Terror Defense No Al Qaida Terror
Download 2.62 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Federalism is high now and no link – one policy doesn’t change overall federalism
FederalismHigh NowFederalism is high nowRobb 13 [Robert Robb is a columnist for the Arizona Republic and a RealClearPolitics contributor. “Obama and the Death of Federalism”, 2-20-13, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/02/20/obama_and_the_death_of_federalism_117073.html, msm] President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address illustrated what a dead letter federalism is among Democrats. Not that further illustration was necessary.¶ Federalism holds that the national government should limit itself to things of truly national scope. Things that are primarily of local concern should be left to state and local governments.¶ Federalism was a big deal to the founders. They wanted an energetic national government, but one that was confined to enumerated national functions. The founders also envisioned a bright line between the federal and state governments, each sovereign within their own spheres.¶ We are a long way from that. Today, the Democratic Party sees virtually nothing as outside the purview of the federal government. The Republican Party talks a good game about federalism, but usually ends up undermining the principle when it acquires national power.¶ Today, the lines between the federal government and state and local governments are hopelessly blurred. The federal government spends over $600 billion a year on grants to state and local governments. Arizona state government receives more in federal funds than it raises in general-fund taxes.¶ Today, state governments operate principally as service delivery mechanisms for federal social-welfare programs. This means that there is no real political accountability for the programs, which is why they grow and function like a blob.¶ If Medicaid costs are spinning out of control, who’s to blame and who should do something about it? The federal government that provides most of the funding and sets up the basic rules, or the state governments that actually administer the program? The food stamp program has grown astronomically of late. Purely a function of a bad economy, or is there something else going on? Whose job is it to figure that out?¶ President Ronald Reagan wanted to sort out the blob with his new federalism initiative, clearly making some functions, such as Medicaid, fully federal, while making other functions, including most welfare programs, fully state and local. There were some Democratic governors at the time, including Arizona’s Bruce Babbitt, who were also interested in a sorting out of responsibilities.¶ But agreement was never reached, nothing of significance happened. So, the blob endured and grew.¶ Obama proposes to feed it even more. The federal government should establish manufacturing innovation institutes in economically distressed areas and provide incentive grants to states to increase the energy efficiency of homes and businesses.¶ The federal government should fix 70,000 bridges and create a federal fund to modernize ports and pipelines. The federal government should have a new grant program to get high-school graduates better ready for high-tech jobs. And, according to Obama, the federal government should make sure that every kid has access to high-quality preschool.¶ The federal government, however, does not have a greater interest in the recovery of economically distressed areas than the states in which they are located, or greater insight into how to turn them around. Every bridge in America is located in a state and local community that has a greater interest in its condition than the federal government.¶ Every port and pipeline in the United States is located in a state and local community. If there are gains to be had from modernizing them, local governments have a greater incentive to get it done and done right than the federal government.¶ Every kid in America lives in a state and local community that is more interested in his education and workplace preparedness than the federal government. What do we really have to show for the increased federal involvement in education, under George W. Bush or Obama?¶ The federal government is broke, and broke in a way that threatens the American economy. Proposals that it do even more are surreal, even if they are supposedly paid for. If there’s loose change to be had, the federal government should use it to reduce the deficit, not further expand its reach.¶ It’s nowhere on the horizon, but a revival of Reagan’s new federalism discussion is badly needed. Federalism is high now and no link – one policy doesn’t change overall federalismPeltz-Steele 12 [Richard J. Peltz-Steele is a professor of law at UMass Law School Dartmouth. “Dismantling Federalism Is A Shortcut With A Very Steep Price”, 7-8-12, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/07/08/dismantling-federalism-is-a-shortcut-with-a-very-steep-price/, msm] Recent decisions from the Supreme Court delivered a one-two punch to American federalism. While media focus on the political impact of the immigration and healthcare decisions on the elections, our constitutional system is reeling from a blow of greater proportion.¶ In the first high-profile decision, Arizona substantially lost its battle to maintain a state immigration enforcement system. The dispute arose from the gap between what the feds say and what they do, specifically the failure to police immigration to the satisfaction of Arizona taxpayers.¶ The decision in Arizona v. United States was mostly about federal preemption of state law. And preemption law is notoriously fuzzy: “eye of the beholder” unfortunately characterizes the Court’s approach. The majority saw the Arizona case as an instance of Congress so thoroughly “occupying the field” that no room remained for state law. Justice Thomas, in a concise dissent, reasoned that Congress had not precluded state law such as Arizona’s, which merely echoes federal law.¶ Whatever one thinks of Justice Scalia’s dissent, he got the facts right. The difference between majority and dissenter perceptions turns in part on whether the President’s inaction in enforcing federal immigration law has preemptive significance. And certainly, as Scalia wrote, the Framers would have abhorred this result; the states always have cherished their borders. One columnist wryly noted that the Framers would not have signed a constitution abolishing slavery. True, but that deficiency of our Constitution was addressed through amendment. No amendment yet has erased state borders.¶ Preemption always poses a fuzzy question, but the Court’s ruling against Arizona takes a bite out of state power. Expansive federal inaction was read to displace a traditionally sound exercise of state police power that only sought to complement federal law—as written. The states now seem more than ever at the mercy of the federal government and its deep pockets to decide what is and is not the province of the state electorate.¶ So what local policy decisions will next take up residence between Capitol Hill and K Street? Healthcare, it seems. In NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court substantially upheld the national healthcare initiative advanced by the President, including the controversial individual mandate.¶ The Court majority rejected the mandate as an exercise of Commerce Clause power. But leaving academic jaws agape, the majority capitalized on a marginal, throw-it-at-the-wall-and-see-if-it-sticks Government argument that the penalty for failure to comply with the mandate was not a penalty at all—rather, a tax within the power of the Taxing Clause (as well as the Sixteenth Amendment, a further flimsy stretch).¶ The majority’s use of the Taxing Clause dealt another blow to federalism. Again pundits derided the dissent, this time for getting hung up on the infamous hypothetical of government-compelled broccoli consumption and stubbornly failing to acknowledge that the individual decision not to buy health insurance (inaction again) is itself a regulable commercial act.¶ The problem of federalism can get lost in the shuffle. But in using the Taxing Clause, the Court offered precious little in the way of limiting principles. Indeed, the Taxing Clause now seems poised to become Congress’s favorite new toy to run circles around the Commerce Clause and its carefully erected barriers to federal omnipotence. Whatever mandates formerly defied the reach of Congress may now be offered to individuals as a “choice,” and persons lacking the wisdom to choose correctly may be “taxed” accordingly. Congress need not even use the word “tax”; the Justices will strain their eyes to find a tax wherever a penalty lies.¶ Citizens refusing to buy their shares of broccoli admittedly seems far-fetched. Imagine instead a domestic airline industry on the brink of collapse. A federal bailout compels all persons to buy airline tickets—or to invest in troubled banks, or to subscribe to failing newspapers—it’s the patriotic choice, after all. Agoraphobic? Prefer to keep money under the mattress and get your news from TV? No problem; the “tax” on non-compliance comes due April 15.¶ Federalism is not an anachronism. The “United States” has—have—survived because of a well drawn balance between sovereign states and the federal government. This system of “vertical separation of powers” is one of our essential checks and balances, right along with the three branches of government (“horizontal separation of powers”) that kids learn about in grade school. Imbalance in this formula can spell catastrophe; think Civil War or European financial collapse.¶ Immigration and healthcare are critical public policy problems, but they are not intractable. Congress and the President have ample constitutional power at their disposal to achieve meaningful reforms without running roughshod over the States. Dismantling federalism is a shortcut with a steep price. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 2.62 Mb. Share with your friends:
|