Map-21 is a highway bill, not a transportation bill, it cuts support for public transit in favor of highway expansion
Download 0.57 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT Federalism
- Congress serves as the main front of civil rights disputes, not the states.
- Federalism Bad - Racism
- Reliance on fiscal federalism and state welfare distribution exacerbates racism and poverty
States Bad - TyrannyThe idea of devolution producing innovation and protecting liberty is a romanticized delusion. States protect parochial interests and respond only to interest groups which serve to subjugate minorities.Cashin, Georgetown University Law Center, 99 (Sheryll, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Empowerment Zones, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), “Federalism, Welfare Reform, and the Minority Poor: Accounting for the Tyranny of State Majorities”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 99, No. 3 (Apr., 1999), pp. 552-627, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1123518, Accessed: 29/06/2009) The idea that states are more likely to foster citizen participation simply because they are closer to the people than the national government is an unproven theoretical assumption of federalism - an oft-repeated mantra, probably grounded in romanticism, that has come to be accepted by many as truth.99 Yet, as an empirical matter, citizen participation in national politics is stronger than it is in state and local races,100 despite pol- ling data that suggests citizens have slightly higher confidence in their state, rather than federal, governments.101 In addition, while this defense celebrates citizen participation as a benefit conferred by federalism, it fails to account for the ugly side of state and local control of political processes, namely, the potential subordination of weak minorities by entrenched majorities. Federalism does not necessarily increase citizen participation, "it simply authorizes [states] to decide for themselves how much participation is desirable."102 Indeed, if the New Federalist fervor is meant to empower citizens, then one can argue that replacing entitlements that enable beneficiaries to act for themselves with block grants actually moves power away from the people and toward state government.103 In the Federalist Papers, James Madison argued for the creation of a national government precisely because he feared that smaller governments, particularly cities, were more susceptible to the tyranny of majority factions.104 As argued below, there is evidence to suggest that state and local governments are more susceptible to interest group capture, and that politically weak minority groups, such as welfare recipients, can be subjugated by political majorities in ways incompatible with sound welfare policy.105 AT FederalismImpact to federalism is empirically denied. The government has issued policy in response to inequities before.Bullard 4 (Robert, Ware Professor of Sociology and Director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, “Addressing Urban Transportation Equity in the United States,” Fordham Urb. L.J. 31,2003-2004, p. 1199-1200)ZLH 151 On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12,898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.' 1 52 This executive order reinforces what had been law for three decades.' 53 Indeed, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discriminatory practices in programs receiving federal funds.' 54 Environmental requirements also reinforce a number of regulatory laws and statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,155 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,156 and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970.157 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Federalism perpetuates racist inequalities and undermines national welfareBrown, University of California at Santa Cruz Politics Professor, 03 (Michael, Sandford Schram et al., Bryn Mawr College Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research social theory and policy instructor; Joe Soss, American University School of Public Affairs Government Associate Professor; Richard Fording, University of Kentucky Political Science Associate Professor, Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform, P. 55-56) Fiscal federalism is usually justified on grounds of efficiency minimizing externalities in the provision of public goods and enhancing responsiveness to citizens’ preference for different bundles of basic services, taxes, and regulation It is usually assumed as well that decentralization of public services promotes democracy and protects individuals from overweening central authorities. Doubtless, federalism has promoted diverse responses to public problems and it might even be seen a bulwark against federal intrusion Yet these conventional justifications for federalism evade its role in perpetuating inequalities. Decentralizations to small units ignores; as Grant McConnell observed long go, “questions of power within the unit of organization” (1966), McConnell’s point, of course, was that some individuals or groups gain by decentralization while others may lose. Reliance on fiscal federalism and state welfare distribution exacerbates racism and povertyBrown, University of California at Santa Cruz Politics Professor, 03 (Michael, Sandford Schram et al., Bryn Mawr College Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research social theory and policy instructor; Joe Soss, American University School of Public Affairs Government Associate Professor; Richard Fording, University of Kentucky Political Science Associate Professor, Race and the Politics of Welfare Reform, P. 53-54) Race and fiscal federalism have been antagonistically linked since the New Deal, when the federal government assumed greater responsibility for subsidizing the activities of state and local governments. From FDR on, national politicians chose to use state and local governments as conduits for national policies; they only differed in the latitude they granted to subnational governments. If federalism has been constitutive of the welfare state, it has also impeded the redistributive policies needed to either ameliorate or diminish poverty while permitting racial discrimination to flourish and reinforcing the hierarchy of white over black African Americans have always understood that a decentralized welfare state would only sustain the color line. During the debate over the 1935 Social. Security Act, Walter White of the NAACP warned Eleanor Roosevelt that “if the Federal Government continues to make lump grants to the States and leaves expenditures to the States it should not abandon all responsibility to see that Federal funds are not used to grind a section of its citizenry further into the dust” (Kifer 1961, z34). Redistribution is a national function. Relying on the states to redistribute resources from wealthy citizens and places to impoverished citizens and communities is a dead end. Such a policy, Richard Musgrave observes, “can only operate within narrow limits” (1997, 67). States have few incentives to mount redistributive social programs and will seek, ordinarily, to shift the burden of spending to the national government. Tax revenues needed to fund governmental services depend on private investment and the willingness of taxpayers to pay up. Any government is an “economic parasite,” Joseph Sthumpeter memorably wrote, and it “must not demand from the people so much that they lose financial interest in production or at any rate cease to use their best energies for it” (1991, ix.z). Since capital and taxpayers are highly mobile, statements must compete for economic resources just as nation-states compete in the global economy. High-tax states intent on redistribution may find themselves at a disadvantage in attracting new investment or retaining the support of taxpayers. These costs can be avoided by transferring the burden for social expenditures to higher levels of government in effect shifting the burden and political responsibility for taxation upward. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.57 Mb. Share with your friends:
|