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the threat of losing highway grant money to get states to: raise the drinking age to 21, lower the speed limit to 55 (no longer in effect), or lower the cutoff for DUI from .10% to .08%.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 2:00 pm on Monday, September 15, and you may again earn up to 4 points for your blog posts. Note a few other things:
1. There will be no class on September 15, as I will be attending a memorial service for a departmental colleague.
2. On Wednesday, September 17, I will hand out a review sheet for exam #1, and we will have some time for review. I will also post that review sheet to the blog and give you the opportunity to ask questions on the blog, via email, and during office hours.
3. Exam #1 will take place on Monday, September 22. All you need to bring is photo ID and a pen. More details later.
4. Please note that you should be beginning work on your journal on the 2014 elections in WV, and you should also make sure to do your meeting observation papers. Don't wait until the last minute for these easy points!--NB
I cannot give a clear answer for this question because we cannot always predict the future actions of our politicians. Our politicians make decisions based on our present and the future. If they wish to create a new policy or amend a current one, they look into current situations and determine what the future ramifications will be if the situation is addressed or goes untouched.
ReplyDeleteLooking back at past legislations and their resulting laws, I believe federal mandates have, overall, served our government good. In the past unfunded mandates were utilized to amend or address civil rights, poverty and environmental protection. Some of these include the Clean Air Act from 1970, Medicaid, and The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. There are many others, however these three serve as prime examples that national government intervening in state and local affairs can have positive repercussions.
The national government is meant to serve our nation and perform in the best interests of our country as a whole. Sometimes the states can interfere with what is best for the country. The Civil War serves as a prime example of when states’ actions were not in the best interest of the country. Southern states such as South Carolina and Georgia were not ready to give up slavery and reconfigure their agricultural economies into more industrial economies like the ones in Boston and New York. The southern states defended their operation of government and even tried to succeed, acting only in their own interests. After four years of fighting and over a million dead Americans, the south would eventually give in and surrendered their slaves and their agricultural economies. The national government got its way and laws were passed for all states to abide by to better benefit the future of the nation.
However, I wish to reiterate that I am not taking the national government’s side. I only mean that an argument can be made in favor of the national government, and so one can be made for the state/local governments.
State and local governments act with a more direct line of communication with the people, so when the national government creates laws that affect all states, it is likely to affect each state differently based on location, economy, geography, and culture. The president in Washington D.C. does not always know what is happening along the slopes of the Rockies or the back roads of the Bible Belt. The nation-wide set speed limit discussed in class is an excellent example of national government not considering state government’s interest. Though a 55 mph speed limit on a New Jersey or Pennsylvania highway may be acceptable, it may seem very slow compared highways in state such as Texas or South Dakota where highways are bigger, longer and less busy.
Someone who argues in favor of the state/local governments may also say that the national government doesn’t need to intervene with the state because they already know what to do. Certain laws pertaining to subjects with variance in each state such as education, environmental protection and transportation should be left to the states. The National government should keep to broad-spectrum laws where the legislation wouldn’t differ from state to state.
One could say the national government has many pitfalls. It's role with fiscal federalism is at the top of that list.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with the idea of the national government withholding funds from states if they don't adhere to government conditions. This always seemed very forceful and unfair to the states. States should retain a certain right to choose if they will take part in law. And if they don't agree with it they don't have to take part. Taking state's government funds for not taking part in a law is unacceptable.
It's very hard to find a positive in a situation in which states are forced to follow a national law or lose funding. Really the only positive that can be found is that once a state adheres to government rule they will get their funding. But also means the state had to cave to something they didn't agree with in the first place, to get funding they would otherwise need.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEach official we vote into office has one job. That job is to give each person in our country an equal opportunity to do whatever they please. Both government officials and politicians base their decisions off of what they believe is in our best interest as citizens of the United States of America. Although there are often times, much debate and controversy over newly created policies, our leaders are constantly comparing our pasts to our futures, and what is in our best interest as citizens. Amending national policies is definitely an ongoing action, however I strongly feel that the national government taking money from the states that do not agree with government policies is extremely unreasonable.
ReplyDeleteAs a country, we recognize a fair and peaceful life as the ideal life for each citizen. However, if you ask me this idea seems like quite the opposite that this policy explains. Just like as individuals we have rights to think, say, and do what we want, I feel that states should also have these same rights without being penalized. Only giving the states two options: either abiding to national law or losing funding is without a doubt absurd. To analyze the idea that states must feel a way they do not, just so that state can get money is in no way a fair concept. Each state should be able to abide to what they chose with having nothing to lose!
I think for the most part conditions of aid is a good thing but its really a situational debate. For example, the speed limit. The national government saying each state needs to have a speed limit of 55 mph is a little ignorant. Every state has a different landscape. If a state has a flat more straight layout I don't think they would need a slower speed limit. But if a state has a more mountainous curvy landscape then maybe they would benefit from a slower speed limit for the safety of everyone driving on the highway.
ReplyDeleteIf you bring up the drinking age though, I think conditions of aid is fair in that sense. Yes, South Dakota got around that one, but for the most part it is not unfair of hurting the well being of people to wait a couple years to be able to legally drink and buy alcohol. They did that for the simple fact that too many young teens would getting killed in drunk driving accidents. This was just the national government looking out for the states. In those situations it is definitely fair. Conditions of aid would have been every beneficial back in the day when schools were desegregating. Many public schools in the South were refusing to let African Americans into their schools so the national government had to send armed military forces to those schools to make sure they desegragated. Conditions of aid would have been good back then so the national government could've said hey, for any school in the South that does not desegregate we will take away 10% or more of your funding for education. Guarantee that would've made schools think twice about what they did.
For the most part I think conditions of aid is a good thing. I do not think any limitations need to placed on it as long as it is the national government looking out for the well being of the states. I don't think it ever hurts the states in anyway, Yes the 10th Amendment does give states any power that is not stated the national government has. But the national government is a higher power than state and local government and as long as it is fair and will not hurt anyone or any of the states I don't think it is a big deal is the national government jumps in a kind of controls what the states do.
The question on whether or not federal government should have the right to control states is not an easy one, and I do not think that it deserves a yes or no answer, because if I say yes, then I am wrong, and if I say yes, then I am wrong. There has been plenty of solutions offered and many debates by some of the most intelligent people in politics, and still it seems that no one is happy. So I think that a good answer would be to find a happy medium. I think that it should be conditional, a case-by-case basis. http://mises.org/daily/4188 An Excerpted from a lecture delivered in 1866 and published in 1907 in Historical Essays and Studies suggests that when it comes to the oppression of race, religion, and any other unfair oppression should be unlawful and taken into the hands of the federal government. Fellow student Tristan Webster makes a fair point when he points out all of the good that the government has addressed such as The American Disabilities Act, Medicaid and many others. Another example where federalism played a large role, is the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteFederalism played a large role in the Civil War and there were many lives lost for the right of freedom. In the end, the government won and slavery was abolished. This is a prime example of why the government should have the say in what states do when it is oppressive to anyone, whether it is based on gender, sexuality, disabilities and every other group that can be, or would be, discriminated against.
Lets give what we talked about in class for example, when it comes to the drinking age, Professor Berch stated that there has been research that the mind or body is not fully developed by the age 21. If this is true, then it would benefit all people under the age of 21 not to be drinking. I think it is fair for the government to be able to take away that money from the highway because they are trying to help they well being of all of the states citizens and if it is their choice not to take the advice of not only the government but by doctors who conducted studies, then thats fine but there will be reproductions. Im sure that there are in flaws in what I am proposing and that there are a million ways to attack it, but I think there can be a solid argument for each the government and the states
An argument for the states would be where they can spend the money that they receive from the government in grants. States know their population, and are more connected and involved then the federal government and the states could better handle where the money goes than to an overly specific area the government see fit, for example Bushes No Child Left Behind. It was based on testing scores and did not look close enough at why the scores were so low and that idea that some of that grant money should go to special needs departments, especially for more resources to help identify exceptional leaners. The rights for states and government each have their own problems, I think that the key is to come up with a solution that can help states keep power, but to allow the government conditional amounts of regulation.
I'm indifferent when it comes to the federal government using conditions of aid to influence the states.
ReplyDeleteWhy no could be an option: The idea of fiscal federalism is the opposite of what the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is saying. According to the authors of "America at Odds", the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not delegated to the national government to the states and to the people (pg. 66). So, if we are following the Constitution, how has this been happening all along? The federal government been telling the states what to do, and overpowering things that the states (under the Constitution) generally have control of i.e. the minimum drinking age, speed limits, and No Child Left Behind. That being said, fiscal federalism isn't really following our Constitution. In my opinion, it's empowerment at it's finest. The federal government is "it". If you don't follow them, then they will make things harder on you by losing federal funding. Just like during the Reagan years, the national government wanted the states to lower their drinking age to 21 in order to receive highway funds. Fiscal federalism at its finest, and it shouldn't be okay. Just like Danielle said above, speed limits should not be the same throughout, different states have different landscapes, and the governments responsibility should be to make suggestions to states individually but not withhold funding if they don't comply.
Why yes could be an option: We should all be treated equal under the law. I like to think that the federal government puts these mandates into place in order to better their nation and their citizens. As fellow students stated above, unfunded mandates have done some great things for equality in our country. For instance the ADA passed in the 1990's. This act allowed equality for people with disabilities. It required the states to prohibit discrimination in employment, public services, public accommodations and telecommunications (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/1990s/ada.html). It's very interesting to me that this act is only 24 years old, in my opinion, it should never have taken that long for the disabled to have an act sticking up for them. I know not many people like the No Child Left Behind Act, and I'm not saying that it isn't flawed, but I can give the federal government credit for trying to get all students to have the same education, but we all know that will never happen. The drinking age is a good thing in my opinion. According to an article by MIT, the pre-frontal cortex of the brain isn't fully developed until the mid-twenties. The pre-frontal cortex is the part of the brain that is associated with planning and problem solving http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html. Alcohol can and will affect a developing person's brain. Maybe the federal government did this in order to protect their citizens.
Dealings with any Government, both state, local and federal will always be controversial. As I stated above, there are reasons why it shouldn't be okay, but there are also positive things that have come from fiscal federalism. It would be nice if we could find a way for the federal government to make suggestions for the state governments without them just completely taking funds, but I'm not positive that would ever happen.
Samantha Gaspar
Like others have mentioned, the arguments over conditions of aid are situational. In many cases, such as highway repair and education, the state usually knows more about the problem than national government. The problems faced by those in Maryland won't necessarily be the same problems faced by people living in Arizona. However, the national government may have it's own interest in mind.
ReplyDeleteSo in cases like these, when the federal government gives grant X to a state with condition Y, it becomes less about what that state needs and more about the national government's own agenda. A solution to this money mismatch could be the federal and state government meeting together, discussing the grants in depth and if they'll actually be effective in the way the fedral government thinks. The federal government shouldn't strong-arm states into doing their bidding.
I agree with the majority of my classmates so far, that conditions of aid are an oppressive form of governmental rule. While I see the point that Danielle Knebel made a few posts above about the mandates being in the best interest of the states, I don't think the federal government should have the power to force the states into agreement. Just because something is "good" for you doesn't mean you should have to do it. And what's good for one person might be bad for another, like in the case of the 55 mph speed limit designation. Something that works in one state may be detrimental in another, which is why having state and local governments is such a positive system: We are given the ability to tailor laws to what works for our physical, political and personal environment. The federal government gave the states the right to operate under that system, and instituting conditions of aid is just a surreptitious way of taking them away.
ReplyDeleteI think my classmate John Shaver also brought up a good point in saying that these situations often seem to become more about the federal government's private agenda than what is truly needed for the states. They mask a mandate as a positive thing, such as increasing the drinking age to lower the number of teen deaths, but by attaching these conditions it brings an overall negative feeling of oppression, and oftentimes have other reasons behind them which are undisclosed. This type of oppressive action is something Americans historically have not stood for, and likely will continue to revolt against. It just creates friction between the state and federal governments - such as in South Dakota v. Dole or in the example from class in which Montana gave out vouchers to use on speeding tickets - that is unnecessary and detrimental to the overall good of the nation.
I have to agree with you that one law my be good for one state but not for another. Maybe they should do more research into each individual state.
DeleteThe national government should not use conditions of aid to influence the states even it's constitutional. States receive about 25% of their funding from the federal government. By taking away a possible 10% because they don't limit their drinking age to 21, would almost cut their revenue in half. Obviously, that demonstrates how important federal funding is to the state highway system. By placing conditions of aid, the state isn't left with the choice of whether or not they feel it is necessary or worth while. Without the money, it's evident that their highways would suffer. After some time, one would imagine that the highway would become hazardous and that state would have to cut corners elsewhere, leaving other things such as education, suffering. Conveniently enough, the federal government also made this an unfunded federal mandate which means that the states are still going to have to use up their own resources in order to uphold the law. In hindsight, I'm not sure how the state's benefit from this law at all. Not only do they have to deal with disgruntled residents, but they have to make sure that they maintain the law so that their highway funds are not cut. Now, one could say that since the federal government pays for the state highways then they should be allow to dictate the laws pertaining to the highways. However, it's unlikely that states only use 10% of their revenue on their highways. At one point or another, it's possible that a state would have to dip into funds that are not federally funded. So how exactly is that fair to the state? They're paying for their highways too, and yet the federal government calls all the shots. Not to mention that the legal drinking age isn't the only problem concerning state highways, so why does the federal government find this law more important than say texting, speeding, etc? I have to agree with my fellow peers that it seems the federal government is setting their own agenda with conditions of aid because the 10th Amendment limits powers that they want. Then they attempt to mask the negativity of their actions by stating that they are "saving lives." I agree, they probably have saved many lives with this law. However, it's not like they eliminated the problem altogether by placing these conditions.
ReplyDeleteWhitney,
DeleteI agree with you, I do not think that the government should use conditions of aid to influence the states. It may be constitutional, but I still find it sketchy because the government has found a way around their own system and uses it to their own advantage. It's true that new laws should be created, I just think that there should be a more justifiable way of creating them rather than having the states at the mercy of the government.
I think that the fiscal government has given the option to states to either abide buy their suggestions of laws or loose ten percent of funding. Like it says in the one article they are not forcing any state to pass the laws because they aren't taking all their funding. They just withhold a certain percent. I think that this ok because in the situation of the raising drinking age to 21 helps with less accidents on high ways of young kids. We all know that most accidents happen with young adults so why should they be able to drink and drive at young age and add to the risk. I believe that the government is making laws with our best interest in mind. I don't think any real unjust laws are being pushed. Even the medical insurance law that Obama has passed isn't such a bad idea for people. I just think that the prices are way to high for some to afford. The concept was good but more planning needed to be put into it. In that case some people would be better off to pay the fine at the end of the year. In conclusion I am just saying that it isn't such a bad idea for the little bit of persuasion of 10% to get what is needed done, also a choice is always given! amber wagner
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the laws being changed is good, but the federal government still manipulated the state governments. The found a way around one of our bill of rights and what did they do, use it. Our government is not a good role model.
DeleteAmber Ringer
ReplyDeleteNo, they shouldn’t its manipulation and corruption. The “no child left behind” program is great. My daughter had a reading problem and the school did everything they could to help her. Her reading is now advanced. I didn’t know that came about because of government pressure. I agree with the drinking age being higher, also. The way the federal government went about getting these laws changed was morally incorrect and against our constitutional right. Wording is the key to any argument and you can almost always find a loop whole, that’s the problem with laws and regulations. There’s no way to make some things completely solid, power hungry people will find a way to overrule it. The sad part is, is that they think their right. This kind of behavior roles over into the American population making the everyday citizen think that it’s ok to act in such a manor. There’s other ways to influence people on making laws to help insure the education and safety of our American people.
I don't think that the national government should be able to keep money away from the states based on whether or not certain laws are passed. To me, I just think that this is an unfair treatment to the states and just further proves that states are very dependent on the national government, and in turn is just giving more power to the government. Overall, I view the unfunded federal mandates to be very sketchy because they are nothing more than loopholes that the government has created around the 10 Amendment to further express power over the states, a power that shouldn't be issued to them unless it is needed. I'm not saying that new laws shouldn't be created, because obviously something is wrong and needs to be dealt with if a new law is needed, I just think that the government should find a different approach to enforcing those laws without keeping money away from the states. It shouldn't matter that the government is only keeping a certain percentage, the government should provide for the states, not bully them into enforcing decisions and laws that the government could easily do on its own. I think that overall the national government should put more time into planning out the laws that they want to see implemented and focus on what is really important and needed at the time, rather than just make their changes they want to see done into unfunded federal mandates thrown over to the states to either enforce or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I do not believe that the government should be able to keep money away from the states because it is extremely unfair. The loopholes that the government has created around the 10th Amendment is a way of manipulation. I think you made a good point about the national government and the laws that they should focus on instead of pressuring the states into making decisions they may not want to make.
DeleteI believe that the National government should use conditions of aid to influence that states. In my opinion I believe that the National government has more power then the state government so why not use their powers as an advantage. The states would only not benefit from the National government if it was not united. A shift of power is seen when the national government uses the conditions of aid to influence the states. Honestly I believe that it is the states problem if they loose the aid because they wouldn’t consider the ideas of the federal government. Basically the federal government is giving the state two options and I don’t see it as bribery. The National government is saying that you must change one thing in order to get another. I don’t think that any limits should be placed on the procedure. I believe that the way the National government is handling it now is working out perfectly fine.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe the national government should exercise their power by withholding funds that the local government needs. Whether the turn out be negative or positive, it leaves more room for resentment towards the national government, leaving none for free thinking or an overall healthy system. Not all states are the same, in fact the situations are usually very unique. It is not fair to expect all rules work the same; this just proves the national government doesn't have much respect for state governments. If there were debate and respect given between both sides, with data and comparison to the different states, a more reasonable outcome could be achieved to benefit each and appeal to individual situations.
ReplyDeleteI never thought about the national government making more room for resentment towards them. That is a very good opinion. I think that if the government keeps withholding funds from the states that eventually people will resent the national government in a negative way.
DeleteI think that if the national government is going to fund 25% of the states revenue, then they should definitely be able to use conditions of aid to influence them. Fiscal federalism is crucial to the workings of our states’ governments, and if it didn’t exist, our states would be much worse off. I don’t necessarily agree with all of the policies (drinking age, No Child Left Behind, lowering the speed limit) and the things that they affect. For instance, in the Wikipedia article addressing South v. Dole, Justice O’Connor argued the law, stating that taking money from the transportation system if the state did not pass a law didn’t make sense, because the law didn’t address the drunk driving problem. I completely agree with her. I do think that fiscal federalism is necessary, however, I feel that the laws should go along with whatever money they are giving or threatening. The limitations should be broader, and they should have to release a statement answering those five guidelines, and exactly how they meet those.
ReplyDeleteAs we talked about in class, the financial relationship between states and the federal government that is fiscal federalism involves categorical grants, block grants, and general revenue sharing. While the categorical grants make up 80% of the grants, they only generate 20% of the federal money given to states. Therefore, states have to do more with less, and have become very efficient in doing so.
A journal article titled “Subsidies, Strings, and the Courts: Judicial Action and Conditional Federal Spending“ by Laura S. Jensen, outlines that there have been many legal cases in which states have debated conditional aid in two ways: 1) claiming that Congress has exceeded its power to spend for the “general welfare” and 2) claiming that the use of fiscal federalism has exceeded the rights of the 10th Amendment. This goes back to spending regulations matching the five aspects of legality, and also the fight that both democrats and republicans have addressed, saying that some of these spending rules have gone past the 10th Amendment rights. I agree with this, and think that the article does a good job of addressing some of the problems with fiscal federalism. You can find it here: http://web.b.ebscohost.com.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=68995bf5-f96a-4d4f-a827-edaa8d8330a2%40sessionmgr198&vid=4&hid=126.
The Civil War is a great example of why the national government reserves the right to give such mandates to the states for many reasons. In fact the Civil War was fought because the southern states felt their rights to govern themselves were threatened. In particular they feared the Republican controlled government would try to regulate or abolish slavery and that fear led them to secede from the Union. At the time the national government was not nearly as strong as it was today so the states felt they could do this without negative consequence. After all secession was already previously discussed with the Hartford Convention of 1814 and The Tariffs of Abomination in the 1830's. Therefore, the states believed they had the power to do this because the national government did not assert itself over the states early on. As a result the bloodiest war in American history occurred over the debate of who reserved the most power. Ultimately the national government won and asserted its power with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to today, a rebellion of that magnitude is highly unlikely, however the national government reserves the right to better the nation as a whole and has the power to tell the states what to do as long as it does not get out of hand. In reference to the wikipedia article on South Dakota v. Dole, the supreme court established a set of guidelines to be used when determining whether or not the federal mandates are constitutional. Therefore, providing a check on the the power for the national government to do this. Furthermore, it is important to have relative conformity across the states when it comes to the drinking age or bac levels because people go from state to state, so its in the best interest to set a standard for the people's safety. To conclude, the national government overpowers the state governments and has the right to deliver mandates and restrict funds to the states as long as it is the the best interest of the people as a whole. If not then the states might start to feel they can do as they please and that is not always for the best interest of the people.
The national government shouldn't be able to take money from the states if states don't comply with what the national government wants them to do. I believe that the national government is too powerful. I believe that both the state government and the national government have different agendas and needs about what has to be done.The states know better as to what will improve the state.. whether it's education or highways. Both the national government and the state government need to share their power and work together to come to a compromise they both agree on. It's not fair towards the states to be "bullied" by the national government and almost feel threatened that if they don't comply they will lose funds.
ReplyDeleteThe National government should use federal aid as leverage on the sheer facts that it unites the country together and it is a way the states can earn their federal grants. Dividing belief between the states, one might argue that it is “communistic,” but it’s far from. To keep it short it does not effect ones earning and grants are not financially equal amongst each state. We need to have the same laws between each states especially states that are connected. The reason why is so a person cannot just cross state lines and preform a once was illegal act in a state that allows said act to be legal. For example, if a 19 year old from West Virginia, where the legal drinking age is 21 and Maryland is 19, crosses state lines to drink. What happens to said teen when he or she goes back to West Virginia drunk? Does the law from his or her home state still apply or doesn’t it? Not only does this not unify our country but also it adds to confusion. I also believe that federal grants should not be given freehandedly. States should show why it is a necessity for them to receive certain aid. Just like a student receiving federal grants for college, filling out numerous of applications and seeing if they reach financial requirements. States and national government should act in the same premise, in laymen’s terms it holds order. But I also believe there should be restriction. National government of course cannot be able to change any law they please. This can be maintain and controlled by the United States Supreme Court. The USSC can read each law and decide if it is or isn’t constitutional or not.
ReplyDeleteConditions of aid shouldn't be used in all of the ways it is being used in this day in age. It sometimes seems that the National Government is forcing some of the states to do something that they don't believed in, and then technically taking money away if they don't follow what is believed. The states should have more freedom with decisions with issues such as; what the drinking age should be, no child left behind or many others and not lose anything from the national government by doing so. I don't completely disagree with the condition of aid, but for the most part I do. There are some limitations that the national government should leave to the state governments to decide, such as speed limit, but also remain in charge with the bigger more serious decisions.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a lot of grey area when talking about the use of conditions of aid. I do not believe it is something that is always wrong or always right but that it depends on the reason for the use of it. I think the National Government has been recently using conditions of aid more often than I would like, like for the push on raising the minimum wage for example but, I do not 100 % disagree with the idea of conditions of aid. As other students have mentioned this gives the National Government to unify the country. However using it to check off small things on a Politicians checklist is not the correct use. Creating limitations and rules that everyone would agree on for Conditions of aid would be a great challenge but I believe it would benefit everyone without taking power away from the states.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Jenkins
I don't think the government should force the states to enforce a certain law, because of fear that they would lose some of their money given to them. Doing so, takes away from the states power, and essentially gives it to the National Government. Not every state needs the same law pushed upon them. A generally flat state doesn't need to lower their speed limits because of the states that have more curved roads.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism has been the topic of much debate for centuries. Since the ratification of the Tenth Amendment in 1791, the federal government has only possessed powers delegated to it by the states and/or people. In attempts to gain states’ cooperation, the national government has discovered a way to “incentivize” state and local governments through grant distributions. The problem with such incentives is that they often lack morality. We live in a nation that has become so dependent on government subsidies, that without them, we’d be utterly lost. Which is not to say that such incentives do not, at times, yield positive results: take the aforementioned example of President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” Act. However, oftentimes the states serve as the federal governments’ puppets, if you will. What I mean by this is, given that a quarter of state and local governments’ revenue stems from the grants that they receive, they’ve established a fiscal interdependence that has left them at the mercy of the national government’s demands. For this reason, I believe that state and local governments oftentimes feel obliged to accede out of sheer concern for the ambiguity of what may happen if the national government decided to withhold such funding. Therefore, I believe that the states should have more flexibility in deciding which laws to adopt. Proposals should extensively delineate the sole benefits of affirming such laws pertaining to each state, and if such propositions are deemed unwonted by the state, the national government should not have the right to withhold its funding.
ReplyDelete-Elise Coleman
"Conditions of aid" handed down from the Federal Government to State governments is another way the Federal Government can gain more power over the States. Whether "Conditions of aid" are in the best interest of States or not, some clearly violate the 10th Amendment, guaranteeing to the states rights that are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteConditions of aid is a way to bypass the 10th amendment, and in-turn bully States into doing what the Federal Government wants. Think of it this way, if you wanted something someone else had but they didn't want to share so you threatened to hit them until they gave it to you. Is that right? No, and "Conditions of aid" is the same way, it' the slippery slope argument; were does it stop. State governments were created to help balance power but here the Federal Government is working around an amendment in the Bill of Rights. It really doesn't matter if some "conditions of aid are good for the states or not its a form of bullying to get States to do what the Federal Government wants even if the states don't want to. For instance, would 45 states have adapted Common Core if funding wasn't attached. Education is a State power but yet its been changed by use of "condition of aid" " Condition of aid is just another way to gain power for the Federal Government and therefore should not be used to influence states.
I think you made a good point when you said "where does it stop" about the federal government making up laws and conditions that could possibly even be hardly related to force smaller governments to do what they want. The federal government is blatantly going around the 10th Amendment. I do think, however, that not all that the federal government does is strictly to gain more power; some acts may truly be what they believe is in the best interest for citizens. But it is the negative aspects that many times outweigh what could be beneficial and the federal government also needs to take states' differences into consideration.
DeleteIts tough to give a yes or no answer to the question of whether or not the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states. In some cases, we see how conditions of aid actually do the US while in other situations, the national government appears to have too much power by threatening states to comply with what they want. In the case of raising the drinking age to 21, the national government uses conditions of aid to influence states to make a change to keep the younger population from drinking and driving. This was a healthy change for the US and conditions of aid seemed necessary to help curb the problems that arose from drinking and driving. On the other side, the national government has demonstrated a clear division of power from the states and used conditions of aid to threaten states and almost cut their revenues in half. This doesn't make sense in cases such as the lowering the speed limit to 55 for each state as different regions require different types of aid. For example, the needs of people in Kansas greatly differ from the needs of people in New Jersey-- why should someone in Kansas be forced to do 55mph on a 100 mile straightaway and they might be the only car on the road? The national government fails to recognize that each state requires different types of assistance and often demonstrates their solutions under a "one size fits all" mentality. It easy to see that state power is inferior to the national government as the final say is almost always in the hands of the national government even it helps or hurts the states. The shift of power has become somewhat of a problem because each state knows what kind of aid they need more than one central government trying to imply one rule for each state to follow.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is a direct use of intimidation from the national government towards the states. States need to be able to set their own laws and regulations because the state's own government of their own people know what their states need. The national government is forced to make decisions based on a national average of statistics. Therefore, they simply cannot make laws tailored to each state. On a state level, government can use statistics and test results from their own state that can allow them to make laws tailored to their own state. This also allows people to have a better choice of places to live. If someone believes the legal age of 21 is too excessive, they can move to another state that doesn't enforce such a law. Cutting funding for a certain program in order to force a state to enforce a new law really just makes life worse for the people of said state. If the state stands its ground in response to the new law, they are forced to do without something else in order to make budget. Therefore, in the case of the NMDAA, the citizens of the state would have to do without something that deals with the highway system. There may have to be a loss of jobs to pay for maintenance for the roads or they may have to do without maintenance for their roads. This puts the people at a disadvantage, which is most likely why the states' government usually succumb to the pressure and enforce the laws anyway. They want to keep their jobs just like anyone else. While states legally have more power than the national government, the national government is abusing a loophole in within the Constitution and this phenomenon should not be allowed to continue.
ReplyDeleteI find this question to be rather difficult to answer. There's no black and white in this situation, rather shades of gray. On one hand, the federal government reserves the right to having power over the states (as states ratified the constitution handed down by the federal government), and, for the most part, these policies have been created with good intentions. However, on the other hand, the federal government has all but extorted states into complying with laws they may not holistically agree with.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion (going back to the concept of this being a gray area), each situation is different, so I can't give a definitive "yes" or "no" answer to the question. For example, some policies, like raising the national drinking age to 21, were enacted to benefit public safety and are applicable to all states, as outside factors (like the states' geography, for an example that applies to my next point) don't necessarily apply like they do for, say, lowering the national highway speed limit; each situation is different.
Overall, though, it's not a question of whether or not I agree with the national government having the right to supersede the states and pass laws they may not agree with...because they do. While some may not agree with it, the national government does reserve the right to have power over the states (since states ratified the U.S. Constitution), meaning they can pass laws that apply to all states and the states should follow them. Obviously, just asking states to follow policies they don't agree with doesn't seem to work in practice, so the only way the federal government can enforce these laws is through effectively threatening to extort states, which may seem wrong, but states refusing to follow laws set down by a national government they agreed to submit to doesn't exactly seem "right" either.
I personally think conditions of aid is a great way to motivate the states into obeying laws the government wants to pass. Let's put it this way, when you were younger your parents made you take out the trash, clean your room, empty the dishwasher etc. However to do these things they would give you an incentive such as an allowance. This relates to the conditions of aid in many ways. In our younger years our parents were the government/law and we were the states. It didn't really matter whether or not you wanted to do it, because they were going to force you to do it anyways. But what made it worth while was the fact they paid you for it. This relates to conditions of aid in that while some of the states are not in favor of the laws being passed by the federal government, the government at least offers incentives to support their opinion. Also, in the end this is the federal government we're speaking of. They have the constitutional right to have power over the states and ultimately tell them to do whatever they want. Just as our parents had power over us (somewhat still do) when we were children. Whether the federal government offers incentives or not, we as members of a state are responsible for obeying the laws they enforce. Another opinion to think about is even if our parents weren't paying us to mow the lawn or fold their laundry, we were still learning the importance of responsibility as well as independence. While the government might not pay the states to obey their laws, the states are still learning the importance of adapting certain laws to better their states in the end.
ReplyDeleteAs many of my fellows classmates have stated, the issue of conditional aid is not as simple as a yes or no. There could be strong arguments made for both sides of the debate. One could argue that it is wrong because it is essentially a way around the Bill of Rights. Someone could also argue that it is wrong because ultimately declining aid to a state only hurts the citizen of that state. They are going to miss out on programs that may have been of use to them. One could also argue that conditional aid is a good thing because it creates continuity of laws throughout the country. Furthermore, states do not lose only their funding just a percentage, and they make that choice. I think the bigger issue is how dependent on the national government states have become. Some would say the federal government has the right to conditional funding because they are funding a huge part of state's economy. Overall, I think it is a scary thing that many states would not be able to survive without federal funding. I think if they want to get away from conditional funding then they have to eliminate their dependency on the federal government.
ReplyDeleteThe question whether the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states, will always be a controversial topic. The national government, in my opinion, would never mandate a law without having the best interest of the nation in mind.
ReplyDeleteWith that being sad I can also understand why it is such a controversial topic. National government being able to have power over things that are not given in the constitution is a touchy subject. Though I believe if they would try to delegate every power to either state, or federal government, they would be unsuccessful. The times are changing and its impossible to tell what issues are minor and what are important enough to be taken care of on a national level.
When mandating certain actions, I believe the government should have every state in mind. With the law passed to lower the speed limit to 55 mph, I don't believe they had every state in mind. States with a harder terrain would have no problems abiding by this law but flat states would be upset with such a low speed limit. Also they should understand that for some states mandated laws are going to be more expensive to enforce than others.
"According to the Fabricius report, many provisions involved no additional state expenditure because, usually, the state had already included the proposed legislation in state law" but this is not always the case."Several projections taken from the Fabricius report serve to demonstrate the varying cost effects further.12 The Child Welfare and Preventive Services Act of 1991, major provisions of which were included in a tax bill in October 1992, extends Medicaid benefits to a broader class of children. Forty-one states had estimated the total cost of complying with the bill as originally written at $997 million for fiscal year 1992" The federal Government should step in and help the states more if they have a bigger projected cost.
In conclusion, I believe a Fiscal Federalism, isn't as bad as everyone thinks. Yes, depending on the subject, it can get more controversial, but in the end the Government should have the nations best interest at heart, and be willing to compromise with the uniqueness of the states.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/re/articles/?id=1904
I believe that conditions of aid are, to a certain extent, unacceptable if the federal government withholds certain funds because the state decided not to pass a law that doesn't affect the well-being of the nation and its people. When the national government withholds these funds, it sometimes creates divide within our governmental system as a whole. Some might see the divide as the states not conforming in order to fit the standards of the national government. On the other side, the national government probably sees a need for states to pass the certain law in order to make the United States actually look like a united body. It does seem like the national government strongholds the states into accepting a law in order to get funds that are needed such as funds for transportation. I only believe that conditions of aid should only be used if the law being passed is drastic for the well-being of our nation and or the people of our nation, and if the state doesn't accept the certain law that effects the well-being of our nation then yes, I agree that the national government should withhold funds until the law is passed in the certain state. The state reserves the right to accept the law or not, but they should also understand that it won’t receive the outlined funds.
ReplyDeleteWhen the government of this country was set up, it was decided we would not be a monarchy, but instead a democracy. With that, a constitution was drafted that gave states a lot of power but also set limitations on what they could and could not do. For centuries this way of government has worked pretty well with a few exceptions. When states are told that they have a CHOICE to follow a law to change the drinking age, it's a choice. However, there is incentive to proceed the way the federal government is asking. IF that state decides not higher the drinking age, they are not breaking law nor is the government when they decide to take away funding. It has been shown in studies that there is less drinking and driving when the age is set to 21 so why continue to support the state when they disregard the fact that it might actually help the casualty percentage in their state decrease? Therefore, I do think it is fair for the National government to attach strings to a mandate if they think it will better help the country function in a safer fashion. However as someone in a former post pointed out, I don't think the nat'l gov. should be able to dictate the speed limit because that should be up to the state.
ReplyDeleteAlthough fiscal federalism may not be 100% morally sound, it is a brilliant loophole. Yes the states are being forced to do something they may not want to do for money, but that happens to citizens on a daily basis. How many people are in jobs they may not love because they need money? Most likely a lot. Plus, the restrictions on fiscal federalism are fair: they must be enforcing the action for the greater good, the states must understand clearly what they are agreeing to, there has to be a national project the condition applies to, the condition has to be constitutional, and the government can’t be a bully about it. I think the government is simply presenting the states with an option, and they have the right to accept or decline the offer with its conditions. It may seem unfair to the states seeing as how they have a kind of ultimatum, but there’s nothing technically wrong with conditions of aid. I do think we need to keep an eye on what the offers are to make sure our rights aren't being violated under our noses, but as long as the federal government is remaining constitutional, there’s no reason to change what isn’t broken.
ReplyDeleteConditions of aid are a great way for the federal government to encourage the states to make a change that probably needs to be made. After reading up on some of the well known ones (thank you Google), I found that there wasn't a single one that I did not agree with. So from that perspective, I absolutely think the federal government should be allowed to create conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it's a very slippery slope. What defines the amount of aid the states stand to lose? Or the boundaries of the conditions that must be met? The language that supports conditions of aid is far too vague which allows for the opportunity to take advantage of an otherwise great system. I think that if the language was made to be more specific then conditions of aid would be a hands down great way to suggest changes to states without fully requiring them.
I think that fiscal federalism is a flawed part of our national government. When the 10th amendment was passed, it wasn’t meant for the national government to find a way around it to control the states. This is very unfair to the states because the 10th amendment gives them the right to make their own laws, and the national government is taking that away. For some people, the debate over “conditions of aid” may be situational, but if you are going to allow the government to come in and take control for one issue, then they are going to push it as much as they can with other issues. Also, I think that when it comes to most of these issues, the states know better. The state governments know more about the issues going on in the area and the things that can be done to fix it. If the national government decides to make a law, it could be very beneficial for one state, but completely unnecessary in another. Also in the states that the law is not beneficial, they would still have to use funds to make sure that the law is being followed. In this case, it would be worse for the state.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. government was set up as a democracy that gave states the right to power, but set limitations on what they could and could not do. In many ways a democracy has been giving opportunities for different opinions. In this case with changing the drinking age, it comes down to preference and choice of the people. If that state decides to stick with the drinking age remaining at age 21, then there will be no further discussion on whether or not they get funding taken from them. They will proceed to have the federal government funding their state. If they choose to change the drinking age from 21, then they will suffer the consequences of the federal government funding. Nobody or no state wants to lose federal government funding. Without being said, I think that the federal government has a right to pair things in this kind of case because for the majority, most states won't want to risk their funding and help from the federal government. I also agree with what people in this discussion are saying about how the national government shouldn't be allowed to dictate the speed limit because that should be a state's issue and not an issue the national government should be dealing with.
ReplyDeleteFederal aid is very important for the states, the problem with federal aid is that states get suckered into these "conditions of aid". Small states do it because they need the money in the first place. While bigger states do it because they want to save money and well who does not want free money. Now the national government does have good points sometimes. By setting the drinking age nationally they make an even playing field across the country. If the drinking age was 18 some places and 21 in other states it makes it very difficult to control underage drinking in those 21 and over states. Also if we take a look at setting a national speed limit it causes less drastic changes from state to state.
ReplyDeleteAlthough they have used conditions of aid in good circumstances I do feel they are over stepping their boundaries. I feel that if they want to set a national drinking age they should go through the process of making it a law. Put a bill through the House and Senate, and then the states should follow it. These conditions of aid as I said sucker states into making decisions that they do not necessarily need or want to follow. So yes I think that federal aid is important, and yes I think that what the national government has gotten through these conditions is important. I just do not think they should have done them through conditions of aid.
I believe that the government does its best to do what is most beneficial for everyone, even though that means maybe withholding funds from the states in order for them to make a specific decision. Although some people feel this is the best way to go about it, I believe that it’s not right to force states into certain situations. This is still a very hard question to answer though because there have been many situations where the states may have been forced into making a certain decision that turned out to be beneficial such as the “no child left behind” program, but I also believe that seems to be somewhat unfair to be pressured. I feel the national government has a type of power that is being used in a manipulative way, and regardless of the outcome it is still not right. The states should be able to make a decision based on what they feel is best.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states to some extent. For example, in the case of the drinking age, I believe that is was acceptable because each state having its own drinking age could be detrimental. Alcohol in general is a huge economic boost for the states so if the states had different drinking ages it could hurt that states economy. More people are going to want to live in the state with the lower drinking age, especially college kids and young people. Also, a 19-year-old drinking age, to me, is a bit young. Granted I have taken part in my fair share of underage drinking. However, if kids at that age were able to go to bars and drink legally there definitely would have been many drunk driving related accidents. 19 year olds are just kids and do not realistically know their limits yet. The government did what they had to do to get their way, and I don’t see a problem with them using the their funding to the states for highway transportation as a motive to get the states to do what they wanted. With that being said, I do believe they abuse the conditions of aid sometimes. For example, I think No Child Left Behind is a poor excuse for the national government to use conditions of aid to get what they want. No Child Left Behind is very flawed and essentially teaches kids that intelligence is measurable by how well you do on standardized tests. I agree that standardized test are important to an extent, but not at the fifth grade level. Here is a link to an article I found that summarizes the problem with No Child Left Behind pretty well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothysiegel/2011/04/02/the-problem-with-no-child-left-behind/.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Johnson
I agree with you about the national government only being able to use conditions of aid to an extent. In some cases it's important to maintain the economy of the country as a whole. Then in other instances a flawed act instilled in each state will consequently cause a flaw in the entire nation. In the end there should be a compromise between the federal government looking out for the states and the people of the states looking out for themselves.
DeleteWhile the Constitution does say that any powers not given to the federal government are left to the states, I feel that there are times when the federal government can exercise power over the states when it is in the best interest of the states. We elect our representatives because we feel that they will vote in ways that will be inline with our personal beliefs and act to make our country a better place for us. For example, when Congress passes laws after extensive studies on what should be the best course of action, such as was done with the effects of alcohol on the brain before it is fully developed, then we should trust our representatives that these laws are going to be for the better. In the case of the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government saw the U.S. was falling behind in country rankings regarding test scores and educations. Since the public education department was left up to the states, the federal government needed a way to incentivize states to make better education programs to increase test scores and better prepare students. State governments do not follow international relations as closely as the federal government does and therefore it is a duty of the states to listen to the federal government when it comes to issues that affect how our nation looks in regards to other nations around the world. Citizens (and states for that matter) enter into a "social contract" of sorts with the federal government in order for the protection by the military and other federal programs. The citizens give up certain rights and I feel that the government should be allowed to make conditions of aid through this theory and the various other clauses in the Constitution when they are in the best interests of the citizens of the United States. Except for the national speed limit of 55mph that is. Because Sammy Hagar said it best with "I can't drive 55". Everyone needs a little speeding in their life.
ReplyDelete"Work-arounds" such as this are very useful for the government and are completely justifiable. They serve to make country-wide laws when the amendments aren't available. They probably want some laws to be country-wide so that states don't have competitive or drastically different laws. It is important to keep some laws centralized that normally would not, such as the drinking age. It is important for states to not be that way so that citizens in one states aren't barred from a certain something and others aren't. It also keeps the basic laws that most are concerned about one the same level. It doesn't particularly damage the states in any way, they are not just a little more connected to the states around them. Of course, sometimes these laws can go wrong. No Child Left Behind, being one prime example, shows how if the government screws up then it is really felt. It is important for laws like this to not exist or to work extremely well. If not then the government loses money and some power over the states. Particularly the ones that heavily criticize the government for screwing up.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with points people have made on either side of this argument, I can't help but view this action by the national government as taking advantage of a hole in the system to get around the 10th Amendment and to take more power. Because as much as it is a bargain or may be looking toward what is best for the country as a whole and for America's citizens, in the end it is the government taking away power from the individual states; the larger body of power made up of fewer people of a less diverse demographic having control over the smaller individual governing bodies.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, fiscal federalism may have it's good effects such as the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is an example of something that covers a human right more than anything else such as a "state right" and therefore is prevalent across each state. But other laws that the national government may pressure states into may not be so easy to apply to the entire country. The United States spans thousands of miles from coast to coast in all directions and therefore more specificity must be given to laws designed to help everyone. Not only is the land entirely geographically different, which causes issues aforementioned by others and in class about national speed limits, but the amount of rural land or urban land in each state and wealth of each state must be considered when creating a law that must apply to all, such as the No Child Left Behind Act.
The federal government's "conditions of aid" could be renamed "penalties of not abiding" and there would be no lie and hardly an exaggeration. At the same time, I do not believe that each state should have absolute power. Many states would be pleased to pass laws that support neither human rights nor the benefit of the country. During the Civil War states took to the wind with their individual power and tried to secede. In the past the federal government took charge in ridding the country more or less of slavery and allowing women to vote: discrepancies based on peoples' skin color and gender. Today we see states not allowing people to get married based on their sexuality. In terms of doing what is best for the country's citizens, I believe the national government should use its power for the basic human rights America still has far to work on. As for the other more economic solutions it comes up with in return for conditions of aid, if the federal government were to note the distinctive characteristics of each state and work with them to create a more well-equipped method of governance, the playing out of a new law may run more smoothly in each state and ultimately for the country as a whole.
I am glad to have waited until now to post on this thread. There are a lot of good thoughts and arguments here. As for my opinion, I have to say that fiscal federalism as both a process and a tool is flawed. I’d like to point out what Justice O’Conner did with her decision on the matter of South Dakota v. Dole. In this situation she voted against the manipulation of the drinking age, not due to values on her part, but because she felt that the condition was not relevant enough to the outcome. This important decision was cited in the last part of the Wikipedia article. Here is an excerpt- ……….”But O'Connor wrote that the attachment of condition on the states must be "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds." O'Connor disagreed with the Court's finding that withholding federal highway funds was reasonably related to deterring drunken driving and drinking by minors and young adults. She argued that the condition was both over and under-inclusive: it prevented teenagers from drinking when they are not going to drive on federal and federally funded highways, and it did not attempt to remedy the overall problem of drunken driving on federal and federally funded highways. She held the relation between the conditions and spending too attenuated: "establishment of a minimum drinking age of 21 is not sufficiently related to interstate highway construction to justify so conditioning funds appropriated for that purpose."”…………..This point is what I feel is important when considering the righteousness of fiscal federalism. I have to side with Justice O’Conner on this one. I believe that the national government should be able to allocate its funds as it finds fit, but the conditions of funding should be directly related to the funding. Fixing this issue with fiscal federalism would be the difference between the national government issuing a legitimate incentive program, and twisting the arm of governments less powerful than it.
ReplyDeleteTo put my views bluntly, fiscal federalism is nothing more than a modified bully-system.
I agree with the example you used with Justice O'Connor and feel that the relation of the conditions of aid to the act is incredibly important. It is only logical that the conditions fit the act itself. If they did not, the federal government could produce any law they made up as a condition and ultimately pressure the states into anything they wanted. For this reason I agree with O'Connor as well about the fact that she did not want to agree with the act because of the ideas of the government behind it.
DeleteI understand that the institutions of the United States government do not allow us to customize federal policies to the needs and desires of every state. The 10th amendment gives the states any powers not already granted to or excluded by the federal government. States cherish this power that gives them the freedom to make independent decisions on issues that do not correspond with the objectives of national law. The basic political structure of each state needs to be cohesive with the mission of the nation as a whole, which is why federal mandates are issued. However, I believe unfunded mandates are a coercive way to change policies that may not need to be uniform within every state. The lifestyles, needs, and practices of each state differ in ways that cannot be seen by observations from federal institutions and agents. Many federal mandates are necessary and tackle issues of national importance, but the need for some mandates can be questioned and challenged. In the case of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act passed by Reagan, South Dakota considered the mandate unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the federal government because the mandate promotes the general welfare and was not deemed coercive because the funding cuts would be minimal and therefore not an irresistible pressure. The Supreme Court also clarified conditions for federal mandates including the relation to federal interest in a particular national project or program, the general constitutionality of the reform, and the clear and definite circumstances of any mandate. In the case of the national minimum drinking age, I agree with the dissent offered by Justice O'Connor to explain her disagreement with the mandate. She claims the state drinking age is not closely related enough to the funding of highway construction, and therefore it is not appropriate to cut the highway funds in noncompliance to an alcohol related issue. The 18th amendment gives the states power to control alcohol related policies, and highway budgets are more related to the problem of drunk drivers rather than young adults drinking. State governors often take the heat when federal mandates upset a state population. Even though it would be financially unrealistic, I believe all government mandates should be funded to show the importance of the national reform and the willingness for federal and state governments to work together.
ReplyDeleteThinking about fiscal federalism I automatically think of a young child whose mother just gave him $20 for his school lunches for the rest of the week. When the young boy gets on the bus the school bully tells the young boy he will not bully him for a whole week if he gives him his lunch money. The young boy could have said no I am keeping my money and the bully would have taken it away from the young boy and bullied him anyways. The State, in this scenario, is the young boy, the national government is the bully, and the money is what the national government wants the states cooperation on. I don't believe the states actually have a say on whether or not they can keep and existing law or change to a new one. Take a look at the drinking age and the cutoff for a DUI. If you look at this excerpt taken out of legalflip.com on the drinking age
ReplyDelete"states were free to say 'no', but for any state that did so it would lose approximately 10% of its federal funding for highway public transportation under another act called the Federal Aid Highway Act"
This sounds very similar to the story of the young boy and the bully. Schools systems have many regulations to eliminate bullying ,so why do we allow bullying within our government systems? I feel as if the national government continues with fiscal federalism our states will be divided and our nation will no longer be a whole.
The question whether the government should give conditions of aid is a double edged sword - on one hand you have the government pushing the states to perform acts that they need to do and otherwise wouldn't have, but at the same time, you occasionally have the government forcing states to perform these acts without the funds to do them.
ReplyDeleteIn my honest opinion, I generally approve of government mandates, the states can always be trusted to do the responsible thing, because the denizens of that state can't be trusted to do the responsible thing - political apathy and all that.No Child Left Behind isn't an absolutely terrible mandate, it has good intentions, but if Chapter 1 of my Econ book has taught me anything, it's that Good Intentions don't equate to good policy.
I have to disagree with Amber though, her "sentiment" that it's corrupt is far-fetched and lacking substance, is it corruption if you parents off you 10 dollars to clean your room, or threaten to ground you if you don't make back home for curfew?
First of all, I do believe it is okay for the federal government to exercise the right to apply conditions of aid to the states. However, I also believe that there should be limitations as to the types of laws the federal government can enforce these conditions over. While some states have enough funds on their own to support themselves, others rely on this federal aid heavily due to their struggling and/or declining economies. Sometimes, when the federal government utilizes the enforcement of conditions of aid, it causes problems for that specific state between its people and its government. In my opinion, drinking age, legalization of marijuana, and tobacco sales are the types of laws in which the federal government should have a heavy hand, due to the fact that these are pressing national issues. The enforcement of conditions of federal aid can allow the federal government to more heavily enforce these types of laws which would significantly decrease national crime rates relating to citizens whom cross into other states and get themselves into trouble because of the varying state laws concerning these and other issues.
ReplyDelete-Chase McClung
PS: I think, if anything, the legal drinking age should be lowered to 18. haha, just saying.
Fiscal federalism is a touchy subject among the states and federal government, so I can see why there are opposing views when it comes to this topic. I do believe that the federal government should have some conditions when it comes to the states. If there were no control between these two than laws between the states would get out of hand. So, I do see why the federal government enforced things like raising the drinking age 21 and lowering the speed limit to 55mph. I do believe it’s a very sneaking way for the federal government to get there way with certain things, but it’s necessary in certain measures for them to have that type of control. I agree with what my classmate Mary Lemine stated, “What is good for one state may not be good for another.” The federal government should do some research before they decide to enforce laws in certain states. I feel this is important because they need to see how enforcing a particular law will impact other states.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the way the national government holds power over state governments by keeping away funding if certain laws are not passed is necessary. It helps states develop laws that could be better for people, and the whole state overall. Yes, the prospect of states losing funding is bad because they did not follow what a power higher than them said, but it’s a way to promote states to welcome change. Also, the state governments should realize that aid is more important that choosing to participate in new possible law, especially if it has the potentially to be very beneficial. The process that happens between the national and state governments could probably use some fixing, but nothing is perfect and so far the way it has all been handled seems to be okay for now.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is okay for the National Government to uphold funds in order to pass certain laws. There are certain issues that require the 50 states to have the same policy. When it comes to things like drinking age, the situation is similar in all states. NY’s minors are not different than CA’s minors or any other states. The conditions apply to all 50 states and therefore having one policy is a good idea. If each state had a different law, people under 21 would just drive to nearest state and buy alcohol.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, there are some issues that should be handled by each state separately. The speed limit is one of them. The roads in WV are more dangerous than the roads in California or Florida. In WV, the mountains, weather and the conditions of the roads play a big role in determining the speed limit. It is hard for the National Government to have a National speed limit because conditions vary from state to state.
The National Government can force states to have certain policies that are in the best interest of the nation, but there are some policies that should be decided by the states. It is a good thing that every state can have its own laws, but in federalisms all states should have the same broad policy.
This is a tricky situation. My answer to the proposed question would have to be yes though. The national government using money to strong-hand states decisions on policy is something would receive a lot of heat and attention, which is why I believe the national government would only do this in urgent situations and in ones that threaten the safety of the general public, such as the legal drinking age. Like it or not, there are sciences to back up the facts surrounding brain development and affects of alcohol on the brain, and making the legal drinking age 21 was the smart thing to do. Now with that being said, I definitely do not think the national government should abuse this power. I mean, the 10th amendment, part of the bill of rights, outlines the principles of federalism, that states get powers not allotted to the national government. I also believe that in this day and age, sticking by the constitution 100% would be foolish. As far as limitations, that is what we be most difficult. Do I know anything about writing policy? no, but I feel as if I good start would by giving the national government the ability to do this in areas where constituents health are directly affected.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to say what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the national government forcing its laws. The national government has to have more power over the local government. That’s because of the United States, without the national government forcing in the long run they might be falling apart slowly. Some laws don’t make sense like the speed limit. Every state is different and has different roads on different slopes. One might advantage from the speed limit like West Virginia and Colorado given their mountain maps. Then there is the drinking age, which was a very good law to be forced on all states. The thing about national government is that they are not forcing the states to pass any law, but giving them an option. If the national government didn’t have power over the laws some state might be in chaos by what laws they didn’t change. It is not something fair that the national government does it by not giving the state its 10% highway aid, but this is the best way they could go without being forcing them into one option rather giving them an option that they will never chose so in the end they would do what ever they tell them. I strongly agree with what the national government does mostly not always. What I like about it the most is the way they tell the state fine you don’t want to pass this law then your not getting the 10% it is very effective and simple and works all the time. This way you have a place where a law can be passed on all not only some. This is politics finding a way to force others with in the law. A federalism state has its rights, but not all the way because of national government. In other words, if each state had its powers it would be confusing and uncontrollable. One state would have alcohol legal and the other you can’t use alcohol. This will be very complicated and people would go to different states for legal stuff, which is illegal in their state. In the end national government isn’t the best thing, but is a good thing to have. It controls the situation when it comes to certain law and some it doesn’t like the speed limits, but all in all it is something useful.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the national government should not use conditions of aid to influence the states. These conditions of aid are used to bully the states into complying with the national government. A state may have to pass a law that its citizens do not agree with just to keep its full federal funding. Some of the programs built out of the conditions of aid place undue stress upon the states. One example of this is the undue stress that the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program places upon the states as seen in the charts on http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding. The funding for the program does not totally match up with the extra expenditures of a state to be compliant with the NCLB program. However if a state opts out of the NCLB program than they lose their federal school money. I believe that if these condition of aid programs are to continue than there needs to be more restrictions on them than those placed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. If the national government is going to force states to spend extra money than they should have some way of providing for those costs. Also these programs should have to be approved by a super majority in congress in order to prevent sections of the country putting in place some of the condition of aid programs, such as the lower speed limit, that place undue stress on citizens of a certain area of the country.
ReplyDeleteConditions of Aid on money given to the states could almost be classified as blackmail. This being said, it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work. The states are powerful entities by themselves and are not required to listen to the national government. This basically requires that the government have some way to enforce whatever it considers “smart policy” on the states. One of the biggest problems with this is, as mentioned above, the hypocrisy of the political parties. They will support the conditions of aid when it benefits them most and only then. But once again, just about everyone would agree that an incentive system works in most cases and this is no different, albeit slightly more aggressive. Sometimes it really backfires depending on your opinion on “No Child Left Behind”. I guess when it boils down to right or wrong, I don’t exactly like that the national government can do it but I can see where at times it may be necessary as in the case of the drinking age. For a solution, outside of changing our system of government, I don’t see a viable solution. Although I don’t want a tyrannical government withholding money to impose their will, sometimes the national government does have good ideas on the policy it wants to push.
ReplyDeleteI think the national government pushes the limits of its power by taking funding away from states If they don’t comply with what the national government wants done. I agree with the post above me that refers to what the national government as being blackmail. I feel like the states should have a little more power than they do now. States and the national government have very different ideas about what they want done, the states know specifically what needs to happen in their state, while it seems that the national government just watches from a far and picks and chooses how they want things done. I feel like there needs to be more of a give and take with the power struggle between states and the national government. There should be a way for the states to compromise with the national government so that they can still get funding without the national government completely running the show. There needs to be a fair middle ground where that appeases the national government and the states so that there isn’t confusion for citizens about where this law applies and where this other law applies.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe the government should use condition of aid to “influence states”; it’s just a way to bullying states into giving the national government what they want. It’s unfair and other methods should be found in order to get the states to agree with the national government. However, (this may sound contradicting) if it’s for the better good of the nation then it’s understandable but still unfair. For example, the “No Child Left Behind” Act has a significant impact on children attending public schools. Its purpose is to set achievable goals and close the achievement gap with quality teachers and school. However with testing and punishing failing schools can threaten student’s education and success. It’s a start toward the right direction in helping our children to succeed but by taking funding away from children’s education for not meeting testing requirement, is not helping schools focus on the bigger picture of providing excellent education to help these students strive in the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteTo get more information on fiscal federalism, I read “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism” by Wallace E Oates. The essay says that the central government gives states more power because they feel that local and state government understand what the people in their particular area want. I agree that this would be more popular than the central government making a decision for the nation as a whole. The essay talks about the states having power over issues like welfare, Medicaid, legal services, housing and job training. It goes on to talk about how the central government should be responsible for macroeconomics and income redistribution of the nation. While I agree with everything this essay has to say, it does not talk about conditions of air. With this essay saying the objective of fiscal federalism is to give a popular vote in states for differing issues, then why do conditions of air exist? The whole point is to do what is best for the majority of the people - which is different for people living in Oakland, Maryland than it is for people living in Seattle, Washington. The central government should stick to what the 10th amendment gave them the power to do and let fiscal federalism do what it is intended and let the state have their powers.
ReplyDeleteI find conditions of aid to be an example of hypocrisy. I understand that it is a way to get around the 10th amendment. I agree it is difficult to draw a line in the sand where the national government has powers and where the states powers begin, but I think taking money away from states is, like the Republicans say, bullying. It is a known fact that if the 10th amendment does not give the national government power over something, then it automatically goes to the state. Therefore, why does the national government even have a say in what happens after that. The national government is going above the 10th amendment to take advantage of the state. I understand that at a national level there is a better understanding of what is going on in the country and what state laws need to be in tact; however, I find it sketchy to take money from states for not complying with national government wants.
SOURCE: http://www.jstor.org.www.libproxy.wvu.edu/stable/2564874?seq=2
As the United States has progressed, I feel as though the states have lost power to the national government. In my opinion, our national government should not be allowed to over rule states, and cut off funding unless they do what they say. For starters, every citizen pays a national income tax, so the funding comes straight from the people. For an example, MADD lobbying to extremes in order to get the drinking age higher through out the United States; however who is the national government to say that your state can not get the money that is taken out of your pay check, unless they raise the legal drinking age to 21. I personally feel that as the national government gets stronger, the people begin to lose a voice in our society. This country was founded on the principles of a democracy; essentially our national government is extorting the states. When a state challenges the national government, like in Dole v South Dakota, the national government often finds some sort of loop hole in order to have the trial in their favor. I feel as national government, we are regressing to time when there was taxation with out representation.
ReplyDeleteThis chaps my hide and it is another example of " Big Brother," telling everyone what is best for them. Ultimately this is a cultural and state issue deciding what is a magical number for the drinking age. You mean to tell me a kid can out buy a pack of cigarettes, volunteer for service or get a credit card and place himself in thousands of dollars in debt but cant buy a beer. sickening's me it does! This is a power move by your government basically telling you " You are a soverign state, put you need to get in line and conform like the rest of them or were gonna hit you where it hurts...your pockets." The identity of the state and it culture slowly stripped away. They are doing it with Core Curriculum Classes as well. Like Jefferson said " If a government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have," and the NMDA, Common Core, OBAMACARE, even your car being required to have insurance are violations and tramples on your freedoms......
ReplyDeleteAMERICA!
I agree with Jacob Long that conditions of aid could almost be considered black mail. It is a way for the federal government to influence states into doing what they want. As soon as anyone takes a 10% cut out of their funding they are going to do whatever is necessary to gain it back. I do also agree that conditions of aid is good on some issues such as the "No Child Left Behind Act". Influencing states for better education and closing the education gap is a good thing for a more educated society. Although it does hurt schools that don't achieve higher testing scores cause maybe in some cases those schools need better resources to provide students so they can do better. So I think conditions of aid should be used but there should be limitations. These limitations should include issues that are ruled necessary for conditions of aid. Also, by region because depending on where you live different issues appear and not appear. So if these limitations were incorporated then there wouldn't be a debate of something being legal in a state but is still illegal by the federal government which overrides state authority. Conditions of aid is a way around the 10th amendment but not everything deciding by the states is a good idea such as when each state coined their own money. I believe limitations on conditions of aid would bring more unity between state and federal governments.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe it is really unfair for the government to bully the states though if something good is coming out of it, then I don't mind it. I am perfectly okay with the drinking age being 21. I think it is more of a opinion topic because of course, the younger generation would think otherwise. And with all due respect, I think the age 21 is a good age because the young adults have a little bit of sense of how the world works and they can make better decisions for themselves if or while under the influence. I don't think the government should add "conditions" to a law and try to sneak in a law that only they agree with and force the states to do what the government wants. It is rather evil and very unfair of the government to do so. I think things like grants for school and roads and basic things should be controlled by the states since all states have different needs and the government should not have the right to decide where the cuts should be made in the funding. Of course if you would ask a recent freshmen in college about what he thinks the drinking age should be, he would definitely want it to be less than what it is right now but it kind of is a good thing that it is 21. People, especially young adults can get carried away and distracted by the addictions if they are available like that. The laws do make sense if you think about it. As I mentioned before, it is good that our legal drinking age is 21. Same with the "No child left behind" act which is promoting education and encouraging our youth to push to their highest potential for their own good. There are nicer and more reasonable ways of trying to get people or states all together to do things that make more sense and are right rather than blackmailing them by cutting their funds.
ReplyDeleteI believe the tenth amendment, although weakened over the course of the last 227 years, is important to maintain our federal system. Absent the tenth amendment there would be no federal government, only a national government, In order for there to be a truly federal system, it is imperative that the states retain their rights. Otherwise, the states fail to be sovereign entities in and of themselves and become mere political subdivisions of the national government much like a city is to a state. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, probably the most important discussion by the delegates was how to allow a state to retain its sovereignty and still join with the other states for the purpose of promoting regular commerce and the common defense. Some of the delegates believed that the Constitution as written, made it unnecessary to have a Bill of rights. Others, such as Patrick Henry of Virginia, believed that without specific restrictions on the federal government, the system would become a great national government that would devour the states. as it has turned out, even with the Bill of Rights that was ratified after the Constitution, which included the tenth amendment, Patrick Henry's fears have become prophetic. Today the way the federal government has gotten around the tenth amendment is to withhold certain funds from the states, thereby eviscerating the tenth amendment.
ReplyDeleteIt is my belief that fiscal federalism is a government form of extortion. They make states conform to restrictions in order to get the full benefit which they are entitled too. When looking at it from the perspective of the founding fathers, you may be able to argue this is exactly what they intended to happen. They were in favor of having the states and federal government fighting for power. The uses of fiscal federalism is a tool that the federal government uses to try and get a leg up. Though in context fiscal federalism seems oppressive by the federal government, it adds another dimension to the American political landscape.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is fully justified for the federal government to have conditions of aid attached to federal funding for a few reasons. First, I believe that many times, states take more time to progress in ways that help society as a whole. With the NMDAA, some states were already at a 21 year old level but some still at a lower level. It took coercion by the federal government to have the states raise the minimum drinking age to a level that would benefit society in the long run. On a more general level, you can see that sometimes states might not go along with federal programs just because of the different politics between the two. Having a condition attached to aid would sometimes help move the states in the direction of the federal government even if the states have different political views. Yes, as some people have said in their comments, this does seem like a stretch of what the federal government should be allowed to do. On the other hand, I believe that with a larger and growing population, there should be a larger and more progressive central government to push the states along on areas that might not be as popular in some of the states. i.e. drinking age, DUI percentage, speed limit
ReplyDeleteSean Fitzwater
Personally I believe the topic of “conditions of aid” is tough to put on one side of the fence or the other. There is no question a lot of funding goes from the national government into many aspects of the state governments to use willingly and other that have strings attached. Since a significant percentage of state funding is through this type of aid there should be some terms and conditions. Having the ability to take money away from state government if they did not do something makes sense. However, there are certain circumstances I would agree 100% that state governments know better than the national and will use it better than how the national government could tell them. Then on the other hand there is the funding that has strings attached that works well benefiting both national and state governments. For example education and high way repairs should be left for the states to do what they want. The states would know the minor details that need to me tweaked about their educational system and high way system better compared to the national government. These such aspect I feel should have less strings attached for the fact the national government would have to much to follow through with.
ReplyDeleteLegally and ethically the federal government should be able to use aid conditions. The use of these conditions gives the federal government a lot more power over the states but i would not argue that its a bad thing. States rights in general lead to a much more segmented nation instead of a unified group of state governments under one national government. While some of the exact initiatives pushed with the method have become very unpopular decades later others are now used everywhere and generally accepted. In general though without this ability that was picked up through McCullough vs Maryland the national government would still be completely handicapped when it was trying to manage the states which in extreams could create situations where the states are too different from each other to be governable in the same strife.
ReplyDeleteThe followed strategies at the fiscal federalism level are totally justified in my opinion.The Federal government have been elected by the public to serve the public interest at its best. When the Federal government forces the States to pass a policy it is always a good public policy. That policy always serve the public interest. In order to maintain the union and the unity of the federal system; states need to make sacrifices and they are for the common good. However, states need to fined new ways to fund policies that being jeopardized to receive cutoffs from the federal government. The Supreme Court created a five point rule in order to regulate whether these cutes are constitutional or not. Although the process is complicated the five point rule is regulating it and making it an easier process. The U.S.A. citizens have been calling and demanding public officials who represent the government whether it was federal or local to make an action regarding some good public policies. The federal government is using its power that have been granted to it by the public to enforce these policies. These strategies have been used for a long time now. I think senator Byrd might been influenced by some the federal government strategies.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the idea of the Federal government using conditions of aid to influence states is sort of an abuse of power. First off the national government is much larger than each individual state and can easily bully any one of those states. The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights says that the states have the right to make their own decisions on issues not specifically laid out in the Constitution. Therefore states should be able to act out on their own on many issues. For example when the Federal government wanted to raise the national drinking age to 21, they intimidated the states into this new law by threatening to cut off certain funds. I believe that an issue such as this one should not be left to the Federal government because it is not laid out in the Constitution and should therefore be left to the smaller governments of the states. Fiscal federalism should not be allowed to be used in this way because it creates a bigger central government. I think that we should limit the power of the national government because if we do, we allow the states to have more freedom, which is a key principle of the United States of America.
ReplyDeleteWill Hewitson
I think it's definitely hard to find more positives than negatives to take away from the controversial issue of "conditions of aid," however, both do exist. To start, essentially "bullying" states into passing a law they don't agree with or have their funding cut is a bit dramatic. I can understand raising the drinking age because it really didn't have that much of a negative effect and basically just made young adults wait a few more years to legally be able to drink. However, I find it a bit disturbing that the federal government is capable of getting states to pass laws by threatening a fund cut. As someone said earlier, I think this could've been very positive in the 1960s when schools were beginning to desegregate. The South was a bit of an outlier on its integration policies, and threatening a fund cut for not desegregating could've gone a long way and perhaps happened sooner than it did. Although it's a pretty black and white issue, unfunded and funded federal mandates have their positives and negatives, but definitely appear more negative overall in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI feel like states cannot govern themselves with fiscal federalism. I have to agree with the republicans on this topic that the federal government is bullying them around. In this economy when you say you are going to cuts states funding by 10 percent what do you expect them to do. Of course they will have to comply with the federal government. Looking back on the no child left behind act, I think that was wrong to. Some schools will always have different standards then other schools. Schools in urban areas always struggle to have high attendance numbers and cannot get the kids to buy into the idea of education. No matter how good of a teacher, facility or programs you have some kids just do not want to be there. I was never a good test taker. That does not mean that I did not try my hardest in school. Standardized testing is something the students cannot study and prepare for, so it would be unfair to cut a school districts funding because of it. It would be very interesting to see what college applications look like around the United States if some states had a lower drinking age then some of the other states. The tenth amendment was made so that states could govern themselves if the powers were not granted to the United States. However, it is so easy for the United States to take the power back states are barely allowed to use the tenth amendment.
ReplyDeleteWhen addressing the issue of conditional aid there could be strong arguments made for both sides. I do think that federal aid is important and what the national government has been able to achieve through some of these conditions is also important although there are some parts that I disagree with. Therefor, I disagree with the fact that the National Government can keep money away from the states based on whether or not the states pass certain laws. I believe that the national government has the power they do over the state government for a reason and because of this I think they should use it to their advantage just differently then how they have. When it comes to discussing the conditions of aid it is easy to misinterpret the use of them. I do not believe it is something that is always wrong or always right but that it depends on the reason for the use of it. Withholding funds from the local government because they don’t comply with what they were told is a manipulative way of the national government using their power over the state government. I understand that this may be a way of keeping the state government under control and shows power over them so that they don’t feel as though they can always go against them, I just think that maybe the government should focus more on what the state needs at the time then what they want to be done, therefor adding a little more communication between the two. The 10th amendment was passed for a reason not for the national government to go and find a way around it. If the 10th amendment clearly says that the states have the right to make their own laws then the national government shouldn’t be finding ways around this right so that they can control them. Allowing them to make changes and add laws to certain states will only make them want to continue to do this to all states.
ReplyDeleteConditions of aid are used by the national government to influence the states to abide by their rules because they don’t have the right to force the rules upon them. Depending on individual beliefs, some might feel that the national government is bullying the states into following their rules but others might think it is helpful in keeping our country under control with the least amount of chaos as possible. For example, the government only allowed each state to receive their grants if they agreed to follow the “No Child Left Behind” Act. I don’t believe the government decided upon this rule because they felt the need to have power over the states but instead; I think they wanted to help the country by improving the education of our children. The government gave an incentive for the employees in the educational field to work hard and teach our nation’s children to become better test takers and improve overall scores for our reputation. I’m sure some of the initiative came from striving to do better than other countries but it is genuinely important for the children to keep up educational standards as well. In my opinion, the government should continue to use the conditions of aid in order to influence the states but they should do so sparingly. I don’t think it’s necessary for the government to use the conditions of aid as often as they have in the past but for certain situations it seems essential. If there were limitations put on the procedure, they should not get involved in situations that are different in each state. If the topic is of interest in every state and would affect them all virtually the same way, then the government should step in and use the conditions of aid.
ReplyDeleteI feel as no matter what kind of Presidency we have whether it be Republican or Democratic, there will always be the issue of whether or not that President and national government is over stepping their boundaries. I firmly believe the President and national government should be able to have more say and more leverage when it comes to laws like these. There is a national election for a reason. It is our job to make sure we elect the right people in office, and to make sure we are fully aware of what each candidate will come with. For example, the people that so highly complain about President Obama (and trust me I did not vote for him). Republicans as a whole, hardly got behind Mitt Romney for support. We, as a nation, elected him twice. We, as a nation, decided his policies will be better than his opponent's. We, as a nation, should accept that. Let him do his job to the best of his ability, the way WE elected him to do. I understand that policies in one state might not be as useful in other states, but where do we draw the line?
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that the federal government threatening to retract funding to the states if they don't do comply is a backwards concept. The federal government is here to protect the states, and be looking out for their best interests. Instead, through conditions of aid, the states are being micromanaged and they really cannot do a whole lot about it, unless they want to reduce the amount of federal funding their state will receive. If a particular state needs money to work on a project that would help out individuals in that state, the federal government should understand that, and not try to take advantage of the situation through conditions of aid. Many aspects of the states are not taken into consideration when the federal government tries to apply new restrictions to states. When the federal government threatened to cut highway grant money if the states did not comply with a 55 mile per hour speed limit they were not realizing that all states are not the same, and the local governments know more about the safest speed to drive on the terrain that they drive on every single day far more than the national government does. This may only be one example, but my point applies to many other examples in the same way. The local and state governments understand more about their jurisdiction than the federal government, and it should not be getting bullied into receiving the funding it rightfully deserves.
ReplyDeleteThere are always two sides to every story, and the idea of “conditions of aid” is no different. It is a tricky situation, but then again what do you expect when the lines of power are blurry and not clearly defined. There is not a clear line drawn in the sand so to speak and because of that the national government seems to be trying to push that boundary as far as they possibly can. On paper it sounds like a horrible idea, and it does seem wrong for the national government to essentially bully states into doing what they want by putting conditions on grants. That being said, when actually implemented there is typically a method to the madness and normally it is to help the general welfare. There are certainly things that should be left alone like a maximum speed limit, but other things like the cutoff for DUI that should be nationalized. When we look at the court’s five point rule, there are clear rules that the government must follow when they are making these guidelines for grants. As stated on the Wikipedia page, the National Minimum Drinking age act met most of them. This has me personally question that if there are five rules to be followed when allowing the national government to create strings on their grants, shouldn’t they have to meet all five points? Then again; and this might seem childish/ ignorant and I am not sure how accurate this is, but technically isn’t there money? Do they even have to give it to the states in the first place? Overall, I believe that there are some certain situations that require some influence. If the national government demands a change within their grants though, I think they should be required to provide the additional funding to help states meet those changes. With the example of NCLB, not all schools had the resources to help their students reach those goals. The national government also needed to realize that in our country, education is incredibly uneven and unfortunately it is unrealistic to hold all states to the same standard. I think what I am trying to say is that the national government shouldn’t be allowed to just pick parts of the situation they want to influence. They either need to go all in or stay out. When they pick and choose it becomes complicated and confusing for everyone.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard for me to say if I totally agree or disagree. I see both sides of this argument. On one hand I disagree with the federal government being able to hold a states grant money of their head until they comply. It just reminds me of someone older teasing a child with candy. I think the states should be given more dependence then the federal government gives. On the other hand I can see where it would come in handy. For example, Berch told us a story in class about the drinking age back in the day. He said in one state the drinking age was 19 and in the states right next to it, it was 19 and a college was on the border. He said that students would go to the next state and drink and drive home and lose their lives. Yes, that's an extreme example but one that could've saved a lot of lives if federal government would have stepped in sooner.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to conditions of aid on the part of the federal government, my viewpoint is very "ehh.." because I do see both the benefits and drawbacks.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, it's obviously morally sketchy on the part of the national government because conditions ARE a form of not just blackmail but also bribery towards the states. States could suffer from failing to meet conditions; for example, a highway could deteriorate if a state does not give in to the bullying of the Feds. I also believe that a lot of times the state and local government is way more attuned to what an area needs and what it doesn't; the national government does not have a localized knowledge. Just think of the difference between, say, New Mexico and Maine- there are clearly differences from population to climate and everything in between. Having each state adopt a certain policy is not always super-efficient.
Yes, the 10th Amendment is there for a reason, but it's not surprising that the government found a way around it. I read "Fiscal Federalism" by Chris Edwards on the Cato Institute website, and one sentence stood out to me which read: “The Tenth Amendment embodies federalism. Unfortunately, policymakers and courts have mainly discarded federalism in recent decades.” This article is completely opposed to conditions of aid and claims that the system “encourages excessive spending and bureaucratic waste, creates a lack of political accountability, and stifles policy diversity and innovation in the states.” I believe that there is some truth to this statement but that it’s not the only truth.
Yet…
At the same time, sometimes states need a push in the right direction when it comes to a policy that is for the greater good. Certain states are known for being more stubborn than others and being unwilling to move forward (these states tend to be Southern). And it's not like our government as a whole is devoid of corruption, of course it's not. So when that so-called corruption is used mostly for good policies, it's hard to get too mad about it because it happens all the time, from the national government to the City Council.
Looking over my classmates' responses, my opinion is probably closest to Samantha Gaspar when she says she's indifferent, because I see why this is a hypocrisy yet I see the good. When she said that she likes to think the national government puts these mandates into place to better our country and citizens, I had to agree. Although the drinking age is extremely unpopular (coming from someone who is still not yet 21), this law was not coming from a place of malice or ill intent. There are more than 4300 alcohol-related deaths concerning underage kids a year, and the national government saw a problem with that when they raised it nationwide in the early 1980s. These nation-wide policies also garner a ton of attention from the media and therefore cannot be super corrupt and evil. Although No Child Left Behind generated lots of negativity, it was not inherently evil and came from a place of attempting to do good.
For all these reasons, I believe fiscal federalism can do good even if it’s in a backwards way. Although conditions of aid can waste resources and reduce policy diversity, it can also work towards the greater good and for this reason I am divided about the issue of conditions of aid.
I completely agree with your reasoning. It is obvious that many states differ from one another, which can cause controversy to these conditions of aid. However, the national government, for the most part, shares the same goal as the states: creating a greater good and overall well being of its citizens. Given this goal, I agree with the idea of putting conditions of aid on all states. There has to be a line drawn somewhere, without one the country would become completely divided and all hell would break loose. There is no way to keep everyone happy, there is only an attempt at doing what the national government can to keep the citizens of the United States intact.
DeleteI do not think the national government should use the condition of "aid" to influence states. To me in the past years I have taken notice that the States have been losing more and more power to the national government. With these terms of aid we see the government bullying the states into giving or doing what the government wants, even if that one certain state does not agree with the government. In some certain cases we could see the government actually hurt a state by the state not giving in to what the government wants. For example, say the state needs more funding for education but the only way they can acquire it is if they do something for the government. But now say that the state doesn't agree with what the government wants it to do for the money. Then the state is without that money for education which in return hurts the people within that state. All in all, national government shouldn't use forms of aid to influence states because all it does is make the government look more power then what it should be.
ReplyDelete~Tyler Tumblin
I do believe that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states in order to enforce national rules and standards. These conditions of aid help adjust rules and regulations which help keep the United States remain fair and balanced and making sure no one state has an unfair advantage over another based on size or influence. I do think that there are some instances that depend on the specific situation or case. But, there are many examples that show the good that the national government can do with this power when creating and enforcing certain laws. For example, having a universal age in place for the drinking age in the United States has decreased the teenage death rate due to drinking and driving. Some would see this as the national government bullying or threatening the states in order to do what they want but when it is for the good of the general population of the United States i think it is a positive thing.
ReplyDeleteThe balance of power between the national and state and local governments is one of the most unique aspects of American democracy. In my opinion, this system works best when no particular level of government has too much power. I believe the national government using conditions of aid is exploitative and infringes on the rights of the states. Regardless of which political party is in power, conditions of aid can be used to coerce states into doing what the federal government wants, which isn't always in the states' best interest. While don't contest that the national government has a right to control spending, I believe that in some cases, using conditions of aid is a slippery slope that could eventually lead to an abuse of federal power. While they can be intrusive, conditions of aid do serve a purpose. I believe there should be some sort of guidelines laid out, like the Supreme Court did for determining the constitutionality of expenditure cuts, that could serve to ensure both the rights of the states and national government are being upheld.
ReplyDeleteThe national government using conditions of aid is an extremely harmful practice, and the biggest reason is due to the fact that it is used to enact blanket policies that allow for very little change accross extremely diverse locations. You can not tell me that the culture and society you see in the middle of Los Angeles is the same as you would see in a small town in West Virginia. Each society, no matter the size, has its own set of inherent issues, and when you attempt to force a blanket policy on a national level, it is only going to fail. Some examples of failure include No Child Left Behind, In reality this only made school systems worse as teachers stopped caring about the students learning what they needed to know and instead focused on teaching for the test so they could continue to receive federal money. Therefore, I believe that it is best for states to handle the majority of matters with the national government acting as an oversight, without the use of conditions of aid to enforce blanket policies. Only by doing this will we avoid inherent issues and see a positive change in our country.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is a realm of policy that gives great power to the central government. I can understand how the founding fathers included the elastic clause to allow for more power to be gained by the Federal government but I do not think that it was intended for as much use as it gets in our present day. They also probably would not be able to foresee the current financial climate that we are in. Even though the elastic clause can be used to dictate certain stipulations for states that they feel are unjust, they do not always have to take the money. I understand that this is a little deceptive because when a state or person receives money every year for something that they normally already qualify for and then next year you come and say no it has to be run this can feel a little controlling but sometimes we need the central government to exert change when the states can not manage to improve change. Take for example the case of raising the drinking age. In the case of the state highways, I feel that was some micromanaging from the central government because this is such a minuscule law to focus on and eliminating a states highways funds because they do not want to adhere to a Federal speed limit is understandable because the roadways change greatly across the nation.
ReplyDeleteThis is definitely a very controversial topic. I believe that by having the federal government threaten the state government, several other issues will evolve. One of them being, the basic idea that the federal government is present and active solely to help the protection of the states. If the federal government goes out of its way to try and help a state problem, then the states should be able to have a say and participate in what’s being done as well. Although the federal government is meant to be an aid for states, it can also have a negative impact because they are not getting all of the informational they potentially can receive. Because the state governments have tighter relationships amongst each other, I believe they should be able to have the right to make their own decisions when it comes to certain situations. Some limitations that can be granted among the federal government should include the idea that states can define and create their own laws and legislations that work for just them.
ReplyDeletePersonally I believe that the national government should not be able to use conditions of aid to influence the states. Essentially the government is bullying the states into making decisions that they want and if the states refuse to sign a certain law into power they threaten to take away grant money from the states which accounts for about 25% of their overall revenue which basically puts the states in a stronghold and forces them to put into power whatever law the government wants. If you asked any middle school student if this sounds like a fair way of making rules it would be safe to say that they would even agree that it is not fair to the states. On paper it looks like the states have equal power compared to the national government but behind closed doors it really is the national government being the puppeteer and basically forcing the states to do everything they ask of them. Grant money in a perfect world should be a consistent percentage of the amount of money the government collects in tax money that way states can not be bullied into signing laws they don’t want into power however it is highly unlikely that ever happens.
ReplyDeleteThe role and size of today's national government is not what our founding fathers envisioned. Although our country has grown in size and power, the influence that the national government has over the states has gone too far in certain areas of public policy. I believe that conditions of aid can benefit citizens as a whole on certain issues like raising the minimum drinking age. However, on issues of education I think that is a policy best left for the individual states. Our country is very large and diverse with many different values spread within the confines of our borders. Enacting a nationwide policy, such as no child left behind, might benefit the state of California but hinder and hurt the state of Virginia. These two states' populations are unique in their own way and may have different approaches to achieving academic success in their elementary and secondary education systems. Mandating every state to abide by a certain standard or suffer losing their categorical grant money for education is intrusive of the federal government into the states. Fiscal federalism has evolved tremendously since the founding of our nation. Through the interpretation of the necessary and proper clause, it has expanded the power of the national government by allowing it to withhold money and coerce the states. Many would argue that you cannot pick and choose what issues should receive conditions of aid and I would have to agree. While some fiscal federalism may have good intentions, policies like the drinking age, education, and speed limits should be left up to the states to decide. In my opinion, fiscal federalism is an abuse of the federal governments intended power.
ReplyDeleteAs with any government action that involves the states, there should be limitations. Especially when the national government is interfering with policy that only involves the state legislature. So you might say, like so many of my classmates before, that the limitations might be situational. Every state has their own problems and you may or may not agree that each state would know best how to handle those problems. But it’s not always the case. Things like healthcare and education might be something that is considered universal (although these are two things that have been widely debated in the past few years, in deciding who should have the power – the states or the national government – to mandate them). The national government is providing exceptional amounts of funding for these kinds of programs, so they should have some say in how it is spent, but the right procedures should be taken and the guidlines (the ones outlined in South Dakota v. Dole) should be followed. No coercion should be involved and the states ideas on the mandate or policy should be taken into consideration. So you might say the government should only interfere with things like the minimum drinking age. It’s something that has an affect on everyone. But something like the speed limit would have so many factors to take into consideration that each state would have different policy. General guidelines might be given, but each state should have the right to tweak them to fit their needs without funding being taken away from them. So, yes the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states, but only in certain situations.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states in order to enforce national rules and standards. The U.S. Constitution establishes the sharing of power between the national, and state/local government. Yet, the federal government is bullying states into passing rules they want them to. I understand the federal government has the states best interest but this is abusing their power. In the NMDAA the federal government mandated the states to pass laws increasing their minimum drinking age to 21 years old or face losing money for their highways. This is forcing the states to pass this law whether or not they really wanted to. No state was willing to lose approximately 10% of its federal funding for highway public transportation. I do not agree with this and believe there should be limitations. The federal government should not be able to withhold federal funds from states who do not want to pass the rules and standards they want them to.
ReplyDeleteThis topic is obviously something that will be strongly debated. While many people believe that the federal government holds too much power with compliance of aid, others disagree. i cannot give an answer of what is right and what is wrong. The conditions of aid help to maintain order within the states, but at the same time gives the federal government a lot more power than the states. The federal government is not always totally aware of the needs and desires of a certain state, which is a debate within the conditions of aid. I feel as if sometimes a state should be given more room to decide what it needs, rather than the federal government. Obviously there are certain laws that need to be nationalized, but there are definitely laws that should differ from state to state. The states should be given more leeway in deciding laws and the federal government should act as a supervisor, giving both sides a bit of control. This is an argument essentially without an answer.
ReplyDeleteAs corrupt as it may be, I believe that the national government will always have the ability to control the states and their citizens how they wish to. Given the control of the national government, I feel the need to agree with their conditions of aid. Although many states differ in characteristics, such as population, climate, geography, etc, all states (for the most part) share a common goal. This common goal is to ensure the safety, health, educational, and overall well being of its citizens. The reason i agree with putting conditions of aid on a states funding is that most of the time, if not all, these conditions keep in mind the goal of creating a great good for the united states. The national government shares the same overall goal of keeping our citizens safe, healthy, and educated. With acts such as NDMAA, No Child Left Behind, and the National Highway Act, the national government is attempting to keep that goal possible.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I can see why some people would disagree with these conditions of aid--and thats where the difficult controversy comes in. It is obvious that states can differ greatly, almost as if they were antipodes to one another. The differences in states can cause disagreements to these conditions. States may feel obligated to abide to these conditions of aid just so they're able to keep up with the competitiveness of the country and its economy. In order to keep everyone happy, people believe that there should be "conditions to these conditions of aid", if you will. The bottom line is, there is no way to keep everybody happy. The national government can't place rules on individual states while keeping others free to do what they want. There has to be some overall control in order to keep the United states in line, which is why I agree with putting conditions of aid on states.
I had to research this topic to truly understand fiscal federalism and what it did for the states. While researching, I learned that today there are more than 1,100 different federal aid programs for the states, with each program having its own rules and regulations. I also agree with my classmates that stated that it is not a simple yes or no answer. On the one hand, I don't think that the government would put a law into action that would harm the states. However, I don't think the government should take away a percentage of federal funding if they refuse to accept the law. For example, federal activity increased in the early 20th century, and this is when income tax was first introduced. Initially, there was resistance to the expansion of federal aid, but the states soon realized it was difficult to opt-out of new aid programs. This is because if they did opt-out, their residents would still have to pay federal taxes to support federal aid spending in other states. I think that in a situation like that it is unfair because the states felt like they had no choice but to give in. Overall, I think that the states should be able to make their own decisions without being penalized.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that with this type of controversy it is hard to determine the boundaries on what is too much control for the national government. On the one side, you have to look at it as our national government has all this power because we take a notional vote to place leaders into positions. This is much more substantial than the local government elections just merely because of the size let alone the responsibility that comes with these positions. Also the threat of an over powering national government is what caused the break off from Brittian with the formation of the colonies. We instated this form of government to not bully around the states but rather to guide them and maintain a sort of order. I think that the conditions of aid aren't a bad idea, its just hard to determine what is fair because all states are different and require special attention to certain aspects. It all seems to come down to opinion, and when you have two opposing parties that never seem to be able to work together, we are going to have some debate and probably get little accomplished.
ReplyDeleteAlthough we do have two major parties that disagree on most every major issue, is that such a bad thing? Of course, having more than two parties would allow for a more diverse representation, think of how terrible it would be to not have political parties. We would essentially turn into a monarchy. Our constitution was designed so that the status quo would be easy to maintain, and changes would be extremely difficult to make. If the parties didn't constantly work against each other, the government would put much less thought and use much less caution in the decisions that it does make. After all, even our founding fathers who thought factions were evil eventually decided that parties were necessary.
DeleteBefore we argue fiscal federalism, we have to dive into the real question; which is better for society in the long run; centralization or decentralization? Of course, fiscal federalism is not completely a centralized strategy to government, but instead a strategy that leaves the states with the same amount of power they usually have, and then blackmailing them into a centralization by waving loopholes in their faces. By putting an all encompassing blanket over state governmental policies, we hurt the states that innovate the most. By agreeing that Maine has the top school system, and that we must use their system in every state - we stomp on the new ideas that are being proposed in Michigan. By enforcing a 55 MPH speed limit on all of the country's state roads, we stifle the ability for a husband who lives in the Great Plains to not be on time when we has to pick up his kids. Of course, fiscal federalism doesn't mandate this to happen; instead, it bribes politicians who would rather please those who are getting the funding rather than look out for his or her constituent's interests. Fiscal Federalism, to me, is merely just a loophole to circumvent decentralization. States do have a choice, but usually politicians and the interest groups that care choose funding a job security over innovation and the hope of new ideas.
ReplyDeleteCharles Peck
While I do believe that the balance of power between the federal and state governments is extremely important, I think there are some instances where the national government can step on the states' toes a little, like the case with underage drinking. The national government knew that lowering the drinking age would result in less fatalities in drunk driving accidents; they has a very legitimate reason for wanting the states to do this. Same goes for the No Child Left Behind Act. American students should be upheld to a certain standard of education, regardless of which state they reside. This is not to say I'm all for big federal government; there is definitely a boundary to how much power the national government should have. But, when unity and homogeneity between states is in everyone's best interest, fiscal federalism works, as long as it's not abused.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism is the interaction between state and local government to achieve specific policy wants. The federal government offers money to the local in the form of grants, but in accepting those grants state government must oblige those wants of federal government. So these master puppeteers are able to impose a political agenda. Using these grants the federal government are able to guide the state and local governing bodies to follow a strings attached method. Though not the most upstanding way of passing political policy it has proven to be effective. The effectiveness of this method depends on the ability of the states to support themselves…. It is possible for a state to become dependent on this incoming money from the federal government, which enables the federal government to mold the state and local as they see fit. These conditions of aid have become tools utilized by politicians to pass policies, target particular projects and use as a platform for reelection. The idea of the federal giving back to the state and local I feel is great. The strings that come along with the giving back are equivalent to fixing a horse race and are not so great.
ReplyDeleteThe use of these tactics is almost sickening and is reminiscent of mobsters of the prohibition era using this leverage to achieve personal goals. These methods have a primary goal and that is to pay off state and local government to adhere to the wants of our federal government, enabling the federal to completely bypass the 10th amendment. I say out with fiscal federalism and the imposed will of our Sith like Emperors in their Republic like federation!
I think that it is unfair that the National Government can use conditions of aid over state and local governments. It almost seems as if State and local governments are useless. If they have to abide by the rules and laws the national government pass, what's there job to do? While the states technically don't have to follow national government rules, losing a percentage of their federal funding from the national government will eventually catch up to them, and states will realize they'll have to eventually sign whatever bill it is that's being passed to get that money back. Because of all of this, the 10th amendment is almost useless as well if the national government is going to have all the power anyway and have this much control. I believe it is unfair and states should have more freedom on creating certain laws and bills that go in effect for there state only.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, conditions of aid are mostly evil devices used by the federal government to manipulate states and individuals. I believe the federal government (should) exists for a single reason--to preserve our individual rights. I also believe that federal and state governments were created to keep each other in check, and to ensure that neither of them gets too powerful. Conditions of aid, however, create situations in which state governments develop a dependency on federal governments. The federal government is much too powerful and oversteps its boundaries all the time, and things like this that force states to be dependent only expand the power of the federal government. As Madison suggests in Federalist 51, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition..." He stresses the importance that each individual branch and department of government should be as little dependent on the others as possible, to ensure that one of them can't become too powerful and encroach the rights of another. I believe conditions of aid allow for exactly what Madison warned about to happen.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism, while providing a method of distributing power between a central and local governments, has a few major flaws; namely, that it also creates a never-ending argument over which of the two should have more powers, and which powers each should have. The Federal government needs to be strong enough to carry out its tasks of overseeing and protecting the nation; however, if it is too strong, it defeats the purpose of having localized governments in the first place. The balance is a tricky one to strike. However, while I do believe the central government needs to be fairly powerful, it also needs to follow its own rules. It clearly states in the Tenth Amendment that any powers not given to the federal government goes to the states. Withholding aid, while completely fair, is a coercive loophole to get around this law. The federal government has every right to deny aid to the states, but it needs to be for legitimate reason, not to twist their proverbial arms behind their backs. I don't think that twenty-one is a bad age limit for alcohol consumption, but it is clearly defined as a right of the states to define that.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the national government should use conditions of aid to influence the states. By taking away any amount of funding, the national government is succeeding at putting the states at a disadvantage, and I believe that this is unfair. Although it’s “constitutional,” I think it’s wrong of the national government to take advantage of their powers because in the end the states will be the ones to suffer. For example, the “No Child Left Behind” Act has a good idea behind it, however by taking away funding from schools that obviously are struggling is putting the children at a disadvantage. Same thing goes for cutting highway funding; eventually, these highways could potentially become dangerous, and therefore put the people at risk. I think that if the national government wants to encourage states to pass certain laws, there are other methods to do so besides withholding funding. In many cases, I believe that the local and state governments know more about their own wellbeing than does the national government, and therefore, they should not be bullied into receiving the funding that they need and deserve.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism is a direct infringement on our 10th Amendment rights. I think it is unfair for the federal government to be able to restrict the states powers by imposing conditions of aid. It is basically like the federal government can control any decision that has to be made in America dependent solely on monetary value placing an emphasis on greed and not on fairness and equality, the foundation of the Constitution. Surpassing the 10th Amendment by threatening to take away federal aid if the states do not comply to a federal mandate creates hostility within the Nation and forces the states to comply to a mandate they do not agree with. Although conditions of aid are successful in forcing states to agree with the federal government, they are not fair and do not correspond with the morals our nation was built on. Since conditions of aid and federal mandates are successful, they will probably always be around. If the states continue to allow these actions to take place there must be some appreciation from the federal government. An unfunded federal mandate is not fair and does not help any party besides the federal government. If the federal government continues to use federal mandates and conditions of aid they should at least be funded. A funded federal mandate may take away some hostility from the states and will allow them to feel they have some form of agency in decision making.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the national government should be allowed to use conditions of aid, as while it is certainly a loophole it remains constitutional. However, I do think that there should be limitations on how much of a percentage the national government can take from the states revenue, as fiscal federalism accounts for about 25% of it. Taking 10% of this would nearly slash that revenue in half and prove to be unnecessarily costly to the state and local governments. States have the right to exercise their individualities, and treating them as if they are all the same is simply foolish. As others have argued, each state brings forth a situational debate. While the national government would most surely be passing a law in what it thinks to be in the best interests of its citizens, some (such as the 55mph speed limit) are not as useful and/or practical. Thus, while the national government can use conditions of aid, I believe they should limited and examined by a state to state basis.
ReplyDeleteI feel that fiscal federalism is a useful tool for the federal government to use to implement programs to the states. Problems can be created by having states where some laws are implemented and some are not, such as having a discrepancy in drinking age or DUI limits where it is better to have uniformity throughout the country. However, I do think it should be used sparingly. Laws that are protecting the rights of citizens under the constitution should be force on states so all citizens remain equal. Fiscal federalism could have been useful during the civil rights movement in the sixties to get the southern states to integrate schools and other public services. Some laws should not be forced. The speed limit law for example is something where the states should have autonomy because of their differences in size and geography.
ReplyDeleteLike some of my classmates have stated, I too believe that the idea of conditions of aid is beneficial depending on the situation. In some cases its unfair, for example, changing the speed limit or the repairing of a highway, etc. Every state has a different geographic set up, so making the speed limit the same in every state isn’t necessarily fair for drivers throughout each state. Some states consist of more open roads and less traffic, where limiting the speed of a car to 55 is a little slow, and on the other hand there are states that are more populated and congested and making the speed limit 55 is just fine. Also, state government knows much more about what problems need to be tended in their state rather than the national government making decisions for them. When it comes to laws about the DUI cutoffs and drinking laws in each state, I do believe that the federal government should step in and make them all virtually the same, because blood alcohol levels in drivers is something that should be the same in every state. A drunk driver in New York, is just as dangerous as a drunk driver in West Virginia, the only thing that is different about them is the state that they are drunk driving in.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism has a place in our government, but it should only have an extremely small one. While both parties have at some point in time used conditions of aid, the debate lies in to what extent should fiscal federalism be used. At what point is it an effective method to accomplish good for the people and when does it become federal bullying of states' rights? A starting point for this debate is the court system for analyzing conditions of aid established in South Dakota v. Dole. While the interpretation of these rules is up for debate and they will no doubt be misconstrued to accomplish whatever goal the reader ideologically believes in, they at least provide a small buffer for the states. They state that conditions of aid should always be an incentive, not a demand. The threat of losing funding should cause the states to consider the issue at hand, but not outright force them to bend to federal will. While the fact that this rules exists is surprising, it still does little to protect the states. What line does the federal government have to cross before it is coercive? Perhaps the fact that by 1988 every state had raised the drinking age to 21 shows how "limited" federal pressure really is. Furthermore, fiscal federalism should only be applied to topics that relate to every citizens quality of life. While parties will no doubt abuse their majority in passing laws of this nature, the goal of fiscal federalism should be to protect citizens general wellbeing and not advance party agenda. This means fiscal federalism should only be used on the rarest of occasions. Usually a state government would know much more about the needs of its people compared to the federal government, making it a more effective legislative body. Fiscal federalism should only apply in the rare event of a population disagreeing with its state legislators or on a universally supported concept. Since a universally supported concept does not exist, what does that say about fiscal federalism? Thus conditions of aid should only exist as a last resort for a case where a state government and its people disagree on a general welfare issue. In the meantime, because the "rules" of its use are left to interpretation, it will continually be used by the party in power to pass nationwide legislation that the states can "choose" to abide by, regardless of what their population thinks about the issue.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I feel that the federal government has a right to certain grants to state governments, to an extent. For example, restricting every state to a speed limit of 55mph just isn’t logical. Every state has different terrain and landscape, and limiting the speed limit to 55mph to states that are wide open doesn’t do any good for the citizens. On the other hand, limiting the drinking age to 21 does. Studies have shown that your brain isn’t fully developed until your early 20’s. This means that it would benefit, and be healthier for all people under the age of 21 to not consume alcohol. It would also be safer for everyone on the road. With this being said, I think it is fair for the government to be able to take away that money from the highway because they are looking out for the states citizens well being. If the citizens decided against that and do otherwise, it is simply their fault, as the government was only looking out for their safety, and not particularly looking to enhance their power. With this being said, in some instances I agree with the fact that the federal government is putting out grants to enhance power, I also could argue that they are looking out for state citizens in other instances.
ReplyDeleteI agree on most of what is being said but i do not think that federal government should have that much over the national government to hold the grants over them. In a comment stated above, "it becomes less about what the state needs and more about the national government's own agenda" Everyone is looking out for what they want to achieve and will strive for power and money to do so, but in the end federal and state need to put everything aside and come together to discuss the grant.
ReplyDeleteI think the system of Fiscal Federalism is definitely allowing the Federal government to overstep its bounds and abuse a legal loophole to hold power over states. In the written dissent to the South Dakota v. Dole case, Justice O'Conner points out that the Federal government attaching requirements and conditions to federal aid is perfectly legal. The problem is that the Federal government has abused this to attach conditions that are not "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds". I completely agree that a reasonable relationship between the purpose of the funds and the conditions for their use should exist. It makes sense that the Federal government should be able to dictate, to a degree, how the money they are distributing via grants is spent. However, conditions like changing the drinking age for the state are completely irrelevant to funds for highway upkeep and repair. If there is nothing preventing the Federal government from attaching irrelevant conditions to federal funds, it essentially gives them the power to bully the states into doing whatever they please, and this completely betrays the system of powers divided between the states and the federal government that the country was built on.
ReplyDeleteI am having a tough time deciding whether or not I think that the national government should be allowed to use tools like fiscal federalism and the conditions of aid. I understand that the national government likes to have all of the power and that there normally needs to be a way to regulate things so the country remains united. However, the states understand their own affairs and issues on a more personal and knowledgeable level than the national government does. If students are falling behind in school, then the state or the local school district committee most likely knows if it's because of poor teaching or a lack of supplies or whatever. If a local highway is showing statistics of high accident rates, the state probably knows if its because of the roads themselves, or the speed limit. They're more likely to know the root of the problem at hand. The national government just looks on from afar and thinks they understand the problem or the way to regulate something in each state. Regulating state issues like the speed limit for a highway doesn't make sense for the national government to handle. The states where the highways are located would know more about things like that.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism in my opinion gives the Federal Government too much power and influence over individual states. By the Federal Government using this power to pass certain agendas to have national rules and standards, it hinders the individual states ability to govern themselves based on what is in the best interest of that particular state. If a Senator or Governor has to compromise on something he/she wouldn't normally just so that state can continue to receive funds from the Federal Government isn't right. As taxpaying citizens, we elect Senators and Governors that represent our beliefs and opinions so they can be our voice in Washington. If they are unable to freely govern the state we live in based on having to push the agenda for the Federal Government, then they become irrelevant and ultimately unnecessary. In situations such as this they become merely an illusion that we as law abiding citizens have any type of say in matters. If there is a consensus from the Federal Government on a particular issue such as the drinking age or speed limit, they will pass the laws the way they want one way or another. So I understand that in the Political realm it makes sense for a Senator to cave on an issue in order for that particular state to continue receiving funding for things such as highway repairs and public schools. However just because I understand it doesn't mean I respect the decisions or agree with them. I ultimately think that states should be able to govern themselves to a certain extent.
ReplyDeleteThe conditions of aid are a useful tool in the eye of the federal government. Terms do not force, but leave states with no option to comply with terms, for funding. In states like West Virginia with such a small populace there is not a lot of tax revenue for the state government to divide amongst its citizens. Budget constraints and with the needs of citizens, the states essentially have to agree to the conditions of aid. This in theory is an effective way of funding states while passing rules or laws that would not pass in congress. Because this is actually a backdoor to the 10th amendment it is technically legal. Although citizens and states feel that this is unconstitutional they have no choice but to accept the terms of the fiscal aid. This obviously creates a power vacuum in which the federal government is the benefactor. But with all that being said this is an effective way for states to receive fiscal funding and provide services to those citizens that need it. The practice of the conditions of aid needs to be revisited to ensure that the federal government could never violate the 10th amendment. Outside of the this possibility I see this as an effective funding measure.
ReplyDeleteJacob Powers
The discussion of how much control the national government should be permitted over the states governments has been an area of debate since the commencement of the American government. I believe that for a government to be most efficient it is essential that some sort of hierarchy is established. The question of wether the national government should use conditions of aid to influence states is entirely a situational debate. We live in a world where incentives are a part of our everyday life and have been proven to be effective, therefore the national government threatening to take away highway grant money to get states to raise the drinking age to 21 is just the national governments way of making sure this policy is followed. However in situations like the “No Child Left Behind” act the incentive set by the national government to take away educational funding from the states becomes very debatable, because the incentive can be detrimental to the well being of the students. Overall ideally fiscal federalism is is a fair way for the national government to insure the states are following the law however, if the incentives that the government implements is unfair to the people of the state it should be challenged.
ReplyDeleteThe power of the purse is a strategy that has been bestowed upon our federal government in order for them to get what they want due to the federal government's superior tax-raising abilities, which helps generate 25% of our state and local government's revenue. It may seem like a sneaky strategy because the federal government is essentially tip toeing around the 10th Amendment by giving the power to the state to decide if they want to comply with a law, but at the same time withholding funds to major projects within the state. It doesn't seem fair that the federal government can influence a states decision by conditions of aid, but at the same time doesn't our national government want what's best for our country as a whole? We must remember that we are "the United States is," not "the United States are." This strategy has been implemented many times in our nations history and has worked for the best many times. Looking at the bigger picture, this strategy can work within the federal government itself. The power of the purses can limit executive power when need be, an example of this would be The Foreign Assistance Act of 1974. This eliminated all military funding for the government of South Vietnam and thereby ended the Vietnam War.
ReplyDeleteThe supreme court case of McCulloch v. Maryland changed the way the federal government can influence the states. It gave significant power to the national government by elaborating on the necessary and proper clause and demeaning the 10th Amendment. This in turn led to fiscal federalism. Many would argue that the country is ideologically divided when it comes to power between the national government and the states. Using money to influence state policies, I feel, can benefit citizens as a whole. Issues like the minimum drinking age is a perfect example. Ronald Reagan had the right mind set when he signed into law NDMAA. He would justify his actions by saying that forcing states to raise their drinking age is safer to society and our country as a whole. He was criticized heavily for this by younger generations who made claims that our parents drank at 18 and had their crutch so why can't we have ours? His response in a speech given after the signing was, "How about you become the generation who doesn't have a crutch." I commend him for holding our youths to a higher standard. This is a policy that states really should not have a difference of opinion on and the court case South Dakota v. Dole justifies that. I would also support conditions of aid on issues like enforcing appropriate speed limits in all states. Yes, some states are more open and flat, however that is no excuse for having a recklessly high speed limit in order to get from point A to B. The idea of fiscal federalism is to help make society safer as a whole within the meaning of the constitution and, according to precedent, that's exactly what our national government has done.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government is supposed be a supporting power to the state and local governments, not a greedy, cranky and child like power. If a state or local government needs financial aid for whatever reason (highways, schools, social welfare, etc...) the federal government should cut a check and trust that the states will allocate those funds appropriately. There should not be stipulations on how to receive, use or distribute funds from the federal government to state a local governments.
ReplyDeleteConditions of aid used as a means to get what you want is an abuse of power, trust and money. If the federal government wants something to be changed that really has no affect on the general wellbeing of the national community then they should drop the issue. The drinking age and speed limits weren't really bothering anyone, so why go through so much to change something and keep it changed. No Child Left Behind wound up leaving children behind. There is no point in teaching to the test, it's stressful on the students and faculty. Not to mention it goes against everything we know about how people learn and how to have high retention rates. When the national government uses conditions of aid it's saying "you better live up to these rules, or else!" That puts the sate in a sticky situation having to choose between keeping a federal program funded or choosing its state rights and losing money. Money isn't something you hang over peoples heads, it's a tool not a bargaining chip (at least it would be a tool in my perfect world where people weren't greedy and mean).
Bottom line, there shouldn't be limitations on the money given to states by the federal government.
It is prevalent that this specific topic is highly debated. Conditions of aid could potentially be beneficial. In some situations, like the drinking age, I think that it is okay because various ages among different states could be problematic and may be more effective if constant as a country. As for US government power, I personnaly feel that there should be guidelines and limits for the acceptable amount. Too much power given to a country can be intimidating and viewed negatively. This could become too overbearing for citizens and cause them to lose sight of themselves. It could decrease their part in our country. Thoughts, beliefs, creativity and innovation could be hindered. Each state is different and has different personalities and backgrounds. Thus, overpowering US government could alter society causing a different outcome.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very difficult question to answer with a simple yes or no, because of the many different factors that can go into conditions of aid. In the legal drinking age case, I think that was a very dirty way for the national government to try and gain the upper hand on the states power. When the national government goes and pulls a move like that it can undermine the core of our nations structure and what Federalism is supposed to be. With that being said i'm going to have to say no, I don't think that the national government should be able to use conditions of aid to withhold money from states. Yes, there are different scenarios where states can abuse the power, but if there is also the chance that states are not receiving adequate funding for good programs, services, etc. that would benefit the people.
ReplyDeleteIf you have not lived in a certain place, or lived a certain life, you may not know what is best for a person who is living it. So when the federal government thinks they know what is best for a state, they might not always be right. I feel that only giving a state money if they abide by the federal governments laws can be unfair. The states should be able to decide what is best for them, and as long as they aren't messing up the balance of the federal government, then it shouldn't be a problem. I do agree though, that with some issues it would be best to have the federal government make up the rules if it will affect how the states interact as a whole, or together. When it comes to issues a state has in itself, then the state should be able to come to an agreement for what is the best thing to do.
ReplyDeleteNational laws are needed in my opinion. To really be the United States we need to have some laws that are universal in our country's boundaries. Fiscal Federalism gives a lot of power to the Federal Government, but I think most of this power is needed. When the laws trying to be passed by Fiscal Federalism become crazy or unatainable by the states is when the Federal Government has went to far but as far as drinking age, speed limits, DUI limits, and "No Child Left Behind" these are not outrageous claims or demands they are laws that the whole nation needs to keep so we are 50 states together not 50 states with all 50different laws. It would be way too confusing to the citizens if I'm allowed to drink in WV but not in PA so as a PA resident I just go to WV all the time to drink at a younger age, and then try and cross back over the state line. That would be crazy and it would encourage DUI's to come back to the home state. Fiscal Federalism does give the Federal Government a lot of power but as long as the laws are for the good of the citizens and the states can easily attain the laws it is putting forward the Federal Government needs the power to make us and keep us the United States.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government has proven themselves in being able to create effective and steady revenue sources. With these funds, they are able to persuade the states to do things they might not otherwise do. I believe that the federal government not only has a right to participate in this fiscal federalism, in many cases, I believe they have a responsibility to act. Good public policy is not always popular public policy. For example, even though it was proven time and time again that a speed limit of 55 mph would be more energy efficient, better for roads, cause less accidents, etc., it was still not widely popular. States, in and of themselves, would not likely have passed these laws, largely due to political pressure. However, the federal government is often able to do things without direct response from the constituents. Empirically, the lower speed limit was the better public policy, and I believe the federal government has the responsibility to encourage states to make good policy decisions.
ReplyDeleteSo what about when fiscal federalism makes states do things that turn out to be not so good policies? Most people can agree that No Child Left Behind turned out to be a failure. However, it was not a failure with which we were trapped. Just as you might have imagined, the constituents voted candidates in at the federal level who supported repealing No Child Left Behind. While some people say that fiscal federalism takes decisions out of the hands of the voters, we can see by this example that officials at all levels are still held accountable.
This is our governments was of using intimidation to get their way.
ReplyDeleteThis action by the national government is taking advantage of the 10th Amendment, which is giving them even more power over the states. It almost seems as if the government is bargaining with the states, when in reality they have no choice. Obviously if they have to choose between getting their funding or not agreeing with a law, most likely they will agree to the law because of money reason when this might not always be good for their individual state. In class we talked about how some states whose funding was cut just manage with what they have. They sometimes will have to unfairly distribute money. How does a state decide when the cut off for money is? For example, we talked about how there was a list in a state that was made of the most expensive illnesses or diseases. When the money runs out how do they decide which sick person should be cared for over another? I don't think that the national government should be able to keep money away from the states based on whether or not certain laws are passed.
Casey Rock
Like others I also believe the argument over conditions to aid depend on the situation. I don't think it's ok that's the nation government withholds funds from states if they don't adhere to government conditions, although some situations I feel it is necessary. In 1984 President Ronald Reagan signed an unfunded federal mandate called the National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA). I think federal mandates are important for laws such as this because if the state doesn't comply with the law they gave possible punishment. The state will help follow through depending on if the mandate is funded or not funded. I think that it's a positive thing for the national governstates to be able to interfere with what's best for our country in certain circumstances. I think they should have limitations that only allow them to take action during serious situations.
ReplyDeleteState and national government should have equal powers. In my opinion, the national government shouldn't be allowed to tell the states they will not have aid if they don't do something they say. With the drinking age, it took four years for all 50 states to agree on changing this law. The government is acting as a bully and restricting states their 10th amendment. With the 10th amendment, states should be allowed to make/change the laws they want within the state without national government above them telling them what is right and wrong. Overall, I think limiting the states aid because they don't agree with the government is wrong and shouldn't be used when government wants to change something in the US.
ReplyDeleteFederal and state government have been struggling over power control since the beginning of our nation. The federal government is powerful in that they had and have the upper hand in this case. They are able to influence states to follow their rules as they control the taxing abilities. The federal government forced states to change their stance on the legal drinking age when threaten to take away highway funding.
ReplyDeleteThe federal government slips under the radar by not changing or adding amendments, but by dangling money in front of the states. Fiscal federalism is the main source of income for state government, and threatening to lower their income can cause problems. Only that state would be hurt by the loss of money, as the majority of states complied right away. I believe that it is wrong for our federal government to force states to follow their rules. It takes away a lot of the power of local and state governments when decisions are being made for them.
- Carley Franks
Ever since the Constitution was made, the Federal Government has been finding ways to grow and create more power for itself. The grants that it gives the states significantly helps their welfare and productivity. In the debate of if conditions of aid should be allowed, I personally believe that the Federal Government should not be able to place these conditions on states.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court set the five guidelines to limit how the federal government can set these conditions of aid, however I feel that they do not fully protect the states from unfair treatment. Politicians in general have the notorious stereotype of working their way around the law to get what they want, and I believe that the ability for the federal government to place these terms on the states has potential for abuse towards the states.
The federal government places these conditions of aid in order to create a standard that all states follow, but as much as we would like to believe it, all states are not equal. In certain aspects yes, but as discussed in class, states like Nevada and South Dakota, whose roads are much different than places like Connecticut, for example, were negatively affected by National Maximum Speed Limit. They have roads that travel across their whole, large state that make it nearly impossible to conveniently get anywhere in their rural areas with lower speed limits.
An unfunded federal mandate like the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, in my opinion, completely goes against what the 10th Amendment was meant to do. It says that the states have the power to make their own decisions on issues not specifically stated in the Constitution. No where in the Constitution does it say anything about alcohol consumption, and the federal government deciding to punish the states for not agreeing with their new regulations goes against this amendment considering it wasn't even their issue to deal with in the first place.
When the No Child Left Behind Act was recently passed, I personally remember it negatively affecting people I knew. The federal government created the act because it wanted to make sure that everyone was getting fair, equal, quality education throughout the whole nation, but it is simply a ridiculous goal. A close family of mine in Pennsylvania works in a high school as an english teacher, and is head of the special needs department. The No Child Left Behind Act gave no special treatment to such students, and her life became a nightmare when she somehow had to find a way to make sure that her special needs students received the same treatment as her other students. I spoke with a principal from my hometown, Mike Pelligrino, who described how the act changed what it was like to be a principal. "It made everything really intense for administration and teachers," he said. He described how now at the end of the year there is a standard test that each state creates, and everyone must take it. The federal government says you need a certain percent of students to get a high enough score, or the state comes in and makes its own changes in your school. The problem with it, he said, is that at his school, there is an extremely high population of people who can't even afford lunch, while up the road at a different school everyone lives in mansions. How can a school with less fortunate students be expected to be at the same standard as students from wealthy homes, while they are still trying to figure out where their next meal will come from? It's even worse when you compare states this way. How is it fair to have the same standards of learning with the states with the best teachers and education systems with the states with the worst?
I don’t think there is a black or white answer to whether or not the national government should be able to use conditions of aid to influence the states. In the National Minimum Drinking Age Act example, I think the government was in the right to establish a "unfunded federal mandate” against the states. Though the government is taking advantage of the states by refusing them 10% less of their funds, it was for the better of the country. But this is where it becomes a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? Who decides if it is indeed what is the best choice for the country? One one side, it is a positive action that allows the national government to get things done the right way and improve the states public policies. On the other side, it is an unfair imposition of the nations government on the small governments.
ReplyDeleteAs Danielle Knebel mentioned in her post, it truly is a situational debate. Her example of the speed limit is a good example how conditions of aid could be negative. How is the government going to tell the states what is the best speed limit for their state? Every state is different. A real life example, I live in Dover DE, which is a five and a half hour drive to Morgantown, WV. I drive through four different states with all different landscaping and traffic flow (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia.
Another positive unfunded mandate would be the Clean Air Act, which was passed to support the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act established National Ambient Air quality Standards and required all states in the U.S. to implement plans to adhere to a set of standards. Though it would be a burden to the states, it was established in the best interest of the country. In 1990, the rules and regulations expanded and modified, along with the enforcement authority.
A more controversial example would be the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This act was in regards to the quality of public education in the U.S. Schools were required to give all students a state wide standardized test; the scores would determine how much funding the schools would receive. It schools display poor test results, there funding would be affected. The schools were offered replacement teachers who were highly quality, along with requiring the school board to develop plans that demonstrated the steps they were to tai, to improve the quality of education in their schools.
The overall issue is how much power are the states losing, along with how much is the nation government gaining? This correlates to our lecture last week regarding the “layer cake to marble cake” comparison. Because of conditions of aid and other factors similar to this, we are shifting from a dual to corporative federalist system. When states are being challenged with the power to decide their own healthcare system, speed limits, education system, and drinking age; what do they have power over exactly, and how easily can the national government walk in and take over? There is not clear cut line between the responsibilities of the local and state government and the nation government.
I think the federal government’s use of conditions of aid to influence state policy can be productive. The federal government has good intentions but the states perceive the conditions as bullying because no one likes being told what to do. It’s almost exactly like parents bribing their children. If a mom tells her son that she’ll give him $20 to go out but only if he cleans his room, he forgets about the $20 because he’s so frustrated that he has to clean his room to get it. He feels like it’s unfair that he has to do something to get the money. He’s not entitled to that $20 any more than a state is entitled to federal aid. Momma bear is not punishing him by not giving him the $20 rather he is just not being rewarded because he didn’t clean his room. In the same sense, the federal government is not punishing the states, rather they are just not rewarding the states because the federal government does not think the states are doing what’s best for their people. The federal government is not required to give money to the states. I do agree with most people that this is the federal government’s way of getting around the 10th amendment however I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing for the general public. For one, the states don’t have to comply to the conditions of aid granted it would cause them a lot more problems than accepting the conditions. Secondly, whether you agree with the conditions or not, the federal government obviously thinks the conditions are beneficial otherwise they would not require them. Most Americans and state/local elected officials get caught up on party lines. If a democratic president sets the conditions of aid, the republican states are the ones being bullied and vice-versa. As stated in the original blog post, it’s hypocrisy on both sides.
ReplyDeleteThis issue has been discussed in a couple of my classes and I still don't 100% stand on either side of the issue. What I do know is that every states budget is their ultimate treasure. Without money from the national government, they can't go far. Each state contains a different geographic set up, a different collection of races and people, and not one state comes anywhere close to looking like the next. They all need to make individual decisions on their policies and laws... To an extent.
ReplyDeleteIf the national government didn't regulate the way they do then this country could be complete chaos. Nevada could be making every Wednesday dress up like a clown day while New Jersey could make Monday dress like your jersey shore character (being from New Jersey gives me some rights to be able to make fun of my home state.)
In South Dakotas case, yes they abided my the constitutional laws and I do believe in the statement saying that the minimum drinking age and the interstate high construction are not related. But I do agree with that being able to purchase alcohol at 19 does influence you to drink alcohol under the age of 21. And not just beverages with 3.2% alcohol. It encourages to drink anything you can get your hands on, and that's when it becomes very dangerous. And that's when drunk drivers increase on the nationally funded highways. It's always a sticky situation, but you must always think of what's right for the entire community.
With that being said, even though I do believe every state needs to make their own decisions to an extent, I do somewhat side with the national government. The United States of America is such a wonderful place to be. Even though many of us can argue about flaws in our government, it got us to where we are today. The national government knows what keeps us running and working to our best. If limitations were to exist, I believe it should just be something simple. As to if "x" amount of states enforce the certain regulation pressured by the government, than everyone else doesn't get the grants that the "x" amount of states are. And if there's a rule or regulation that the national government strongly believes a certain federal government should pass, taking away money is an appropriate consequence in my eyes.
Gabrielle Murray
I have mixed feelings about the federal governments use of the condition of aid. On one hand, the intention was to make things better as a whole. On the other hand, taking funds away from a program that is essential to all Americans doesn't seem to be the way to go either. If you look at historical instances in which the federal government tried to take away access to things , such as prohibition, it didn't solve the problem. It led individuals to circumvent the system and to go through illegal channels in which to do so. In the case of "No Child Left Behind", the concept, better overall education for children, was a good one. However, it did not address the core reasons for the inequality between school systems (such as inadequate funding in impoverished areas that led to substandard resources).
ReplyDeleteAnother thing to consider, if these conditions of aid were instead set up as an incentive such as if you comply you get an additional 10% added to your highway funds instead of losing aid if they didn't comply then would more people would be in favor of the conditions? I believe so, however, it would still be an issue of whether or not individuals believe that the federal government is overstepping their bounds. I don't have a clear cut answer here ; there is good and bad to each side.
The US government has used fiscal federalism in many ways that have both benefited and not benefited the US. Some ways that have been helpful would be during the Civil War because the southern states did not have their best interest in mind as well as when the government made the legal drinking age 21 because of the safety of young adults, and also the "No Child Left Behind Act" because they wanted a higher standard of education for the US as a whole. However some rulings that did not benefit the US would be when they tried to make on overall maximum speed limit of 55 miles per hour. This would not benefit all of the US because, even though it would help in more populated states because of safety, it would only slow the traffic down in rural areas where there is little traffic or pedestrians. Overall, I think that the US has good intentions with making funding depend on certain policies but I do not believe that it is always helpful.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism is often viewed as a form of oppression and an abuse of power by the federal government, however I do not believe this is the case. While I do feel budgetary constraints may burden some states, I don't see another option that could carry out the same outcome. Many argue that the threat of losing highway funding is not only extortion but also irrelevant to policies such as the drinking age. I do not consider it extortion or irrelevant, I believe the government chose something that every state has a stake in. Did they use this dependence on highway funds to their advantage? In a way yes, but is it mandatory to follow? No. Congress withheld federal highway funding from states who chose to legalize marijuana and they have survived fine. The results of Fiscal Federalism justify the means.
ReplyDeleteFiscal Federalism in my opinion, gives the Federal Government to much pull over the individual states. The national government passes certain laws and guidelines that he states have to follow, that possibly can hold back the state and local governments from running effeciently as possible. The Fiscal Government collects all the taxes from all of the states, and then returns the money to states in a lesser amount through grants. For example, The states have 2 kinds of grants that they give to state governments. One form gives money to the state to use for one special thing, such as special education for a school, while another is a grant that they give to the state government, which they give for a certain thing such as school, or roads, and the state can use it for any sub group in that category. The national government has passed certain laws and regulations that give them more power over the states by making them follow certain boundaries to get the grant money necessary to keep the state running well. For example, they set rules that the state does not necessarily have to follow, but threaten to cut the grants that they receive if they do not follow the certain rules. After all of this has been said, I can agree that I believe that conditions of aid should be given out to the states. The national government only gives out 25% of the taxes that are gained from the states. Therefore, the national government should have to place a certain amount of money back to the states, depending upon the condition, population, density, and size of the state. National Government is like a bully to the local and state governments, they milk as much money as they can from them, and give them a small percentage in return. The government needs to distribute more money to the states which will allow them to grow and possibly bring more money back into the government on a national level.
ReplyDeleteThe debate between state and federal law can be tricky, especially concerning federal aid. I believe that the federal government should be allowed to give incentives for states that stick to federal standards, but should not be allowed to penalize those that do not wish to do so. The federal government holds so much power over states in writing their own legislation. In many cases, a great deal of money can be given or taken away simply by abiding by a sort of federal standard, or by going against it. In the same way that the federal government prohibited alcohol in the 1920s, marijuana has been for quite some time. With states, and even individual cities, across the nation legalizing for both medicinal and medical purposes, it is clear that a shift has occurred in the relationships between state and federal governments. In our nation, the federal government should be allowed to set a standard law that should be observed by the states if they see fit; however, if a state should find issue with this law, it has to give the federal government reasoning. With this kind of communication system, better federal laws could be written and observed by more states. Incentives for abiding by federal statues should be allowed within reason, but it honestly can seem like bullying when the federal government takes funding away from states that decide to contradict federal law.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the drinking age law, it makes a lot of sense that infrastructure funding is cut in order to make all states raise it to 21 years. If the federal government did not take this bullying role and actually listened to the ideas and concerns of state governments, the political, and judicial systems of the United States could run in a super smooth fashion.
Fiscal federalism in essence appears to be a great idea which allows the federal government the capability to keep all of the states in line without necessarily crossing any power boundaries. While I personally agree that in many instances, such as with the NMDAA, these acts of fiscal federalism have solid evidence to the benefits of all states following these mandates, such as the safety of young drivers. On the other hand, fiscal federalism could by definition be seen as a threat by the federal government to the states. Rather than the mandates being seen as options, they in reality are threats, as if the states refuse to follow the mandate they are left worse off than before the act of fiscal federalism occurred.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the federal government is pushing its boundaries when using this technique to get around states and the general public. To a point there have been several instances where this needed to be done, because the states just wouldn’t cooperate with one another for the good of the country. For some cases that are more of a broad topic it is good to unify the government and have one solid rule.
ReplyDeleteThere are several opinions coming out about this "problem" with fiscal federalism. I believe, like some others, that the federal government has the responsibility to act in this way. By putting pressure on the individual states to put certain acts and addendum into action by threatening to withhold funding they create a more cohesive national structure. If, lets say, this never happened, our country would turn out one of two ways: Either every state would appear, constitutionally, individual, 50 separate state governments functioning under the idea of a unified country, or the federal government would have so much power that the state government would be nothing more than a courthouse and state police, middleman so that DC wouldn't be so busy. Fiscal federalism is a choice made by each state. Yes, it does come off as "bullying", but I believe that the alternative would create a much more chaotic system.
ReplyDeleteReading this back, it sounds very dark and extreme. I am not an big participant in governmental debates, I prefer to just watch from the sidelines because I don't really have the type of attitude or interest to actively involve myself in politics, so take this with a grain of salt.
Like many of my other classmates I think that fiscal federalism has a lot of grey area. I do agree that the national government is abusing its power with conditional aid. Not only should the national government be working with local governments to provide them aid, not withholding aid from them, but they are also abusing the 10th amendment by going around it to create conditional aid. On the other hand, I do think that national government should have a say in larger issues in states such as no child left behind and the drinking age, but I do not believe that the national government is executing their power correctly when it comes to having says in these issues. They should not be allowed to withhold funding from states no matter what because it gives them far too much power. The national government should by now have thought of a better way to share power with the states.I do not 100% disagree with what is trying to be accomplished with conditional funding, however I do think that it is being executed incorrectly and it's currently giving the national government way too much power, something that this country has not wanted since it was founded.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism is one of the federal governments most useful tools that they use to get the states to comply with the laws of federal statute. An example of how they do this is by restricting grant money for things such as infrastructure unless the states set their laws pertaining to the highways such as speed limit and DUI limit, to federal standards. Conditions of aid with fiscal federalism seems like a great idea when looking at it from the federal governments side. It can be seen as a useful tool to get around the 10th amendment and get states to comply with what the federal government wants. However I feel it is tough to answer the question of whether they should do this or not, because it depends heavily on what side you are arguing for. On one hand, the federal government needs ways to force states to abide by federal laws, this is how the feds exercise complete control over the nation. However, on the other hand, I feel like there are some areas which should be left up to the states to decide how to implement for themselves. Areas specifically like DUI laws and speed limits. For example, some state roads are more dangerous than others and each state's roads are different from those of another state. In Florida, the speed limit on I-95 is 70 mph,; however, in Pennsylvania the speed limit on the interstate is 55 in most areas. Why the limits are what they are is not the question, but things such as this should be left up to the states to decide and not forced upon them through the federal government withholding grant money. Overall, I feel like the tool of fiscal federalism and the tactic of conditions of aid are very useful to the federal government and have been shown to work. In that sense it is probably a good power for the federal government and some would say more power to them; however, I would not. I feel the feds should not use it to influence areas that are much better off when left up to the states to set laws about them.
ReplyDeleteFiscal federalism most of the time only helps the national government. From the outside it looks good, but with all the things the feds can do to make them the only ones benefiting from it they will. State and local governments should have the power to control their policies and laws because not every state needs to have all of the same things. With the control of aid in fiscal federalism states either lose money by deciding not to do what the feds want or they make a policy they do not want/need and often have to give up something in return. Either way the national government is still benefitting from this more. The feds do need to do this with certain things, but there is a lot of issues state and local governments should have power of. There needs to be some kind of change that actually does what it's supposed to do and benefits both sides.
ReplyDeleteSaydi:
DeleteI could not agree with your post more. Everything the federal government does definitely looks good from the outside looking in, but when you hear about everything that it forces the local and state governments to do you can tell that they are bullies. I understand that sometimes the federal government needs to get certain laws passed but they should not be able to override what the state governments wish to have and do.
I disagree with Saydi and Breanne both on their ideas that federal government should not have the power to override state governments. With the ability for federal governments to overpower state laws, the feds have ridden states of segregation and discriminatory practices among society. Without this ability, there may still have been segregation. The feds should only be able to overpower states if the law is constitutional and for the better of society.
DeleteThe Federal Government uses conditions of aid to determine how much money states receive and what they have to do to receive it. This practice was declared legal and Constitutional by the Supreme Court in the case South Dakota v. Dole. While the Supreme Court declared conditions of aid constitutional, it does not mean that was the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteAn example of conditions of aid for states is how the Federal Government initiated the NMDAA which required the states to make their drinking age 21 years old. The government decided that in order to get the states to make the drinking age 21, they would cut off highway funding. They used this technique to influence the states into abiding by the law.
Although the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional, I do not believe the Federal Government should put conditions of aid on state funding. I feel as if the Federal Government should give each state a certain percentage of revenue every year and let the state government decide on how to use that money. There should be no stipulations on this money that the states receive other than the states must still abide by the constitution and rules that the Federal Government can constitutionally enforce on the states. Obviously some states would need more money than others to operate hence needing more of a percentage. How much of a percentage each state would get would be a heated debate--this being the only major problem with each state receiving a certain percentage of revenue every year.
State and national government should have equal powers, but I know how difficult that can be because someone must be in charge. It does not seem fair that the state government can be threatened with funds if they do something that they do not want to in their state. The 10th amendment is what gives the states the freedom to alter and create new laws that they want in their states without the national government controlling them. However, it does not work this smoothly because the federal government wants what they think is correct and does not particularly care about what the individual states want. An example of this would be the legal drinking age and the federal government forcing states to change their ages. This power control struggle has been going on since the beginning of our national and I believe it will continue for quite some time. It is sad that money is enough to manipulate the states and it allows the federal government to get away with whatever they want, but the states need to be funded so what choice do they really have. I believe that what our federal government is wrong and that they should abide by the laws that hold this country together.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the national government should be able to outright cut funding in order to get the states to comply with a regulation. In my opinion that is strong arming the states into doing what the federal government wants instead of taking the time and money to create an amendment. I think that it may however be appropriate to withhold some funding on related regulations and funding for small regulations, the government should not waste time on passing an amendment for. For example the drinking age of 21 is a very large policy change, federal highway money does not have enough to do with they risking age to justify taking spending and is too big of a policy change to just "tack on" to something. But if they wanted to require a slightly higher tax on alcohol that may be appropriate to tack on to funding that deals with the FDA or something like that. Even if the finding and policy change may help the states or be something I agree with personally the way they do this is not fair and essentially removes power from the states that they earned and creates a situation where the federal government can just bully the states into doing what they want all the time .
ReplyDeleteFederal mandate around funding is crap in my opinion. State residents provide the money, I feel as though each state should have a say in how it is spent without any regulations. If States had this option, the country would be more interesting. You could move to where the state you felt had the best policy. State elections would also be more interesting for this same reason. If more power lands in the laps of your state government, most would make sure the perfect person was in office.
ReplyDeleteYou can not be partial with this issue. The federal government can not cut in on certain issues they feel is "good public policy" and stay out of others (such as gay marriage and legalization). What some believe is good policy may be completely bogus for others.
Fiscal Federalism gives the Federal Government to much pull over the individual states in my opinion. I support the 10th amendment and I think state government does better than the federal government in many ways. Also in a recent Gallup poll only 49% of people have a great trust/fair amount of trust in the federal government while the same people have 62% have a great/ fair trust in their state government. Also I think that state government manages money much more efficiently than federal government. I disagree with Scalia and I don’t think the federal government can withhold money from states if they don’t conform to their idea of good laws. Americans are diverse and what we believe and think is morally acceptable is different depending on many factors. One of those factors is where you live; I think that takes a big role in what people believe in. For example the drinking age, people in Wyoming might think it’s okay for 19 year olds to drink while New Jersey might think it’s not okay. This should be decided by the states and not congress. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is a form of blackmail in a way. Fiscal Federalism gives the Federal Government to much pull over the individual states in my opinion. I support the 10th amendment and I think state government does better than the federal government in many ways. Also in a recent Gallup poll only 49% of people have a great trust/fair amount of trust in the federal government while the same people have 62% have a great/ fair trust in their state government. Also I think that state government manages money much more efficiently than federal government. I disagree with Scalia and I don’t think the federal government can withhold money from states if they don’t conform to their idea of good laws. Americans are diverse and what we believe and think is morally acceptable is different depending on many factors. One of those factors is where you live; I think that takes a big role in what people believe in. For example the drinking age, people in Wyoming might think it’s okay for 19 year olds to drink while New Jersey might think it’s not okay. This should be decided by the states and not congress. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is a form of blackmail in a way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kennedy's point about good public policy not always meaning popular public policy. In the larger picture of federalism, I understand why the government utilizes conditions of aid as a tool through which they can enforce power. Although I think there are flaws in this system, like those discussed in class, from the influence of interest groups to state size, I understand why fiscal federalism exists. It's important to remember a large part of federalism derives from the need for accessible relationships between the government and the governed. People cannot govern themselves, especially in a union that is so diverse comprised of so many individual parts. Thus, people response to incentives. There are worse ways in which the government could get states to comply to their policies--I think although it may not be the most favorable or flawless approach, I would not call it altogether unjust. I think it's important to also remember that we elect representatives who present our states goals/wishes/needs to the national government, therefore they (the government) are not blindly enforcing and establishing policies. I definitely think this answer varies depending on the conditions and circumstances around each policy of spending cut; I just also think at the end of the day I understand that while it's frustrating, it is also at time, unfortunately, perhaps necessary.
ReplyDeleteThe national government definitely has its flaws in its system. Fiscal federalism plays a major part in the national governments role. It is the model of spending, taxing, and providing grants in the federal government system. When it comes to the national government, their primary means of influencing state government is giving money to states in the form of grants. Our nations leaders originally intended these grants to be for things such as funding agriculture and education. Over time, they grew to fund other things such as public housing and urban development. These states often need this funding from the national government to do projects and have programs for citizens. However, with the fact these states rely on these grants allows the national government to regulate how and where they spend their grants. In a nutshell, the national government uses the need for fiscal funding as a way to have more power over the states. Essentially, I do not think that the national government should have the right (even though they do) to not give states their grant money if they do not pass the laws the national government wants them to pass. It is almost like a bribe to me. The fact that states are so powerless compared to the national government seems like a flaw to me.
ReplyDeleteI think that the national government should be able to use conditions of aid to influence the states. There should be limitations on this of course, but it should be based on what the states think. Every state would be different of course. I feel like the constitution should be remembered in situations like this, because it is what our country is based on. There are some things that should use government influence, but there are also things that require little government influence.
ReplyDelete