental force. Yes our country is not a dictatorship, but we do enjoy many freedoms of being a democracy. And our state governments receive so few federal mandates these days as it is. The exception to my opinion based on this is that, I believe that the national government should help fund these federal mandates. The mandate in general is a pretty intrusive and inconvenient situation to find your state in, so why is it that the national government can't help out at least with a fraction of the cost of the federal mandate.
ReplyDeleteThat being said I do agree that money management within state and local government is a good thing. There are many state government statutes put in place that I believe are complete wastes of money, for example, some states don't sell alcohol on sundays or don't sell alcohol after a certain time of day. Now this is simply because interest groups in certain states believe that these laws will directly help the problem of drunk driving. I think its a little ridiculous to believe that all Americans are mindless enough to get behind the wheel of a car when their drunk but thats my opinion.
James Goard
No the government should not be able to use Fiscal Federalism to control policy country wide. States should have the right to make their own laws. Fiscal Federalism gives too much power to the federal government. According to the 10th Amendment the federal government does not get any power that is not expressly stated to be given to it by the Constitution, and all other powers BELONG TO THE STATES. It would violate the 10th Amendment if the federal government could reach its hands into all aspects of our life using money as leverage. Even if the SCOTUS says that constitutionally it is legal, that still doesn't make it right. It gives unwarranted power to the federal government. If you look back in history the government of China during the Great Leap Forward forced collective agriculture on the people. This forced farmer to plant crops, or plow their fields when the government said so rather than when the climate was right. Even though it may be nighttime on one side of the country, raining in another, and only one part can actually grow the intended crop. It resulted in mass famines nation wide since crops couldn't be grown correctly, and all this stemmed from the fact that the government of China at the time thought it would be "good policy." The same rules apply here in the U.S. Just because a law seems like a good idea in one portion of the country does not mean that it should be enforced nationwide, especially when it comes against the wishes of the states themselves.The states here in the U.S, just like the different portions of China each have radically different cultures, and climates, and ways of life. You can't expect states like Hawaii or California to ban surfing just because Nevada is land locked and can't surf. It just wouldn't make any sense. Its the same with a nation wide speed limit. Just because one state has tons of winding roads, and cant drive faster that 5mph, doesn't mean that states like Montana, or others out west who are long, and flat should be forced to abide by West Virginia's laws, and vice versa. You wouldn't expect people driving at 100+ mph through West Virginia. So then why would the federal government think such a law would work? The same goes with The national drinking age. I understand that there is a dense population in places like New York City, and that minor's should not be drunk walking down the street, and risk getting hit by cars, but why would that apply to states which aren't so densely populated? West Virginia's culture is radically different that New York, so why would the same laws apply to such different places? The federal government should not be able to withhold money from a state just to enforce it's own idea of "good policy." It takes powers away from the states which they need to keep everything under control. The government should be responsible to the people. Not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is just another example of a good concept that our national government has altered in a negative way. The way I feel about this issue is similar to the rest of my ideas about national government. Having similar laws is important in order to keep unity between the states. However, that does not mean that the national government should withhold important funding from those states if they do not make those laws a part of their state and local government. While unity is important, so is keeping diversity between the states. In Wallace E. Oates essay “Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism”, he offers some ways to control fiscal federalism. Such as “various constitutional and operational checks and balances; these include a fundamental role for the judiciary, limiting the stakes of national politics by decentralizing authority, and an effective party system with strong local elements.”As long as these limitations are followed, fiscal federalism can be a useful tool.
ReplyDeletehttp://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10797-005-1619-9.pdf
I am not a proponent of Fiscal Federalism but I do believe there are rare cases where Fiscal Federalism is necessary. There are certain acts such as the No Child Left Behind Act that i believe should be enforced. An act that is implemented to bolster education is something that should be enforced on the state level because it is for the betterment of the nation. Now, Fiscal Federalism is very blackmail-esque and seems dirty but it is the only tactic the national government can utilize to enforce a law they believe is important. States will argue that the national government doesn't know their state's issues more than they do and that this misusage of power is unethical. The conundrum with me is that how can the national government get things done without using this tactic. If the government has reasonable evidence and cause to raise the drinking age, than why should they not be able to enforce this act.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is necessary for the national government to get the states to do anything. If the states do not agree with what the national government wants to do, they could just simply say "No," or they could go even further and protest the decision. The most famous of these cases is the Civil War. The southern states disagreed with the policies of the federal government so much, that they seceded and eventually went to war. This to me is a perfect example of why fiscal federalism is needed to keep our country running smoothly and without more fighting amongst ourselves (physical fighting that is).
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do feel it is necessary, I also think that fiscal federalism is unfair to the states in some cases. Smaller states with not as much money as others have absolutely no choice but to do what the national government tells them. They need every bit of federal aid that comes to them and turning down a percentage is just not smart.
As far as the "No Child Left Behind Act" goes, I feel that it is one of the worst cases of conditional aid. The fact that the national government decides how much aid to give schools based on how they do on standardized testing is absurd to me. If a school has lower test scores, how is giving them less money going to help the cause? Conditional aid bullies states into doing what the federal government wants, but in most cases, what the national government is trying to accomplish is necessary. Also, states have every right to say "No" to the federal government. Smaller states may have it worse off because they are not able to say "No" as often as they would like to, which makes it hard for them to protest decisions made by the national government.
In conclusion, fiscal federalism is not a great thing for our country and is even unfair in some cases. Without conditional aid though, our federal government would not be able to accomplish much because any state could just ignore the policies passed. Fiscal federalism, without a doubt, gives more power to the national government, but without it, the states would simply have too much power and our country would be weaker overall as a whole.
I don’t think its fair for the national government to use the threat of taking away financial aid in order to get the states to do what they want. The states should be able to decide how they want to do things without fear of losing federal funding. And the 10th amendment even says any power not given to the national government in the constitution, is given to the states. I think that by allowing the national government to withhold aid, it’s giving them too much power.
ReplyDeleteI believe fiscal federalism has some good affects as well as negatives. I agree that the federal government should help fund the states interests and activities if needed but they should stay out of the way when deciding how to run the states. We don’t want the US to be exactly the same and be run by one government. We have states for a reason and that is to represent our country as a whole and for them to govern themselves without restrictions. The federal government shouldn’t limit or penalize the states for a law or regulation that they create. I believe that it is the state and the people in the state to develop their own laws without the federal government abusing their power and refusing it. State governments creating their own laws and regulations; make themselves unique from one powerful government allowing people to choose which exact state they would like to live in depending on the laws.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Strejeck
I believe states should be able to make a decision on whether or not they pass a law and not be punished. The national government should not be able to take away funds for non compliance. Individual states know what’s best for their government; some laws should just simply not be pushed on a state. I understand the national government needs to make progress on laws being passed, but it shouldn't be done in a threatening manner. Providing funds for compliance though is a great incentive to have states comply and have the particular law passed. The rate of non compliance would probably increase significantly if funding was offered for compliance. Typically, unless it’s a unique scenario most states will comply and do not want to lose any funding. The concern for unfair laws being passed should not be of any concern either, because any law that is required to be passed is typically for a greater good in a sense. According to South Dakota vs. Dole the court created a five point rule to help ensure that the national government wouldn’t push for a law that would create discrepancies. One point in particular that describes this is points four and five, “The conditions imposed on the states must not in itself be unconstitutional; and the condition must be coercive.” Basically the majority of laws passed will only be beneficial to society. If a law is being pushed that requires the drinking age to be 21, then it shouldn't be a problem for any state. Most states should be able to work with the national government without a problem.
ReplyDeleteThe overall idea of fiscal federalism was originally what this country needed until the necessary and proper clause changed it forever. The restrictions that the national government can now have on all the states is ridiculous because we all know states would not be able to function without financial aid. The national government is clearly taking advantage of of all the states because if they decide to pass a law and a state does not agree then they can just take a certain percentage away from that state. In my opinion this is wrong and whats the point in having individual states if they can not change certain rules with out being punished a percentage on there financial aid.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the idea of fiscal federalism was better for the country in the past and needs to be worked on and altered now. This may or may not have to do with this topic but the national government holding back funds and financial aid to the states because of certain issues and not others seems unfair. It makes me wonder why the national government is letting states decide upon gay marriage/legalization of marijuana but yet changing the drinking age limit to 21 was acted upon differently. Seems like our government has PLENTY to work on.
DeleteAlong with the majority of the class I have to agree with the fact that states should have more freedom and choice for decision, but because the local and state governments depend so highly (25% of the state and local government revenue comes from the national government) it is hard for the states not to give into what the government wants. I don't think it is fair for the national government to use conditions of aid to influence the states but I understand why the national government may think that their policy is best. For the nation to be happy and safe as a whole it is easier and beneficial that states are similar, especially major laws. I think it is completely unfair however for the national government to withhold money from the states who are doing their best to provide safety and community in their states. Why is the national government letting a state struggle because the state (and population) of the state does not agree on something? At times the national government makes big decisions like raising the drinking age to 21 for the safety of the country as a whole. There are situations where it is unfair to set conditions of aid onto states like not providing the state with money for highways for example if not all schools can reach a certain test score. The government needs to account for the fact that every state has a different population and location and that contributes to how the state acts and will react to what the national government wants. In the end the state and local governments do depend on the national government but because this is America and people can decide on their state to live in, the state government should have more of a say. It is never fair to not provide a state money that the government has just because that state is not meeting a "requirement" or condition that the national state wants!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of the federal government having power, and I think fiscal federalism is essential to running the united states. The job of the federal government is to keep the individual states unified, and in order. The federal government needed an insensitive for the states complying, most of the laws passed are to benefit citizens and protect their rights and to ensure equality. I do think that the way the federal government takes away grant money should be a little different. Instead of taking away funding to one individual grant the federal government should take a percent of the total amount of grant money this way it'll impact each grant in a small way instead of one grant that might be necessary to that particular state. The percent should have a cap and fluctuate according to how important the federal government thinks the law passed is.
ReplyDeleteWithout the national government, each state might as well be their own country; let each tax their citizens, let each find means to procure funds, let each choose speed limits and drinking ages. If each state wants to govern their state independently, quit calling it the United States of America (fiscally at least).
ReplyDeleteHaving a national government is one of the things that make the states united (hence the name). Federalism is a sharing of powers with the goal to equalize powers of national, state and local governments. Even though it is a division of powers, I do believe it is best that the national government have a slight advantage over the state and local governments; it is what should keep each individual states to be unanimous.
To help my understanding of federalism, I thought of this ideal as if it were a single-parent family with 50 children. Without a parental figure (the national government) who supposedly has more knowledge and has learned from experience, the children (the 50 states) would without a doubt butt heads, bully the younger, mistreat or over-take the weak and run around like chickens with their heads cut off (which many in the real world seem to think the case). The ‘fiscal’ part comes in when a child grows into a teenager and is in need of money for their independent needs and specific purposes. The older a child gets, the more money they tend to need. To get the money, children adhere to rules.
Mandates are like the rules, morals and responsibilities within a family that have no tangible return/rewards. Conditions of aid are like the money given to each child for said specific purposes; groceries, gas money, school textbooks, crafts and so on. You get the full amount of cash (see it as the aid) from a parent by following the rules given by said parent. Not obeying means money docked off and having to find the means to earn it on your own. Rules that all, no matter what age, need to follow. If a child that chooses to not follow rules or is immoral, it should be guided towards the best (not right or wrong) direction. To do so without the use of force or violence, the best alternative is to cut off or decrease their cash.
In the South Dakota v. Dole case, the congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA), which increased the drinking age limit to 21. To the states that chose not to adhere to this mandate, the national government had 5% of the state’s federal highway funding withheld.
As a child that grows into a teenager that needs more money, a state could increase in population and require more funds. It may not seem fair and the one state’s need of funding may be larger than another, but I do believe that it is acceptable if the state chooses not to follow a national mandate, they don't get the full amount of funds. If like that child, a state chooses to disregard or have their way, the government should have the right to say ‘fine, then find your own means to get cash’.
Being the last person to post, I have skimmed through many of the posts to this argument. Many say that the federal government should have less power over states for states know their own needs more than someone in an office far, far away. The national government has 50 states to deal with, a big responsibility that requires options in order to pacify and treat each state as needed. If a state chooses not to adhere to the national order, that’s okay, but in return, they’ll have to find other means to provide for their locals; they could apply more taxes, have bake sales or create fund-raisers (good old-fashioned means of making money).
Each choice either has a sacrifice or benefit, it is up to the state to choose whether they are willing to follow and adhere or to find other means of funds and keep their own rule. Like I’ve seen a few people say: Don’t like it, don’t take the money.
Fiscal federalism isn't all bad. It seems to be a necessary "evil" in some cases. While the federal government is the main governing body of, well, everyone, the states deserve to have their rights too without being "bullied" and almost forced into a position that may not be best for that state. In some cases, fiscal federalism can be a good thing. I think the case of Reagan raising the drinking age did help in some instances. With the in class example of the two schools that had different drinking ages, there were a lot of drunk driving accidents occurring between the stretch of highway that connected them. I think making a level drinking age across the board really did cut down on deaths that way. If everywhere has the same drinking age, there's no need to drive to another school and then attempt to drive back afterwards. In the case of No Child Left Behind, however, there's basically a double whammy if the intended result isn't met. Not only do certain schools get a cut in aid, but this affects the children as well, depleting them of some of the resources the school now can't afford. While the intentions are good, (they simply want the teachers to do their jobs, and well) it doesn't always turn out the way it's expected. It can be quite a toss up. It can be easy to say if a state doesn't like something, then don't take the money. But it's another thing to actually be able to do it. I think fiscal federalism is something that shouldn't be abused. The federal government knows exactly what it's doing when they offer these "incentives" to the states. In the "Legal Flip" article, it mentions how the gov't is allowed to "attach strings" to any law or mandate it wants to pass, even though it is seen as constitutional. It is manipulation. It can be a situation of forcing the states' hand in many situations. It's all in how the fed. gov't plays its cards and what its actual intentions are. So, in my opinion, I think certain situations can be the government overstepping its boundaries a little, but in other cases, it is simply a harmless tradeoff. There's no for sure way to tell what the limitations on this power should be, as a lot of it really is circumstantial. All of the pros and cons need to be weighted entirely.
ReplyDeleteStates’ rights have been a “hot-button” issue for the majority of the history of the United States. By all accounts, the forefathers of the American Constitution intended to give more power to the states than they currently have. As we have discussed in class, the power of the federal government has grown significantly throughout the course of the history of the United States. It seems that the states’ right issue waxes and wanes in importance in public opinion, but it there has been a recent trend of public opinion against a strong federal government. It is clear as well, that unfunded federal mandates put additional burden on the states. Erwin Chemerinsky, of the University of California, Irvine School of Law, published a paper this dealing with the consequences of inadequate funded mandates. The idea behind the paper was that sometimes providing legal console is not enough, it has to be competent legal consul and how this is a result of unfunded mandates. (1) The paper presents the argument that just because a regulation is put in place (such as the requirement of legal console) it does not mean that it is necessarily adequate. You can see the same phenomena with the unfunded mandates that were mentioned in the articles provided. Just because something is “required” does not mean that the states will have the power to enforce the mandates.
ReplyDeleteI think a unification of states via coordination on a federal level is a good thing. And it may be that what worked at the time the Constitution was written will not necessarily work now. As the country has grown larger and more diverse, and given the sharp political divide between the north and south, it is not unreasonable for the federal government to take a larger role in order to assure that states are all on the same page. It is not unreasonable to argue that as population and diversity has grown, so does a hegemonic force need to assert itself.
Naturally, this power needs to reach limitations at a certain point. The problem is that the line is reasonably arbitrary and could vary due to a multitude of factors. There are some checks that the states still have, but it seems as their power is continually diminishing. At this point it has shifted to the federal government almost to an extreme, it seems that possibly a shift of more power to the states could help achieve a more workable equilibrium. The idea of states as laboratories has always been a basic tenant of political science learning, it seems that this concept could lose its value if the states continue to lose power. One of the most quick and workable solutions is the “untangle” the money as much as possible (reduce the number of federal mandates) and give the states possible policy objectives. See what states hit their marks and what states fail to do so, then base policy initiatives off of that.
1. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2273874
I wanted to mention that the coordination I mentioned in the above paragraph is particularly important on some issues (drinking age being one of them). This helps us avoid some of the terrible situations we discuss in class (highest per capita drunk driving highway). Overall, coordination tends to benefit us which is why I am not opposed to the trend in the past couple of decades.
DeleteI believe they should cut aids because the basic incentive structure of aids program actually encourages overspending. Another reason why is because having a large aid system takes away the focus from our real national issues. The system has proven to fail in the past, the system would eventually thrive because it maximizes benefits to the politicians. The aid systems needs to be scaled back, we are really asking the government to do something that really impossible. There are 315 million people in the U.S, roughly, we cannot expect these aid programs to fit all of our needs. It is just wasting time and like i said before its taking away from the real national problems that our country has already!
ReplyDeleteWouldn't thrive***
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism...is it right? Is it wrong? For me, I feel like it is a double edged sword. As for the states, it is important for them to receive funding from the national government but not completely necessary. I feel that on one hand, it is manipulative of the national government to put stipulations with the funding but on the other, not completely unfair. The money the states receive from the national government, in my opinion should be viewed as a bonus and not a right. I feel these stipulations have good intentions. They attempt to keep continuity between states, keeping interstate relations congruent. Just like the example in class about drinking age being different state to state created many problems with young people driving and dying due to drunk driving across boarders. I may be wrong or against the grain in thinking this way but I think these issues have been solved and made better through doing so. Granted, states should have power and be able to create an individual way of life for its population, however certain issues should be monitored and control nationally. Our states through fiscal federalism receive aid in ways that would not be possible without it. Whether these states have to compete, meet requirements or lobby for this money, I feel the continuity it creates is more important than the feeling of being powerless which I feel is far from the truth.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is acceptable for the government to place unfunded federal mandates on the individual states, because this behavior constitutes a form of blackmailing that the national government should discourage. This behavior is a degradation of the national government’s integrity, promoting a system of manipulation in order to make advancements with current laws which concern the national government. A former classmate’s post referred to this situation as the government taking advantage of the states, and I strongly agree that this is an appropriate way to refer to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. Ultimately, this law was the federal government abusing its power in relation to how it distributes necessary federal aid for the state’s benefit.
ReplyDeleteAfter the failing of the Articles of Confederation, a stronger central government evolved amidst the creation of the Constitution, and this was largely in relation to the financial aspect of how money was distributed to the states. The Constitution set up a national currency, as well as allowed the federal government to absorb all debts from the Revolutionary War, resulting in a collective national debt. Pointedly, this was the purpose of the Constitution’s construction of the stronger federal government. They wanted to form a national government that would promote unity throughout the states, collect state finances in a fair manner, and distribute the money back to the states in the most beneficial way possible.
All this being said, are the government’s actions during the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 constitutional? While this topic could easily turn into a debate between the 10th Amendment and Necessary and Proper Clause, I believe the government’s behavior was not in the spirit of the Constitution on a moral basis. The body of government which was intended to provide for the common good of individuals, eventually twisted their intentions into the hurried progression of a single law. Conclusively, this situation is an example of the intertwinement of two issues that should not have been dependent upon each other. A state’s ability to receive financial aid and their decision to alter the legal drinking age should have stayed two separate issues, and they should have been managed by a federal government that was readily prepared to handle them in a constitutional manner.
Mariah Mandy
www.downsizinggovernment.org/fiscal-federalism makes many good points on the view of fiscal federalism that line up with my own. I believe that fiscal federalism unjustly takes away too much power from the states. However, I believe that fiscal federalism started out with good intentions because the state government needs federal aid from the federal governments for social security, education, housing, roads etc... As stated in the blog post, fiscal federalism is a major source of money for state and local governments, accounting for about 25% of revenue.
ReplyDeleteUnder the U.S. Constitution, the federal government was given specific, limited powers with most government functions left to the state. This was made evident and strengthened through the 10th amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States respectively, or to the people”
With that being said, I do not believe that national government should use the conditions of aid to influence the states, such as if states did not raise their drinking law to 21 they would cut 10% of that states funding. As stated in some of my fellow classmates posts, I do believe that fiscal federalism became blackmail and breaks everything our country fought for during the Civil War. Conditions of aid basically forces states to comply to the federal government with the threat of cutting their federal funding.
As stated in our lecture notes on the over view of the historical impact fiscal federalism, it shifted things from state to national control. There was also a shift from dual federalism and cooperative federalism. This made it hard for citizens to influence the government, when before each layers responsibilities were clearly defined.
Fiscal federalism is a very positive thing because it unites and brings the states together and it is easier to keep the states in check. The tenth amendment gives the states some freedom, but it is the national governments job to keep the states in check and determine that they are not over stepping their boundaries. The funding for states that comes from fiscal federalism is another positive thing because without the support of the national government the states would not be as inclined to support the national government in return. However, this is where the down fall of fiscal federalism occurs. When the government wants to have a bill or a law passed it can and has used it's power to threaten to cut the states funding unless they vote in favor of the law. I do not feel that this is right of the government to do this because it is not allowing the states to decide matters for themselves. Also, threats to cut financial support is a very low and desperate way to gain a vote. An alternate way the government way could go about gaining support is offering to pay for some portion of the changes in the law being passed. I really believe our government needs to think more carefully about what is most important and necessary to our country today and only push those specific topics on the states for support.
ReplyDeleteThe United States Constitution originally intended the states and federal government to work together in a collaborative effort. Conditions of aid provide the federal government with a tool of leverage over the states. As a strict constitutionalist, conditions of aid should not be legal. As Professor Berch stated, the Tenth Amendment guarantees states control over anything not outlined in the US Constitution. Therefore, education, marriage, legal drinking age, ect. are not the federal government's concern because they are not specifically mentioned in the constitution. If the federal government wants to add to its list of responsibilities, amend the constitution. President Reagan's NMDAA stated that if states did not make their minimum drinking age 21, they would lose 10% of their funding from the Federal Aid Highway Act. The Highway Aid Act required that states pay 10% of the work done to their roads. Essentially, NMDAA would double the percentage of money states would have to put towards highway aid. This was strategically done to force the states to enforce NMDAA. Clearly, this move had a purpose. States, unable to relinquish the addition 10% have to enforce the drinking age. Providing states with incentives (additional funding, a funded federal mandate, ect.) to enforce a law is acceptable because if a state votes to not enforce the law in question, the state does not suffer consequences. Whereas with NMDAA states that did not enforce the law actually suffered fiscal loss. While conditions of aid can unify the states, unfunded mandates are unconstitutional and simply put, unfair.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism has positive and negatives that come along with it, just like every other policy out there. I think fiscal federalism is a good thing with what it can provide for our state and local governments. It provides money for highways, school assistance, and other necessities. Just there was the Reagan mandate that he said that you need to be at least 21 years of age to purchase and consume alcohol. Before different states had different drinking ages, like the example in class. Two states that had a highway connecting them had two different drinking ages. So people from the one state drove to the other state to drink where it was legal, and then causing a higher majority of accidence on the way back home on that highway. Making a one clear concise drinking age I think was a good idea because it cut down on accidents. Although that was a good idea the way the federal government went about it I think was wrong because they in a way threatened state and local government saying if you do not lower drinking age then you will not get federal funding for your highways (conditions of aid). Though it does do a lot of good in those kind of terms, I do not believe that they should hold that power over state and local governments to make them comply with rules and regulations. In other words they do not need to bully to get what out of state and local governments. We have different states for a reason to make our own ways to do something. Not to act like everyone else, there is no point to have states if everywhere you go is exactly the same. They hold that funding over the state and local governments like a person holds a treat in front of a dog and teases them with it. If you do not sit you do not get a treat; if you do not follow our rules you do not get money for your highways or transportation. So I am a bit fifty-fifty on the situation because I see where fiscal federalism does good, but I also see the downsides.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states, but only under appropriate conditions. Using conditions of aid to gain power should not be allowed, however in order to gain safety and control within the nation, should cause for the use. In the example where President Reagan singed the NMDAA in 1988 to increase the legal drinking age- states had the choice to comply or deny the act. States that did not comply with the act, lost money towards highway funding. This unfunded federal mandate was used to improve public safety. When a state chose to say, “no” to the act, they were leaving many of their citizens at risk for danger, and the national government essentially wouldn’t fund that state that was not willing to attempt a solution to solve the issue of safety. This example is prime to the time that is appropriate for the national government to step in and attempt to increase public safety.
ReplyDeleteThere are two sides to fiscal federalism. One side is that fiscal federalism provides the states an incentive to oblige by there rules or funding will get cut. The other side could be looked at as "big government" try to control the states. While i agree with some of the incentives that fiscal federalism provides, i surely disagree with the a few parts. I believe that the USA is a land of opportunity and freedom. The people should be able to know the rules of the government which is provided and followed by each state as the same. Whether the states want to lower the drinking age to 18 or make make marijuana legal it should be a vote of the people within that state. The states should be able to make these decisions without being blackmailed by big government with cuts within that states funding. While there are some flaws to this policy i believe that it also does provide some good. The extra funding that the national government provides to the states to oblige by these rules keeps the states more safe. This helps create more highways, better education along other things. Moreover, fiscal federalism could be viewed as either good or bad depending on your opinion. Overall I believe its a two sided street that is both destructive and helpful at the same time.
ReplyDeleteThe Federal government is very important in uniting the 50 states that we call America. Without a bigger governing body watching over the states, instead of America being made up of 50 states that work together towards a common goal, America would be 50 individual nations most likely fighting over land and boundaries. The Federal aid is what keeps the states to stay loyal and not just succeed from America. If states choose not to comply with the Federal government then they can possibly lose their federal funding.
ReplyDeleteThe drinking age example that was used in class is a good example of what happens when a nation is not on the same page and each state has their own laws. People in one state would drive to another because the drinking age was 21 at one, and 18 at the other. So kids would leave one state to drink at another and that stretch of highway had a high number of crashes and deaths. Where if, all the states had the same laws, the kids would not have to drive to find a lower drinking age where they can drink legally. Instead, it would be illegal for them to drink anywhere (until they reach the correct age) and would be much fewer drunk driving accidents on that stretch of highway.
I believe that "unfunded federal mandates" in the United States are unconstitutional. They basically defeat the purpose of "states' rights", which in my opinion, is one of the greatest freedoms that Americans have. I find this to be unconstitutional because it is simply the definition of blackmailing. The federal government basically says that states have the right to agree or to not agree with their proposed legislation, but that they are taking the risk of being declined federal funds if they don't. Since the constitution says that the states have the right to their own opinions on laws that aren't listed in the constitution, I find it to not make any since that the federal government has the right to enforce these "conditions of aid". This being said, I feel that our constitutional system really holds no purpose if the federal government has the right to "slide by" and find a way around all of its rules.
ReplyDeleteThe role that the federal government plays against the states is almost like a bullying scenario to me. I would do anything and everything for the country that I live in but on this specific topic it almost seems as though the states are getting pushed around. I picture this scenario as the feds making demands against states and if the states don't succumb then they are almost in a sense punished through lower fundings. I do although agree with the federal government in their attempt to provide states with incentives through fiscal federalism. For example, they are trying to push the states in a certain direction whether it has to do with highways, drinking age, etc, and if the states abide by these laws their funding does increase. In a sense it is a good way to get a state to do what you want because 9/10 times they will accept an increase of money instead of disagreeing with the feds over a certain issue. Although your opinion on this certain matter could be interpreted many different ways, either from a democrat or republican position or even a certain third party, I believe that the fiscal federalism and no child left behind act provide our system of government with a risk reward scale. Either you follow the strict federal laws that they are trying to imply to states and you will receive extremely generous fundings, or you have the option to disagree and the state will punish you. Overall, isn't the foundation of our nation invested in the states rights, therefore should they really be punished for simply disagreeing?
ReplyDeleteI agree ad disagree with the way government uses there power to persuade the states to do what they want. The states rely on the funds of the national government through grants, so the national government should be able to push them to do what they want. On the other hand blackmailing the states like Reagan did to make the drinking age 21 wasn't that great. Threatening to take away highway funding for all the states that didn't change their drinking age is giving the national government too much power. I think the decision to raise the drinking age was a good idea but it should have been done a different way. I think fiscal federalism isn't that bad and the states should appreciate the money that they get from the national government. We are the United States of America so having the states have more power then he national government would turn the U.S. into 50 different countries.
ReplyDeleteMany would argue that what is the point of having the 21st amendment (which gives states the right to regulate the age consumption of alcohol) if states that uphold that right are punished for setting their drinking ages below 21? Many of the other posters here are correct in their feelings that states are being bullied and manipulated by the Federal government into compliance with unfunded federal mandates by the NMDAA after the South Dakota vs Dole case. States don’t want to lose highway funding from non-compliance, and I would agree with others that this is blackmail. The 10th Amendment grants states the rights to govern themselves on issues not governed by federal forces. Fiscal Federalism; however, leads to better organization and order when it comes to state compliance. This power, granted by the NMDAA to the Federal Government, gives the Federal government the right to withhold aid from states. Withholding aid from states is always a bad idea in any sense. For example, many studies have shown just how much of a failure the No Child Left Behind Act has been.
ReplyDeleteLet’s look at the other side of the argument though. Studies, like those brought up in class, give a glimpse into the positive affects of this change like the two schools with the different age laws. Higher drinking ages were giving data of lower DUI accidents. MADD would agree with that notion- that a higher drinking age saves lives. Having younger, inexperienced adults behind the wheel of a car while they are drunk is a terrible combination. Also, the online article points out that studies had shown prior to 1984 that a youth’s developing brain, which isn’t fully developed until age 21, was negatively affected by alcohol. From a medical standpoint there seemed to be an “invisible hand” by the federal government in protecting the developing brains of its citizens.
There are enough exemptions and exceptions to the NMDAA that many states haven’t bothered to change anything and by 1988 the age was set to 21 everywhere. There exist religious, medical, and parental exemptions for those under the age of 21 to drink alcohol. In 30 states, A parent can give their child a drink as long as the adult buys it and are with the child when they consume it. There are medical exemptions for those under 21 being able to drink medicine containing alcohol, and religious exemptions for church members to drink wine during congregation.
Things might change in the future though if states were to somehow come into their own source of funding that would give them enough brass into lowering the drinking age, causing non-compliance and a loss of 5-10% funding. I doubt there are any definitive answers into solving the issues that exist between supporting fiscal federalism while also supporting states’ rights.
I HATE the fact that the federal government can and will put limitations on funding to states if they disagree with a law or any other term passed down by the government. It certainly seems like this is an instance where the government strong arms the states into submission because, without the federal funding, states and their constituents would suffer. I believe it is wrong to push policies this way and it alludes to a government that can and will do whatever they see fit, without approval of the people and that's not the type of democracy I want to be a part of.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this post because the only way the federal government can enforce federal law is to withhold the funding they supply the states with. I think the states already have a great deal of power, though nothing like what they had operating under the Articles Of Confederation, and without the government holding this federal funding over the states heads then we would no longer be a unified nation. Unity is key to this democratic nation and though the government may pass some laws or policies that the states don't agree with we must all remember that our elected officials have the best information and the betterment of this country as a whole at the forefront of their minds. If we do not trust in our government to make the right decisions then what kind of democracy do we live in?
DeleteFiscal federalism is an unruly system that leaves the states utterly helpless to do the bidding of the national government. As many on here have hinted at before, I too agree that fiscal federalism is essentially just a form of blackmail. The incentives that they provide for states choosing to enforce "good public policy" should be something they receive regardless. Every state is very different in many aspects, therefore, what may be right for one area could be a terrible thing in another. The national government shouldn't be able to diminish the power of the states through fiscal federalism, states obviously know what's best for themselves and what policies are wanted by their residents. How fiscal federalism hasn't been deemed unconstitutional is beyond me. It is an extortionist system that infringes upon states rights and the 10th amendment. Democrats and republicans have both hated this system at one time and only approve of it when it allows their party to get the upper hand in policy making. Limitations need to be enforced on fiscal federalism in order to make it a more constitutional system. The national governments choices for the states need to be revised, under the current system it's A) Follow our policy and receive your grant or B) go against the national government"s policy and receive nothing. This isn't much of a choice for the states, they need federal grant money to thrive and they have no choice but to follow the federal governments policies. Instead I believe the national government should pose a more fair choice to the states that actually gives them an option. Perhaps the national government could allocate a decent percentage of the grant money to the states regardless of whether they accept the national governments policies thus allowing them to receive some compensation without accepting the national government's policy.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is essentially a way for the national government to blackmail state governments into doing whatever it is that the federal government wants, by threatening to remove monetary support from the states. The federal government understands and uses to there advantage that states need the financial support to properly function, and use this to force states into enforcing laws or creating programs they may not agree with.
ReplyDeleteI see both sides of this argument. Fiscal Federalism is a great idea in concept. The states desperately need funding from the national government. However, the national government certainly uses this to manipulate the states. Every state has different needs, and what is best for one state will not be best for another. Although the nation does need to have some uniformity, I support state's rights. Cutting funding for the states when the states do not do exactly what the government wants is absurd, although very effective for the national government. Fiscal Federalism makes it very easy for the national government to abuse its power. Block grants are a much more appropriate choice to be given to the states. Therefore, the states can use the money at their digression.
ReplyDeleteAs is usual with American politics, for me this seems to be a question of what works in theory versus practice. Theoretically, I absolutely support limitless use of condition of aid. Of course, this use of condition of aid would still practically be limited by pushback from politicians (hopefully) representing their state's and citizen's interests, as well as pushback from citizens themselves. In Practice, many condition of aid policies have ended up having a negative impact on states and the US as a whole. Examples of this include the drinking age limit, (far more importantly) No Child Left Behind, and the ridiculously arbitrary requirement that public schools must teach about the Constitution on Constitution Day to receive funding. On the other hand, requiring state funding for Medicaid and establishing a lower DUI cutoff are (from my perspective) examples of good public policy.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, I suppose it boils down to what I believe a lot of issues in American government boil down to. Condition of aid would be a fantastic instrument if we had concerned citizens who actually paid attention to state elections and elected effective policy-makers at the state level rather than corporate shills and those who blindly follow the party line. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Regardless, I'm still of the opinion that condition of aid is an okay instrument that is necessary to support some crucial government programs such as Medicaid, despite the silly impact it can have on some issues and the fairly devastating impact it can have on others (here's to you, No Child Left Behind.)
Unlike many of my classmates, I fully support the Federal government using sanctions and conditions of aid to influence the states. From history, we have seen that it's not always best for the US as a whole for the states to be left to make their own changes and decisions about things that can greatly effect the country as a whole, such as inter-state taxes and currency. Where, as we discussed in class, saw that having each state be different, caused many problems that weakened the country. With something such as changing the drinking law or the speed limit, they are enacted as a way to benefit society as a whole. Setting the drinking age to 21 is thought to account for less drunk driving accidents and less underage drinking in general. Setting the speed limit to 55 across the nation was a response to a crisis concerning lack of oil and was meant to reduce it's use across the country.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there should be some limitations and each condition of aid should be highly scrutinized for it's effectiveness and changed or abolished accordingly. Two great examples of when this was needed are with the national maximum speed limit and no child left behind. As you can read briefly here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law#Opposition_and_noncompliance
The biggest problem with the National Maximum speed law was the fact that many states and most motorist, did not comply with the law despite the many consequences that had been put into place. When it came to this type of sanction, it was simply impossible, even with the fiscal ramifications for the states, for the federal government to control the actions of the people and the states. As for the idea that it's "bullying", as many of my classmates have commented, I don't believe that's really the case. It's simply a legitimate way for the federal government to put pressure on the states to conform. Much in the way that say a parent, who is the sole money provider for a child, offers to either give money, or take it away depending on certain behaviors, such as cleaning their room or maintaining high grades, to shape the child into a respectable adult, the federal government is simply trying to shape the states as a whole for the benefit of the people.
With no child left behind, there are many aspects of it that had unforeseen consequences, such as penalizing schools that have a diverse population or who had been doing well at a consistent level but could not improve each year to the amount the program expected and therefore would loose funding. You can find details on one of the unforeseen consequences of No Child Left Behind here : http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/penalizing-diverse-schools
Once again, I am a supporter of using conditions of aid to influence the states, however I am realistic in realizing that it is not always effective and each instance much be scrutinized in it's effectiveness and whether or not it actually benefits the country and states.
The federal government has always been and always will be a powerhouse making a majority of the decisions for the people of the states. Even if a state and local government vote and adapt new ideas (e.i. Colorado and marijuana laws), well just because the people of the given state voted on it does not mean it is actually legal and can be charged on a federal level. State and local governments rely heavily on the financial assistance the federal government provides states.
ReplyDeleteWith grants and financial assistance from the federal government their is a burden placed on the state government to follow orders of the federal government. Look back at Reagan in office, he threatened states with their funding if each state did not increase the drinking age to twenty one. States that follow the federal governments are rewarded financially, the states that do not want to be a puppet of the federal government receive zero financial gains.
I can see both sides of the "conditions of aid" argument, unfortunately it is a grey area that has both ups and downs. For example I believe that the government using incentives such as cracking down on the drinking age and DUI's is a positive reinforcement. If the states want funding for certain things such as highway, construction, etc. then they must enforce the laws at a high rate. I see nothing wrong with this method in this particular case because the goal is to essentially save people's lives and make the road a more safe place to be for all. That is an instance that government's control on funding is a beneficial move. However the "No Child Left Behind Act" has a few flaws. There are some things that cannot be controlled, no matter how wonderful a teacher is they cannot force a student to learn and to put forth effort on exams. When this act was implemented I was in school and I saw kids that just circled any answer on tests because they were lazy. This is not the teacher's fault and it is not fair that their funding be cut due to lack of participation by the students. Government grants are great but I believe they must be judged on a case by case basis, because each circumstance must be handled differently to remain effective.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if the issue that the Condition of Aid is used with is a country wide issue, that endangers citizens that could cause immediate critical health risks, then the federal government can use it. No matter what a person may think about the lack of funds the state is receiving, it is a just cause for the states to withhold funding for highways should the states not raise the drinking age because drinking can cause serious health risks for someone who just turned 18. The limitations however should be that if it is a minor condition that they are withholding funds for, like unclean streets, than the Conditions of Aid should not be used.
ReplyDeleteI am a heavy supporter of states rights therefore I am against the NMDAA and the federal Government. The way I see it, is that the national government is bribing states to make decsions by putting money on their heads. For example states that would not raise their drinking age to 21 would lose 10 percent of their national funding. National highways is another example how money can change everything. I understand that states were free to say no, but national funding is extremely important to these states. This forces states to make decsions against there will.
ReplyDeleteThe state and local governments cannot operate without financial aid from the government making Fiscal federalism necessary. It is a balancing act between the national government supporting the state and local governments and them crossing the line to controlling them. The national government putting conditions on the aid the states receive may be positive in some instances to keep the country unified under laws that can be enforced across state lines; but also is forcing the states to adhere to what the national government wants, disregarding each individual states needs. The national government gives the states power to make their own laws but the states know if the laws they which to enforce do not follow the plan of the national government then the national government would make it basically impossible by threatening their funding. Fiscal federalism makes it possible for the states to get a lot more accomplished, but the national government knows in the end they have to power because they control the majority of the funds.
ReplyDeleteWhile the national government frequently uses Fiscal Federalism to "blackmail" states into adopting certain policies, this is best examined on a case-by-case basis.
ReplyDeleteSome examples of Fiscal Federalism are positive in the sense that they coerce states to adopt something that supports the welfare of the states' citizens. An example of this would be the raising of the legal drinking age to 21. This policy saves lives, and statistics back up it's effectiveness: http://www.washingtonaccidentbooks.com/blog/drinking-age-law-history-statistics-accidents-and-the-law/
Other examples show a clear abuse of Fiscal Federalism. The National Maximum Speed Limit(NMSL) was forced on the states with the threat of withdrawal of federal funding for the maintenance and repair of highways. Not only was this policy met with opposition of the states, but it also failed to meet it's goals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law
So, while it can be easy to paint Fiscal Federalism as either good or bad, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Fiscal Federalism can be an instrument of good and a tool of ignorance and failure, depending on how it is used.
I genuinely despise how much power the federal government has on the states and the citizens that live in them. It's just so manipulative that they take away money if you do not do what they say. It is actually really sick. Even if you're allowed to say no to what the federal government requests, it is a lose-lose situation. It is degrading and makes states feel powerless.
ReplyDeleteAnd I bet everyone under the age of 21 hates Ronald Reagan.
I believe that most of the time, conditions for aid are not a bad thing. States have choice of whether they would like to receive federal aid, and nothing constitutionally entitles the states to any federal aid, no matter the issue at hand. Though it may seem like the national government is bullying the states through fiscal federalism, states have the power to alter certain things and cut unnessesary spending so that they do not need the federal aid being offered.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the federal government is primarily made up of people who were elected into that position. Those elected are those who come up laws and policies. Therefore, logically, the majority of people should support the policies these people come up with, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten elected. While there are certain circumstances where this doesn't work out perfectly, this system means that most states should agree with those policies, and it really is not unnecessary bullying.
Finally, fiscal federalism is the reason many good things have come about, even though it may have been like pulling teeth to get us there. For example, No Child Left Behind has helped many schools improve their performances to an acceptable level. Without the incentive of receiving federal aid, many of the nation's school districts would not have the motivation necessary to hire better teachers, improve scores, and other measures that will bring about more educated citizens. According to ed.gov, parents are receiving more help than ever before to help their children make the most of their time in free education, including free tutoring. Schools that are identified as lagging behind the rest can easily be identified through this program and can be considered to receive proper resources that they may not have gotten before had no one seen the need. The report also states that since this policy has gone into effect, schools are achieving more than ever before as a whole.
The state and local governments need funding from the government. The process of balancing power between national government and state is difficult. Some states need the money so bad that they will accept any offer from the federal side. Most of these plans are beneficial and bring money in state while helping make the state itself better and safer. The problem occurs when federal government identifies a monetary weakness and manipulates a state to get what they want. Luckily this is a thing that very rarely happens. With fiscal federalism both the state and federal government get what they want and everything is held in check.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Fiscal Federalism is necessary power that should lie in the hands of the Federal Government. It could be argued that it gives too much power over the state and local government but in my opinion it gives a balance of power. Certainly all states are unique in their own way and thus their funds and also their needs lie in different places. But if this type of wealth isn't regulated by the Naational Government it would in turn leave all decision in the hands of the state. I believe that the sanctioning of these large quantity of funds should fact be done by the Federal Government but also leave room for the state to have the final decision on where the money ends up. An example of this would be if the state is granted a certain amount of money for education in the state of West Virginia they would choose to be put towards scholarships for higher education whereas if this money was given to the state of New York (City) they would put the moeny towards highering more teachers in their school system. My only problem with Fiscal Federalism is the government use of money for states as leverage for an unlinear reason. Money that is a neccessity for a state to run properly should not be held over them as blackmail.
ReplyDeleteThe most important fact, to me, that emerges from this practice is that the national government utilizes these conditions of aid to enact beneficial policies that may otherwise go unchecked.
ReplyDeleteIn the examples of speed limits, test scores, or the drinking age, we see policies that are hotly debated and that go through rounds upon rounds of scrutiny before the national government makes the decision to "force" them upon the states through conditions of aid. Sure, the national government is likely to see their desired outcome come to fruition through this technique, but they have used this power for the good of the majority of persons across the U.S.
We do not see them trying to enforce ludicrous policies (again, to the majority of people) by establishing conditions of aid, so I think it is necessary to understand that this power is flexed for the good of the people.
Does this make sense and is it constitutional, though? No, not really. It is certainly a loophole of sorts, but times change and necessary laws need to change with them. Rather than attempting to ratify the constitution (which isn't happening), the federal government found a way to work around these limitations and impose conditions of aid upon states. Again, this is unconstitutional, but it makes sense with respect to the common good.
For me, this comes down to an issue of common sense (which is a horrible base for deconstructing American policy--I know). Laws are never "one-size-fits-all," but, through conditions of aid, the national government is able to closely create "one-size-fits-most" policies, and that, to me, is agreeable.
When, however, the national government begins to use this power to enforce clearly biased or nonsensical agendas, that is where we draw the line and stop any further action (a line which will be blurry and potentially unrecognizable, unfortunately).
In short, this power is fine as long as it is used responsibly, but there is certainly a "slippery slope" implication with regards to the national government's power over states.
I personally can see both arguments concerning fiscal federalism. In order for this country to grow and make the changes needed to progress in these changing times fiscal federalism may be the way to go. If something needs to change and the states are getting something out of it, then it works out and almost everyone benefits. In contrast, I can also see how it can be seen as a form of blackmail as my other classmates said. They say the state has a "choice" and they could say no but if they say no they do not receive grant money. This is almost as the government is giving the state an ultimatum, which doesn't really give off the feeling as a "free" nation. Furthermore, if a state would say no and not receive funding then they are put at a disadvantage and overall lack certain things making them a weaker state than the rest. The government should want all the states to be equally as strong so overall the entire nation is strong. The idea of fiscal federalism is very gray for me because I can easily see how it is an advantage at times and a disadvantage at times.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is a very complex idea to sort out and look at one-sided. I agree with the idea that many people have already mentioned, that it is blackmailing from the national government to set the demands that they have. At the same time, it's not like they set demands in the spirit of a dictator. If the national government did not have some power over the states, then it would be 50 separate countries instead of one union. I think it's fair to set a certain set of standards for states in exchange for money. For the greater good of this country, it is important to keep some power within the national government to allow the whole nation to remain strong and blossom as one. If the states object to the drinking age or the speed limit, then they can try to do something about it by electing new people to the national government. The states still have a lot of power to decide on questions that really matter, such as taxes. More so than in many other federalist countries. I believe in fiscal federalism as long as it is kept within boundaries, and I don't think that the national government have crossed those boundaries yet and I don't think that will happen any time soon.
ReplyDelete-Carl Bojesson
Although the 10th Amendment states that if a power wasn't given to the national government by the Constitution and if the Constitution didn't say that the states CAN'T do it, that power went to the states. These states having this power does not mean they actually have all of this power due to the fact that they are being held accountable by the actions they make. For example, if they didn't increase the drinking age, their funds would be cut. It's a contradicting situation because the states are having all of these repercussions to deal with if they don't act upon what the national government wants them to do. Although Fiscal Federalism can be a positive thing for the states and be able to help the states out, it also just goes to show that the national government knows how to work this system and gain the powers of the states anyway.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism has a few ups and downs. While it's true that many (if not all) states couldn't function without aid from the federal government, I don't like the fact that the government can take money from the states for practically anything they want or for not doing what the government wants them to do. I believe that this was mentioned in class, but in regard to the 55mph speed limit. It may be just fine for the smaller, more densely populated states like West Virginia, but if you go out west to Montana, for example, if you're forced to go 55 throughout the state, well, I hope that you leave about 6 hours early because you aren't going to get anywhere. I feel like forcing states to pass laws like that one, that is to say without really taking what the individual state needs into account is a completely unfair system. On the opposite side, the government can also look at each individual state or the country as a whole and say "Okay, we're behind on education, we need to do something," and give grants to be used specifically for innovations in the classroom. It's easy to see what Bush was aiming for with the No Child Left Behind Act, but I think that he went about that the wrong way. Instead of threatening to take money for not meeting education standards, I feel that offering grants to those states that did meet education requirements, grants to be used for education alone, would have been a better option for him. It didn't make sense to take away the money that they may have needed to bring test scores up. I'm good with state's rights to a point. I think that the states could probably be given a little bit more power, but if they were ever given too much (as history has shown us) eventually we would no longer be the United States of America. I think that we'd probably be more like a cluster of 50 countries that happen to be located together on the North American continent, which was how it was with early settlers, when people were calling themselves Pennsylvanians and Rhode Islanders instead of Americans. States shouldn't be powerful enough that they can just up and leave like the did during the Civil War era. Not to mention how much of a pain it would be if went back to having different forms of currency in each state. All in all, I feel like fiscal federalism could work out if the national government paid more attention to individual state needs and if states could be willing to cooperate with REASONABLE government requests.
ReplyDeleteI believe that conditions of aid are necessary to accomplishing some needed goals like getting states to move the drinking age to 21. As a country it does nothing for showing power if someone can simply cross state borders and drink at a different age. Using conditions of aid to create some sort of agreement between states in not entirely a bad idea, but limits should be in place. States shouldn't have to live with concern over losing the support of their general public over a stipulation the national government wants. Firstly, the US is a huge vast and diverse country and undermining state power in extreme ways such as cutting funding to a necessary project if they don't comply is not taking this into account. State government is more localized. They normally are going to know the state and what is best for that state more than the national government. If the national still finds it essential to use conditions of aid to impose on the state powers then they should be limited to how much they can take fiscally. If they are to be detrimental to the well being of the state and its affairs then it probably is not fair to try and make that particular stipulation
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism has both good and bad aspects. There are definite ups for having the federal government have influence over certain policies. Of course, these ups are only perceived as such by the federal government itself. For example, the federal government is only "providing incentives" for the states to implement policies. And what the Democrats had said is true, most of these policies at least strive to be in the citizens' best interests. Unfortunately, not every state is made up of the same people or the same issues, and the federal government, when making broad, widespread policies, does not always take this into account. In this case, states are probably better off left to their own devices, fiscally at least.
ReplyDeleteI think that it may not nessicarily be right for the government to hold funds based on whether or not states comply with certain rules and regulations but most times it has to happen. If they did not do this then there would be a divide among the states regarding rules and regulations from state to state. The government needs to cut funding in order to get their point across and make states change laws or regulations. Even more recently with the no child left behind act by by president bush, states would receive funding based on how their schools performed. Schools that performed well received more funding than those who performed poorly. just like the drinking age and speed limit problems, if the government did not put its foot down there would be a divide among the states.
ReplyDeleteI think that the national government should be able to have conditions of aid when providing the states with money through grants. I don't like that the national government has the power to tax its citizens through the enforcement of income taxes but that is a different debate. The steady money flow that goes through the national government (via income taxes) should have a set of overall rules or conditions of aid to influence states to prioritize the use of the money. I believe the national government is looking out for the overall good of the nation. There are many examples of the conditions of aid denying states the power to spend the money on other pressing matters, however, I think that there are more chances of corruption in the state and local governments if there were no conditions of aid. The thing of it is, is that there are people that abuse their provided power and there are people who do not but a law cannot pick and choose to be enforced on different individuals. It has to abide to us as an entire group and I believe that is one of the many reasons that the conditions of aid came into play in the national government.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism is clearly something that our nation needs, and something that all states heavily rely on. While this is a great thing that makes all of our states better in some way I feel that the national government abuses their powers with it to some extents. In the argument of drinking ages I feel that it is not justified for them to take away such a large chunk of funding for something as trivial as drinking age. It makes it look the the federal government is bullying the states into doing whatever they want. There is a way around this in my opinion though, as long as states are not afraid to stand up and not allow the federal system to dictate all of their decisions. Taking the drinking age issue for example, if a state wanted to keep the age at 18 then they could just raise the sales tax on all alcohol a decent amount. Then they could take all of the profits received from these new liquor taxes to make up for the 10% revenue loss from the highway systems. They may even produce more that the federal system was providing.
ReplyDeleteI think the Fed Gov should definitely use conditions of aid to get what they want from the states. Lets face it, would the states really comply with everything the Fed Gov asked if there were no consequences of denying the request? No. There has to be some incentive for the states to comply. And that is money. It is a clever way to get things accomplished, and the plans the Fed wish to implement have proven to be useful and improve certain areas of the state.
ReplyDeleteWhile I also believe that Local and State governments need a certain level of independence, I am strongly compelled to argue that laws by the Federal government are of greater help for the country as a whole. Like Ally Brandfass, argues above that the federal government holds the power and influence through its use of taxes, we can safely argue that State and Local governments are dependent on federal governments. The United States is very diverse and holds very different opinions on many issues, the drinking age for instance, however, it is still one nation and each state should be held to the same standard. Most representatives from the different states when creating laws focus on only the needs of its constituents and only those, almost forgetting the bigger/ greater good of the whole country. As a result such a country America needs burkean representation and laws that will lead each state according to the national vision of the country.
ReplyDeleteIn addition conditions of aid bring a sort of coordination between states. For instance, the drinking age condition allows for persons moving from state to state to know the laws and thus making it easier for people to move around the country. The same would apply for speed limits; Not only would coordinated speed limits reduce the number of people both getting into trouble but also the number of pedestrian deaths.
Conditions to aid also allow for the federal government to deal with discrimination found in different states. Each state creates factions that can sometimes create dangerous environments for its minorities. For instance, we have seen such influence help deal with suffrage disenfranchisement. It is always better to give the national government power to oversee and direct state and local governments.