Howard Henry
Period 5
Chapter 3: Federalism
Governmental
Structure
Federalism
is where a National Government makes the final decisions over smaller state and
local governments which make up the country.
These states are protected under this system. A system isn’t federalist unless the smaller
governments have at least some decisions they can make on their own,
however.
The
independence of the local governments comes from the country’s constitution, as
well as the attitude and preferences of the citizens, and the power that the
national government holds. The former
One
complaint about Federalism is that it allows state governments to block action
and slow down the governmental process.
It is said that the system does not work, and may lead the country in
the wrong direction. (The example used in the book is the advancing of
racism.) It’s also argued that
federalism protects individual liberties.
Depending on where you are, power will be used in different ways. This can be used for, of course, good and bad
decisions without national government intervention. Just as one state can help advance racism,
another can pass a law to ban it. A
small group of people can work towards something they believe in, but this
would not happen in a non-federalist country.
People
are more inclined to participate in government if they feel they can change
it. There is a better chance of a person
getting a change made if many officials are elected. This allows for many different areas where one
could try to get the change started.
This makes political involvement in the
The Founding
Federalism
was issued by the Framers to protect personal liberties. As with the separation of power, this was to
keep one person from gaining too much power.
In a confederation, power comes from the state and local governments,
which is then used to form a federal government. This is what the states were running under
the Articles of Confederation (1776-1787).
Under this system, the national government depends on the states’ unity,
which causes a lot of problems.
Federalism was meant to have the Federal and Local governments, neither
having more power than the other, so that if a citizen was having problems with
one, he could turn to the other for help.
At the
The
Founders knew that they could not spell out every little detail of the
government in the constitution, so they used elastic language that could be interpreted
as needed depending on what circumstances arose.
The Debate on the
Meaning of Federalism
The Civil War proved that the National government
was supreme, and that the states could not secede from the union. Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall, in a series of cases, gave
definition to the constitution. In McCulloch vs. Maryland, it was
determined that Congress had the power to set up a bank, using the Necessary
and proper clause:
"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the
constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to
that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit
of the Constitution, are constitutional."
The case also determined that a state could not tax the federal government,
since "the power to tax is the power to destroy." Later on, the
Supreme Court declared that just as the state could not tax the federal
government, that the government could not tax the interest people earn on state
and municipal bonds. In 1988, they changed their minds, though, yet
Congress hasn't used this power. Nullification is the power of states to
void federal laws. John C. Calhoun of
In may
2000, the supreme court overruled the Violence Against Women Act of 1994,
claiming that attackers against women do not disrupt the stream of interstate
commerce and thus Congress could not pass a law that would allow women to sue
their attackers in a federal court. In
Printz v.
“The initiative allows voters
to place legislative measures (and sometimes constitutional amendments)
directly on the ballot by getting enough signatures (usually between 5 and 15 percent
of those who voted in the last election) on a petition.” A referendum allows voters to reject a
measure adopted by the legislature A
recall lets voters remove elected officials from office.
Federal-State
Relations
What
A land grant was money given
to states to develop roads, canals, railroads, and flood control projects. These grants’ use was left almost entirely to
the sates. Grants-in-aid amounted to
less than $6 million per year in 1915, “by 1925 over $114 million was spent; by
1937 the figure was nearly #300 million.”
By 1985, there was over $100 billion a year used for grants-in-aid,
spent through more than 400 programs.
The federal government cannot spend money not authorized by the
constitution, so they give the money to the states to run the programs they
want done.
There are four reasons why
states like federal money. The first is
that there was money available at the time.
In the 1880’s
During the 1960s, the federal
government stopped focusing on what the states needed and started focusing on
what was important for national needs, such as drug abuse. This took power away from governors who wanted
to spend the money on what was best for their communities. This happened to stop states dependant on the
federal money. State and Local officials
made a lobby consisting of mayors, goobers, school superintendents, state
directors, county highway commissioners, police chiefs and others who depend on
federal funds. This lobby didn’t work
because they could only increase the amount of money, but not how much of it
went to any specific area. So now, over
31 states, more than 2 dozen countries and more than one hundred cities are
represented in Washington, some small, some large.
A categorical grant is one
granted with a specific purpose, such as to build an airport. These usually require states to put up some
of its own money as well, although it’s usually a small amount. Governors don’t like these because they are
too narrow, not allowing them to adopt the money to local needs. As a result, block grants came into play. Block grants are grants given for a general
purpose, allowing a bit more freedom in how they are spent. Revenue Sharing gave even more freedom,
allowing the state to spend the money with no matching, or requirements by the
government on what to spend the money on.
This program was ended in 1986 after the government spent #85 billion in
14 years.
The Slowdown in
“Free” Money
Congress and the bureaucracy
liked categorical grants because of their specificity, which allowed for great
federal control. Therefore, they grew
faster than Block Grants. Whenever
Congress wanted to solve a problem, they set up a block categorical grant so
they, and not the states, could decide who controlled the money. Also, because block grants and revenue sharing
were so broad based, a single interest group didn’t have an advantage in
pressing for one to be given.
Categorical grants often control many agencies depending on the
money. The amount of spending on
revenues sharing (increased 11% between 1975 and 1978) is less than the amount
of categorical grants (increased 56% between 1975 and 1978). Revenue sharing resulted in a wasteful way of
helping the poor because every community (including the rich and the poor) got
the revenues sharing money.
States that depend on federal
money will, of course, compete over it for the larger share. How this money is spent is determined by a
formula which takes a cities population, personal income, and housing quality
in an area into account. A city losing
population may lose millions in federal aid money.
Federal Aid and
Federal Control
The conditions some federal
money comes with may void the tenth amendment.
Categorical grants continued to grow rapidly after block grants and
revenue sharing slowed down. The two kinds of federal control over state
governments when referring to federal money are conditions of aid and
mandates. Conditions of aid are strings
attached to federal money which a state must do in order to qualify for the
money. Mandates are rules that are set
by the federal government that must be followed if a state takes a grant;
sometimes they have nothing to do with federal aid.
Mandates usually protect
civil rights, stopping discrimination against race, sex, age, ethnicity, or any
physical or mental disabilities.
Environmental mandates for pollution control have also been required by
the federal government. Mandates create
problems when the language is vague.
Mandates can vary greatly in what they ask for. Efforts were made by the 104th
Congress to slow down mandates by not funding them. The courts have helped the growth of
mandates, the most noticeable example being the desegregation of schools.
Conditions of aid, in theory,
can be avoided by simply not taking the money, but this isn’t always practical. When a state depends on the federal money,
they have to take the strings that come along with it. Some conditions are consistent with the
grant, such as loosing highway aid money if the state doesn’t start a highway
beautification program. Other conditions
are more general, pertaining to most grants, such as a state having to conduct
an environmental impact study if they build something with federal money. States and the federal government disagree
about the costs of these rules. Congress
began to pass laws requiring states to do something, and leaving them with the
bill. State and local officials must try
to balance their benefits with the costs of the conditions. Reagan wanted congress to change 83
categorical grants into 6 large block grants, all without limits on how the
states could spend the money. But
Congress change the categorical grants into 9 block
grants, all of which with conditions of aid.
The public did not revolt against this but instead produced “higher
service levels than otherwise would have been the case.”
A Devolution
Revolution?
When Congress wanted to shift
power back to the States, the first issue was welfare. The Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) since 1935 has helped low income, unmarried mothers and their children
by giving them money through the states.
Since it started, the number of children born out of wedlock has risen
dramatically.
There are three types of
block grants: Operational grants give
money for running programs, Capital grants give money for building things, and
Entitlement grants give money to families and individuals. From 1966 to 1994, none of the funds were for
major entitlement programs. So in 1995,
29% of the money went to operating programs, 67% to capital programs, and only
4% went to entitlement programs.
Together, AFDC and Medicaid accounted for half of all grant spending,
and were considered entitlement programs.
Since they’re block grant programs, every state gets a share of its
funds. Devolution of welfare programs has
started second-order devolution (“a flow of power and responsibility from the
states to local governments”) and third-order devolution (“an increased role of
nonprofit organizations and private groups in policy implementation.”). The number of people on welfare dropped from
14.1 million to 8.9 million. Devolution
has increased spending, instead of decreasing.
Devolution is increasing
because of three reasons: “the beliefs
of devolution’s proponents, the realities of deficit politics, and the views of
most citizens.” People believe, guided
by mistrust in the government, that if the state governments had more power,
the programs that are wasteful will be eliminated. Congress wanted to make cuts in entitlement
spending, so they gave the responsibility to the local governments. Most citizens favor the idea of
devolution. 73% opposed cutting Medicaid
and other programs, the only exception being AFDC, in which only 35% opposed
cutting it.
Congress and
Federalism
The