Full Version: Federal vs. State gov.-are the Feds winning?
When it comes to the relationship between the federal government and the various state governments, it appears that the feds are clearly getting their way. Inspite of a "state's rights" philosophy of some national congressmen and senators, these views are hardly noticeable in federal legislation aimed at the states.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has highlighted some of the views.
Example #1
The 9-11 report recommended that the federal and state governments work cooperatively to shore up driver's license registrations in order to prevent potential terrorists from gaining a license inspite of being here illegally for whatever reason. The problem?-a bill regarding rigorous driver's licenses was passed, but the cooperative part was effectively junked with a mandate from heavens to the states in regards to how the process will be carried out. The incentive to change?-the potential withholding of money to the states.
Example #2
-The exportation of the federal debt to the states. The feds have mandated the states to carry out certain programs, without providing funding and now under the current budget, reducing what aid they do give the states.
and....
Even medicaid is passed down to the states:
Questions for debate:
1.)Have the feds been getting away with taking advantage of state governments?
2.)Who do you believe should pay for mandates such as HAVA, SCAAP, as well as Medicaid?
3.)Would it be better to have state governments get their way on these and other issues?
The National Conference of State Legislatures has highlighted some of the views.
Example #1
The 9-11 report recommended that the federal and state governments work cooperatively to shore up driver's license registrations in order to prevent potential terrorists from gaining a license inspite of being here illegally for whatever reason. The problem?-a bill regarding rigorous driver's licenses was passed, but the cooperative part was effectively junked with a mandate from heavens to the states in regards to how the process will be carried out. The incentive to change?-the potential withholding of money to the states.
QUOTE
These bills instead threaten to handcuff state officials with unworkable, unproven, costly mandates that compel states to enforce federal immigration policy rather than advance the paramount objective of making state-issued identity documents more secure and verifiable," they said.
According to a new NCSL paper, The ABCs of IDs for U.S. Immigrants, both the federal and state governments have acted to strengthen the integrity of identity systems since 2001. States, however, have no control over the millions of federally issued documents for the foreign-born or the federally-managed databases on the foreign-born. The ability of states to verify the identity and authenticity of each applicant's immigration status is complicated by the accuracy and accessibility of federal databases.
According to a new NCSL paper, The ABCs of IDs for U.S. Immigrants, both the federal and state governments have acted to strengthen the integrity of identity systems since 2001. States, however, have no control over the millions of federally issued documents for the foreign-born or the federally-managed databases on the foreign-born. The ability of states to verify the identity and authenticity of each applicant's immigration status is complicated by the accuracy and accessibility of federal databases.
Example #2
-The exportation of the federal debt to the states. The feds have mandated the states to carry out certain programs, without providing funding and now under the current budget, reducing what aid they do give the states.
QUOTE
The Indviduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) continues to be funded at only a fraction of what it costs states to implement the programs. The proposed budget would fund IDEA at 19 percent of the per pupil costs despite a long-standing promise from Washington that the federal government would cover 40 percent of the per pupil costs of the program.
and....
QUOTE
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) enacted by Congress and signed by the president in response to the voting irregularities associated with the 2000 presidential election is not funded under the current budget proposal which leaves a funding gap between the amount Congress has authorized and the amount states have actually received for implementation.
QUOTE
Funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) would be eliminated if the budget proposal were enacted. SCAAP provides states with fiscal resources for the incarceration of undocumented immigrants who are convicted of state crimes. The program had been underfunded at levels approaching $300 million in previous years.
Even medicaid is passed down to the states:
QUOTE
Since its inception, the Medicaid program has been a state-federal partnership that intends to provide health coverage for the nation's poorest individuals. However, through deep cuts proposed this week of up to $60 billion over the next 10 years, budget negotiators may erode that partnership and pass additional costs on to the states and increase the number of uninsured.
Questions for debate:
1.)Have the feds been getting away with taking advantage of state governments?
2.)Who do you believe should pay for mandates such as HAVA, SCAAP, as well as Medicaid?
3.)Would it be better to have state governments get their way on these and other issues?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.