Washington lawmakers have enacted or are considering nearly 50 pieces of legislation during the 108th Congress that would leave states holding the bag.  Medicare prescription drugs, special education, homeland security, enforcement of federal immigration laws will all compound the states’ budget woes.

Over the past four fiscal years, states have been forced to deplete reserve accounts, reduce or eliminate programs and increase fees and taxes in order to close a cumulative budget gap of more than $200 billion.  Despite an improving economy, a recent NCSL report noted states still must close a $720 million collective budget gap for fiscal year 2004 and a $36 billion gap in fiscal year 2005.

2)Many states (and local/regional governments) have several options.  One is to sue the federal government over the mandates; the several of the state/local governments may unite in the lawsuit.  Second, the state/local government will just not enforce the unfunded mandate.  The various agencies/departments has enforcement discretion. 

3)  State/local politicians don't want to be the "villian" because they raised taxes to pay for these mandates.  Additionally, these mandates are a problem  to states/local governments because the federal government will threaten to withhold federal money from funded mandates and grants (i.e. highway repair funds) if the state/local governments don't enforce the unfunded mandates.  The money involves millions of dollars per year.

As I said in the beginning I am not in favor of unfunded mandates in general but I do not consider the “no child left behind” to be in that category.  Remember what states lose if they do what they have done for decades, which is provide a mediocre education to most and a very poor education to many, is l the Federal funding they were getting to do the job RIGHT.    After all, all of us pay in one way or another for poorly educated children. 


I feel defense (homeland security) is in a similar category.  If states do not spend what is required to protect their citizens then should they expect federal aid when/if they are attacked.  I would rather have the states do what is necessary than have some federal agency try to decide how to do the job at the state level.

[NCLB is absolutely an UNDER-funded mandate in Alaska- there are funds- but they are far from adequate to our states needs- like I said before- it is very much like knowing that I need to spend 30 thou to restore a car, but only budgeting 20 thou- sure, I have allocated money, perhaps even increased it, but it is not enough to get the job done. Alaska has unique needs, and NCLB is a classic UNDER funded mandate thrust upon a state that really did not need this program in any way- it was forced upon us.

Making business comply with lawful regulations passed by the federal legilslatures and senate is not an unfunded mandate- any more than giving you a ticket for needing repairs to your car is the feds job to fund-

3) State/local politicians don't want to be the "villian" because they raised taxes to pay for these mandates. Additionally, these mandates are a problem to states/local governments because the federal government will threaten to withhold federal money from funded mandates and grants (i.e. highway repair funds) if the state/local governments don't enforce the unfunded mandates. The money involves millions of dollars per year.

Remember what states lose if they do what they have done for decades, which is provide a mediocre education to most and a very poor education to many, is l the Federal funding they were getting to do the job RIGHT.    After all, all of us pay in one way or another for poorly educated children. 


I feel defense (homeland security) is in a similar category.  If states do not spend what is required to protect their citizens then should they expect federal aid when/if they are attacked.  I would rather have the states do what is necessary than have some federal agency try to decide how to do the job at the state level.

In fact, only two significant unfunded mandates have been imposed on state and local governments since 1996, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office (see Tables 1 and 2). These two unfunded mandates cost the average state only $9 million per year, or 0.09 percent of the typical state's $10 billion general fund budget. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report shows that the 1995 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) has reduced the number of new unfunded mandates placed on state and local governments.2 Consequently, states cannot legitimately blame Washington for their spending crises.

Why is the number of unfunded mandates so much fewer than is commonly reported? The answer lies in the definition of an unfunded mandate, which UMRA generally classifies as a federal program that meets both of the following criteria.3

-Mandate. "Any provision in legislation, statute, or regulation that would impose an enforceable duty on state, local, or tribal governments...or that would reduce or eliminate the amount of funding authorized to cover the costs of existing mandates. Duties that arise as a condition of federal assistance or from participating in a voluntary federal program are not mandates."4
-Unfunded. "Direct federal funding is less than the amount state, local, and tribal governments would be required to spend to comply with the mandate. Such costs are limited to spending that results directly from the enforceable duty imposed by the legislation rather than from the legislation's broad effects on the economy. "5 An unfunded mandate does not violate UMRA unless the combined annual cost to state, local, and tribal governments exceeds $58 million (inflation-adjusted from $50 million in 1996), which is approximately $1.2 million per state.

The distinction between voluntary and mandated programs is important. Its central principle is that states should be free to spend their own tax revenues as they see fit, rather than be forced to fund unwanted programs imposed by Washington.

Voluntary programs, by definition, are not imposed on states. They are proposals by the federal government of how states could perform a certain function. If a state likes the federal model, Washington offers to help pay the costs of implementing it. If a state dislikes the model, it can opt out and remain independent of federal meddling.

The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act is as an example of a voluntary program. States have the authority to decide how to educate their disadvantaged children. The federal government has created its own model program, the No Child Behind Act, and offered to subsidize the program's cost for any state volunteering to adopt it. The states that have criticized the federal model or found the federal funding insufficient are free to opt out and run their own programs instead.

By a vote of 98 to 1, the House passed a resolution calling on Congress to exempt states like Virginia from the program's requirements. The law "represents the most sweeping intrusions into state and local control of education in the history of the United States," the resolution says, and will cost "literally millions of dollars that Virginia does not have."

No Republicans voted against the resolution, a fact that House Education Committee Chairman James H. Dillard II (R-Fairfax) said is proof that "the damn law is ludicrous."

The only delegate to vote against the resolution was a Democrat, Lionell Spruill Sr. (Chesapeake).

Some call these programs “de facto mandates” because no rational state would opt out of the federal programs. Why is it irrational to opt out? Because the federal money more than justifies the federal strings attached. States don’t unanimously enroll in these programs because they’re required to — they enroll because the deals are too good to pass up.

Then why are states still so angry with Washington? Because they want that money with no strings attached. They’ve come to consider themselves entitled to the $400 billion they receive annually from Washington. They demand federal dollars, yet they bristle at Washington’s insistence on influencing how its own money is spent.

The Heritage link you gave did state that opponents call the NCLB requirements "de facto mandates"  You could argue that the feds reserve the right to tell the states how to spend money that is given to them, but it still amounts to the feds using federal dollars as a carrot to get the states to do what they want,

Bush deserves a big pat on the back for NCLB.   Washington has finally DONE SOMETHING to address a decades old problem.