TOPIC #8 -- FEDERALISM -- AID, PREEMPTION, MANDATES & RESTRAINT

January 13, 2018 | Author: Anonymous | Category: Social Science, Political Science, Civics
Share Embed Donate


Short Description

Download TOPIC #8 -- FEDERALISM -- AID, PREEMPTION, MANDATES & RESTRAINT...

Description

FEDERALISM:

Aid, Preemption, Mandate & Restraint

GRANTS-IN-AID

Money paid by one level of government to another level of government to be spent for a given purpose

T YPES OF GRANTS  Categorical grants are those grants targeted for a specific purpose by either formula or project  Formula grants are distributed according to a particular set of rules; who is eligible and how much will they receive  Project grants are awarded on the basis of competitive applications to perform a specific task or function  Example: Smaller Learning Communities

 Block grants are awarded for general purposes allowing the recipient great discretion in spending the grant money

GRANTS-IN-AID  Redistributed tax dollars to the state and local governments  Formulas used to distribute grants can be highly political

 All grant money has strings attached  Strings can ensure the money is spent for the designated purpose; determine the effectiveness of the grant; achieve some broad national goal not always attached to the purpose of the grant

GRANTS-IN-AID: DRINKING AGE If states did not raise their drinking age to 21, Congress threatened to reduce their highway funding South Dakota v. Dole (1987) Court ruled that Congress could not mandate a national drinking age, but they could offer an incentive for states to adopt a higher drinking age

CONDITIONS OF AID Attached to federal grant money given to the states If states don’t want the strings, they can opt to not take federal money PROBLEM. . . Conditions can be specific i.e. environmental impact statements

CONDITIONS OF AID Federal government believes it is obligated to develop uniform national policies and to ensure the states do not misspend federal funds States feel certain conditions do not take local conditions and costs into account. Did someone say free money??

PREEMPTION Power of Congress to enact laws by which the national government assumes total or partial responsibility for a state function Example: Nutrition Labeling & Education Act (1990) – established national standards for food labels, stripping the states of their power to impose food label requirements Prevents states from requiring added information to labels

MANDATES  Federal rules states or localities must obey  Funding is not necessarily linked  Example: civil rights

 Mandates can be vague allowing federal agencies to decide what states and localities are supposed to do  Example: Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted with no clear cut explanation of what “equal access” means, how the law was to be administered or how much it would cost the states

MANDATES  Can also be either be inadequately funded by the federal government or completely unfunded  Example – No Child Left Behind

 Unfunded Mandates Relief Act (1995) – requires the Congressional Budget Office to prepare cost estimates of any new legislation that would impose more than $50 million/year on state and local governments or more than $100 million/year in costs on private businesses

RESTRIANT Forbids state governments from exercising a certain power Example – Bus Regulatory Reform Act (1982) Forbade the states from imposing conditions that would restrict bus service to out-of-the-way areas

AS A RESULT . . . Due to the many conditions attached to federal aid, some states have found ways to improvise Turn over trash collection to private firms Encourage welfare recipients to take get jobs This led to a devolution of federal power to the states by the 1990’s

View more...

Comments

Copyright � 2017 NANOPDF Inc.
SUPPORT NANOPDF